[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15123-15188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5991]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2008-0008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW37


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To 
Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a 
Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
identify a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States and 
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing gray 
wolves within NRM DPS boundaries, except in Wyoming. The NRM gray wolf 
DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a small 
part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Our 
current estimate for 2008 indicates the NRM DPS contains approximately 
1,639 wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in Wyoming) in 95 
breeding pairs (34 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). These 
numbers are about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery 
goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. 
The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive year the population has 
exceeded our numeric and distributional recovery goals.
    The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws, management 
plans, and regulations that meet the requirements of the Act and will 
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In 
our proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we noted that 
removing the Act's protections in Wyoming was dependant upon the 
State's wolf law (W.S. 11-6-302 et seq. and 23-1-101, et seq. in House 
Bill 0213) and wolf management plan adequately conserving Wyoming's 
portion of a recovered NRM wolf population. In light of the July 18, 
2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its 
management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they 
are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.
    We determine that the best scientific and commercial data available 
demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is not threatened or endangered 
throughout ``all'' of its range (i.e., not threatened or endangered 
throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of the range 
represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in 
danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, 
this final rule removes the Act's protections throughout the NRM DPS 
except for Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will continue to be regulated as 
a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).

DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 4, 2009.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at our Montana office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. Call 
(406) 449-5225, extension 204 to make arrangements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena 
office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204. 
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog 
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) 
(40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). 
In the NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may 
weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. 
Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from 
pure white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they 
poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread 
species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations 
were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent 
southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally 
live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 
10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been 
substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
(Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1-3). Packs 
typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) and defend these 
areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by 
resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become 
regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, 
other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover 
large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to 
join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied 
habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, 
pp. 243-4; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1-3). Females and males 
typically begin breeding as 2-year olds and may annually produce young 
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April 
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive 
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2008, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM 
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability 
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure 
is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be

[[Page 15124]]

quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be 
reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, 
p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf 
populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very 
high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe 
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if 
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 
been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, 
pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2008, Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. 
(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1974, we listed two subspecies of gray wolf as endangered: The 
NRM gray wolf (C. l. irremotus) and the eastern timber wolf (C. l. 
lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). We 
listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) 
as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17740) in Mexico and the 
southwestern U.S. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas 
gray wolf subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and 
Mexico.
    In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting 
the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout 
the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the 
gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, we designated 
critical habitat in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. In the NRM, we 
completed a recovery plan in 1980 and revised in 1987. In the Great 
Lakes Region, we completed a recovery plan in 1978 and revised in 1992. 
In the Southwest, we completed a recovery plan in 1982.
    On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray 
wolf under section 10(j) of the Act, including the Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the 
Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 
1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray wolf 
reintroduction projects in central Idaho and in the Greater Yellowstone 
Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide 
increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in 
States with Service-approved post-delisting wolf management plans (70 
FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 
17.84(n)).
    The NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional 
recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). The 
temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the 
numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the 3rd 
successive year (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). To meet the Act's 
requirements Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post-
delisting wolf management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory 
mechanisms would exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 
2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf management 
plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf 
population would be maintained above recovery levels. However, we found 
the 2003 Wyoming legislation and plan inadequate to conserve Wyoming's 
share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 2004). Wyoming 
challenged this determination but the Federal district court in Wyoming 
dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyoming 
appealed that decision and on April 3, 2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals upheld the district court ruling (442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the 
Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
(WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a 
NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Species (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced 
a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 
State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal 
District Court. On February 27, 2008, Federal District Judge issued an 
order dismissing the case (Wyoming U.S. District Court Case Number 
2:06-CV-00245).
    On February 8, 2007, we proposed to identify the NRM DPS of the 
gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 
6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal 
noted that the Act's protections would be retained in significant 
portions of the range in Wyoming in the final rule if adequate 
regulatory mechanisms were not developed to conserve Wyoming's portion 
of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. Under this 
scenario, wolves in portions of Wyoming would continue to be regulated 
under the Act as a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 
17.84(i) and (n).
    On July 6, 2007, the Service extended the comment period in order 
to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf management plan and State law 
that we believed, if implemented, could allow the wolves in all of 
Wyoming to be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously 
approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then 
determined this plan provided adequate regulatory protections to 
conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the 
foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 2). On February 27, 2008, we issued a 
final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing all of this DPS from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514). This rule 
determined that Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms were adequate.
    On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a lawsuit challenging the 
identification and delisting of the NRM DPS. The plaintiffs also moved 
to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Montana granted the plaintiffs' 
motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's 
implementation of the final delisting rule for the NRM DPS of the gray 
wolf. The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf 
population that lacked evidence of genetic exchange between 
subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and 
capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 statute and wolf 
management plan because the State failed to commit to managing for at 
least 15 breeding pairs and Wyoming's 2007 statute allowed the WGFC to 
diminish the trophy game area if it ``determines the diminution does 
not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's 
management of wolves.'' The court's preliminary injunction order 
concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the

[[Page 15125]]

merits of their claims. In light of the district court order, on 
September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and 
remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court vacated the final 
delisting rule and remanded it back to the Service for further 
consideration.
    Similarly, on February 8, 2007, we recognized a Western Great Lakes 
(WGL) DPS and removed it from the list of the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). Several groups challenged this rule 
in court, arguing that the Service may not identify a DPS within a 
broader pre-existing listed entity for the purpose of delisting the DPS 
(Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 
07-0677 (PLF) (D.D.C.)). On September 29, 2008, the court vacated the 
WGL DPS final rule and remanded it to the Service. The court found that 
the Service had made that decision based on its interpretation that the 
plain meaning of the Act authorizes the Service to create and delist a 
DPS within an already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and concluded 
that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority. 
The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service can 
provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent 
with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial 
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act.
    Given the above court rulings, on October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926), 
we reopened the comment period on our February 8, 2007, proposed rule 
(72 FR 6106). Specifically, we sought information, data, and comments 
from the public regarding the 2007 proposal with an emphasis on new 
information relevant to this action, the issues raised by the Montana 
District Court, and the issues raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling 
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to 
the WGL gray wolf DPS. The notice also asked for public comment on what 
portions of Wyoming need to be managed as a trophy game area and what 
portions of Wyoming constitute a significant portion of the NRM DPS's 
range. After further analysis, we determined that Wyoming's regulatory 
framework did not meet the requirements of the Act. On January 15, 2009 
Wyoming's Governor was notified that Wyoming no longer had a Service-
approved wolf management plan (Gould 2009). Wolf management in all of 
Wyoming (except the Wind River Tribal Lands because the tribe had a 
Service-approved plan) again became immediately under the less flexible 
provisions of the 1994 experimental population rules [17.84 (i)].
    We are required to rely upon the best scientific information 
currently available. Therefore, this final rule reflects new data and 
information primarily concerning wolf population numbers, livestock 
depredations and wolf control, and genetic exchange that were received 
after the 2008 public comment period. This new data and information are 
consistent with and did not change our conclusions stated in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and in the notice for the reopened 
comment period.
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 
2003 Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006), 
the 12-month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 43410, 
August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to designate 
the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to 
indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species, 
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be 
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and 
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service published a policy regarding the recognition of distinct 
vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996). Under this policy, the Service considers two factors to 
determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS--(1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a 
DPS, and the Service then evaluates the population segment's 
conservation status according to the standards in section 4 of the Act 
for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS 
endangered or threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS

    We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated 
for DPS status based on discreteness and significance as defined by our 
DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an artificial (e.g., State line) or 
manmade (e.g., road or highway) boundary to be used as a boundary of 
convenience for clearly identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The 
NRM DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third 
of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. 
Specifically, the DPS includes that portion of Washington east of 
Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington 
east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon 
east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that 
portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, 
the DPS includes that portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of 
Highway 80. The centers of these roads are deemed the boundary of the 
DPS (See Figure 1).
    This DPS is consistent with over 30 years of recovery efforts in 
the NRMs in that: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S. historic range of 
the NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; 
Service 1987, p. 2) which was the originally listed entity in 1974 (39 
FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the DPS boundaries are inclusive of the 
areas focused on by both NRM recovery plans (Service 1980, pp. 7-8; 
Service 1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) 
(Service 1994, Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusive of the entire 
Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential Experimental Population 
areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 
50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 15126]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.003

    One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS 
was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2007 (Service et 
al. 2008, Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did 
not persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs 
from 2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) 
through 2008 (Service et al. 2003-2009, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in 
press). Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we 
used the 2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 
8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634).
    Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the 
boundaries for the DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances of 
over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 2005 
(Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d). These data indicate that the 
average dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60 
mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; Thiessen 2007, 
p. 33; Jimenez et al. 2008d). We determined that 290 km (180 mi), three 
times the average dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for 
unusually long-distance dispersal out from existing wolf pack 
territories (Jimenez et al. 2008, Figures 2 and 3). Only 11 wolves 
(none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed

[[Page 15127]]

farther outside the core population areas and remained in the U.S. None 
of these wolves returned to the core population in Montana, Idaho, or 
Wyoming. Only dispersal from the NRM packs to areas within the U.S. was 
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine 
the appropriate DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada 
were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal difference 
because the distribution of suitable habitat and level of human 
persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the U.S., 
potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average 
dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from 
existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated 
a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support 
intermittent additional pack establishment from the core wolf 
population given the availability of patches of nearby suitable 
habitat. Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not be 
applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 
13-16).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western 
U.S. (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-30) by 
comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas 
currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent 
areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and 
predictions of those models (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559; Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) were similar in many 
respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 
characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant 
year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers 
of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic 
sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see 
Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf 
habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in 
northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three 
areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf 
population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf 
breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 
Service et al. 1999-2009, Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3). The models indicate 
little habitat is suitable for pack persistence within the portion of 
the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, 
Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah although dispersing wolves may 
utilize these areas (See Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries 
of our DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and 
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540-541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations 
during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 
2008, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and 
croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high 
desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This 
unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of 
livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock 
and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf 
behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to human-caused 
mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the 
distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a 
broad boundary separating the NRM population from both the southwestern 
and Midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible 
wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the 
western U.S.
    We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small 
portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because--(1) these 
areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf 
population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing wolves have 
been documented in these areas more than once in recent times (Boyd et 
al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d); (3) these areas contain some suitable 
habitat (see Factor A); (4) the potential for connectivity exists 
between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat 
in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS; 
and (5) most of the area lies within the historic range of the NRM gray 
wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 
2) originally listed under the Act in 1974 (39 FR 1171, January 4, 
1974). If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat 
suitability models indicate these nearby areas would likely be more 
connected to the core populations in central Idaho and northwestern 
Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might become 
established in other large blocks of potentially suitable habitat 
farther beyond the NRM DPS boundary. As noted earlier, large swaths of 
unsuitable habitat would isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the DPS 
from other large patches of suitable habitat to the west or south 
(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541).
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf packs in 
the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 7-13), 
agency efforts to confirm them have been unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd et al. 2007). However, a wolf pack (2 
adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of 
the North Cascades), in July 2008. Their territory is west of the NRM 
DPS boundary. Genetic analysis indicated the two adults did not come 
from the wolf population in the NRM DPS. Instead, they likely 
originated from southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). This 
confirms the appropriateness of our western DPS boundary and our 
conclusion that intervening unsuitable habitat makes it unlikely that 
wolves have or will disperse between the North Cascades and the NRM 
population. However, if additional wolves disperse into the North 
Cascades, they will remain protected by the Act as endangered because 
it is outside of the NRM DPS.
    We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS 
because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2) 
expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal 
distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only 
areas unsuitable habitat for pack persistence and does not effect the 
distinctness of the NRM DPS. DPS boundaries that include all of 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are also consistent with the 1994 
designations of the Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential 
Experimental Population areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)). Although including 
all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including portions of the 
Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do not consider 
these areas to be suitable wolf habitat for pack persistence because of 
their size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing 
wolves. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 558-559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not to 
analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming because they are fairly 
intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed 
by, private land, making pack establishment and persistence unlikely. 
While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically 
predicted these areas

[[Page 15128]]

were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current 
conditions these areas were largely sink habitat (i.e., a habitat in 
which the species' mortality exceeds reproductive success) and that by 
2025 (within the foreseeable future) they were likely to be ranked as 
low occupancy because of human population growth and road development.
    We chose not to extend the NRM DPS boundary east beyond Montana and 
Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of 
NRM wolves. Given the available information on potentially suitable 
habitat, expansion of the DPS to include Colorado or larger portions of 
Utah to the south and west would have included large areas of 
potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat in those States (Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541). Given the current distribution of the NRM wolf 
population to suitable habitat, we concluded that a smaller DPS 
containing occupied suitable habitat, the adjacent areas of largely 
unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, and 
that was distinct from other large contiguous blocks of potentially 
suitable habitat to the west and south was more biologically 
appropriate. This DPS is also reflective of areas of recovery focus 
over the last 30 years (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; Service 1980; 
Service 1987; Service 1994; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).

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) is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern 
edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the 
western edge of the area currently occupied by the WGL wolf population 
(eastern Minnesota) and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of 
unsuitable habitat (see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS 
boundary is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental 
populations of wolves in the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of 
unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. While one 
dispersing wolf was confirmed east and two south of the DPS boundary, 
no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from other U.S. 
wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the NRM DPS.
    Until recently, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS 
boundary (although we occasionally got unconfirmed reports and 2 wolves 
were killed close to that boundary). Then, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 
adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of 
the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundaries). These wolves did 
not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they likely originated from 
southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). The pack's territory is 
outside the NRM DPS and remains discrete from the NRM gray wolf 
population. The pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Should this pack persist 
and other wolves follow, they would remain separated from the NRM DPS 
by unsuitable wolf habitat.
    Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual 
travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166-
167; Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Ream et al. 
1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; 
Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM wolves is 
about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Boyd et al. 
2007; Jimenez 2008d; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 11 of over 200 
confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been 
over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core population (Boyd and 
Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007). Undoubtedly many other 
dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 30 
percent of the NRM wolf population has been radio-collared. All but 
three of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the 
proposed DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form 
packs or breed in the U.S. (Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez 2008d).
    The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond 
the boundary of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along 
Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. Although not 
confirmed, in early 2006, video footage of a black wolf-like canid was 
taken near Walden in northern Colorado, suggesting another dispersing 
wolf had traveled into Colorado. The subsequent status or location of 
that animal is unknown. On March 7, 2009, a dispersing wolf from the 
Yellowstone area was located by GPS radio-telemetry near Vail, 
Colorado. Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was 
found along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing 
confirmed it was a wolf that had dispersed from the Yellowstone area.
    No other unusual wolf dispersal events were documented in the NRM 
DPS in 2008. A radio-collared wolf from central Idaho continues to live 
in the GYA. It formed a new pack and bred in 2009. A report of a pack 
of wolves in northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge Reservoir (outside 
the NRM DPS) was investigated in spring 2008. The existence of this 
pack was not confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with pups in 
northeastern Oregon (inside the NRM DPS) was investigated in August 
2008. The existence of this pack was not confirmed. A photograph of a 
black wolf-like canid taken in late 2008 in the central Cascade Range 
in Oregon (outside the NRM DPS) but its origin and fate remain unknown.
    We expect that occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse 
between and beyond the currently occupied wolf habitat areas in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into States adjacent to the NRM 
DPS. However, pack development and persistence outside the NRM DPS is 
unlikely because wolves disperse as individuals that typically have low 
survival (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is 
limited and distant (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) from the NRM wolf 
population.
    No connectivity currently exists between the NRM wolf population 
and any other U.S. wolf packs or populations. While it is theoretically 
possible that a lone wolf might travel between the NRM wolf population 
and other U.S. packs or populations, such movement has never been 
documented and is likely to be rare because of both the distance and 
the intervening areas of unsuitable habitat.
    Furthermore, the DPS policy does not require complete separation of 
one DPS from other U.S. packs or populations, but instead requires 
``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional individual wolves or packs 
disperse among populations, the NRM DPS could still display the 
required discreteness. Based on the information presented

[[Page 15129]]

above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly separated 
from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.
    Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf Populations--The DPS 
policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the 
boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of 
exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the 
countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and 
Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 
Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 
Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by 
Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian 
provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, 
Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to 
recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). If delisted, States in the NRM would 
carefully monitor and manage to retain populations at or above the 
recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the 
U.S.-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the DPS due to the 
difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, and 
regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon to which 
it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may include, 
but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) Persistence of the 
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique 
for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; 
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/
or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 
Below we address factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the 
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
species, the NRM has amongst the highest diversity of large predators 
and native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological 
interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, 
and vegetation (Smith et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves 
share habitats with black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (U. 
arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), 
wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 
badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher (Martes 
pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and diverse 
assemblage of native prey include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer 
(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 
moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep 
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn 
antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the 
GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to dramatic 
and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in YNP. While 
these effects likely still occur at varying degrees elsewhere they are 
increasingly modified and subtle the more an area is affected by humans 
(Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et 
al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott et al. 
2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to be changing elk behavior 
and elk relationships and competition with other native ungulates in 
YNP. These complex interactions may increase streamside willow 
production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn 
can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). 
This suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes also may be occurring 
with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a year-round 
source of food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 
2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf population in 
the NRM has extended the southern range of the contiguous gray wolf 
population in western North America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into a 
much more diverse, ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of 
species than is found elsewhere within occupied wolf habitat in most of 
the northern hemisphere.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Wolves once lived 
throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most 
of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The 
loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in 
the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15-degree 
latitudinal or over 1,600 km (1,000 mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains 
between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap 
were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts would occur in 
the NRM, most noticeably in the most pristine and wildest areas (Smith 
et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 
2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press, pp. 1-6).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, 
recovery in portions of the lower 48 States has long been viewed as 
important to the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 
9, 1978). The NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it 
is 1 of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and 
currently constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 
States.
    We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. 
Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, 
it is a valid DPS.

Agency's Past Practice and History of Using DPSs

    Of the over 370 native vertebrate ``species'' listed under the Act, 
77 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies 
(henceforth referred to as populations) under one of several 
authorities including the DPS language in the definition of 
``species''. Of these 77 listed populations 32 predate the 1996 DPS 
policy (61 FR 4722); therefore, the final listing determinations for 
these populations did not include formal DPS analyses per the 1996 DPS 
policy. Specifically, the 77 populations encompass 51 different species 
or subspecies. During the history of the Act, the Service and NMFS have 
taken actions with respect to populations in 98 listing, 
reclassification, and delisting actions. The majority of those actions 
identified a classification other than a taxonomically recognized 
species or subspecies at the time of listing. In several instances, 
however, the agencies have identified a DPS and, as appropriate, 
revised the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in a single 
action. For example, we (1) established a DPS of the grizzly bear 
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area and 
surrounding area,

[[Page 15130]]

within the existing listing of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States, 
and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife (March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2) established two DPSs of the 
Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus): The 
Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River DPS; and removed the Douglas 
County DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (July 
24, 2003; 68 FR 43647); (3) removed the brown pelican (Pelecanus 
occidentalis) in the Southeastern United States from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continued to identify the brown 
pelican as endangered throughout the remainder of its range (February 
4, 1985; 50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American crocodile (Crocodylus 
acutus) in Florida as a DPS within the existing endangered listing of 
the American crocodile in the United States and reclassified the 
Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR 
13027); and (5) amended the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants by revising the entry for the gray whale (Eschrichtius 
robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population from the List 
while retaining the western North Pacific population as endangered 
(June 16, 1994; 59 FR 31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to identify 
four DPSs within the existing listing of the gray wolf in the lower 48 
States and to reclassify three of the DPSs from endangered to 
threatened (July 13, 2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above under 
``Previous Federal Action,'' the final rule we issued in 2003 
identified three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified two of the DPSs from 
endangered to threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). Although courts 
subsequently invalidated these DPSs, they did not question the 
Service's authority to identify and reclassify DPSs within a larger 
pre-existing listing. Identifying and delisting the Western Great Lakes 
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and 
does not represent a change in agency position.

Recovery

    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et 
al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was 
approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 
1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are 
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other 
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on 
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There 
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may 
be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or 
more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have 
been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the 
threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust 
enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In 
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process 
requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to re-establish and maintain 
viable populations of the NRM wolf (C. l. irremotus) in its former 
range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii) but there were no recovery 
goals. The 1980 plan covered an area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was 
once believed to be the range of the NRM wolf subspecies. It 
recommended that recovery actions be focused on the large areas of 
public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. The 
revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the 
subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to 
gray wolves in the NRMs. Consistent with the 1980 plan it also 
recommended focusing recovery actions on the large blocks on public 
land in the NRM. The 1987 plan specified a recovery criterion of a 
minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite 
sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 
3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) 
Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob 
Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 
and private lands); (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, 
Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended 
that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery 
areas, but that connectivity between them be somehow encouraged. 
However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment 
outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required 
resolution (Service 1994, p. 1-15, 16; Service 1999, p. 2).
    The 1994 EIS on wolf reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the 
NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals because we were concerned 
that the 1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). 
We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding 
pair, since any male and female wolf are `capable' of producing 
offspring and lone wolves may not have territories. We also believed 
the relatively small `hard' recovery areas greatly reduced the amount 
of area that could be used by wolves and would almost certainly 
eliminate the opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and 
genetic connectivity. The Service conducted a thorough literature 
review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable 
populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations, 
surveyed the opinions of the top 43 wolf experts in North America, of 
which 25 responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of 
the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's 
EIS and in a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts 
and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26-38). Our analysis concluded that the 1987 
recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that 
modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information 
about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded 
``Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater 
resiliency than indicated by theory'' and theoretical treatments of 
population viability ``have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf 
recovery programs by overstating the required population size'' (Fritts 
and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding 
pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at 
least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their 
birth, during the previous breeding season. We also concluded that 
``Thirty or more breeding pair comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially

[[Page 15131]]

isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between 
subpopulations should have a high probability of long-term 
persistence'' because it would contain enough individuals in 
successfully reproducing packs that were distributed over distinct but 
somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the long-term (Service 
1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange 
could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management 
and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of 
that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9). In defining 
a ``Recovered Wolf Population'' we found ``in the northern Rockies a 
recovered wolf population is 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 
areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between 
areas'' (Service 1994, p. 6-7). We further determined that a 
metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three areas of 
core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population 
that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    Since 1994, we have believed movement of individuals between the 
metapopulation segements could occur either naturally or by human-
assisted migration management (Service 1994, p. 7-67). Specifically, we 
stated ``The importance of movement of individuals between sub-
populations cannot be overemphasized. The dispersal ability of wolves 
makes such movement likely, unless wolves were heavily exploited 
between recovery areas, as could happen in the more developed corridor 
between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive migration management might 
become necessary if 1 of the 3 sub-populations should develop genetic 
or demographic problems. (We saw) no reason why migration management 
should be viewed negatively. It will be a necessity in other wolf 
recovery programs. Some, however, may view such management intervention 
as `unnatural' '' (Service 1994, p. 7-67). Furthermore, we found ``that 
the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of 
wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years (was) 
reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the 
foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat conservative, however, and 
should be considered minimal. The addition of a few extra pairs would 
add security to the population and should be considered in the post-EIS 
management planning. That could always be done as a periodic infusion 
if deemed necessary'' (Service 1994, p. 6-75).
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We attempted 
to survey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43 
other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized 
experts about wolves and/or conservation biology. In total 53 people 
provided their expert opinion regarding a wide range of issues related 
to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, 
including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs 
2002, pp. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great 
diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery 
goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate 
than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a 
viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic 
exchange, either natural or human-facilitated, was important to 
maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population 
viability. Reviewers also thought the proven ability of a breeding pair 
to show successful reproduction was a necessary component of a 
biologically meaningful breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended 
other concepts/numbers for recovery goals, but most were slight 
modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While 
experts strongly (78 percent) supported that our 1994 conclusions 
represented a viable wolf population, they also tended to believe that 
wolf population viability was enhanced by higher rather than lower 
population levels and longer than shorter demonstrated time frames. 
Five hundred wolves and five years were common minority 
recommendations. A slight majority indicated that even the 1987 
recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female 
capable of breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas may be 
viable, given the persistent of other small wolf populations in other 
parts of the world. The results of previous population viability 
analysis for other wolf populations varied widely, and as we had 
concluded in our 1994 analysis, reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical 
results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used 
in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than 
actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that 
review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition 
of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 
1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, p. 1-9).
    The 2002 reevaluation of the 1994 wolf recovery goal by a broader 
spectrum of experts in wolf conservation also repeatedly recognized 
connectivity among the core recovery areas as critical, but this 
connectivity could be achieved through naturally dispersing wolves and/
or by human-assisted migration management. Specifically, we stated 
``Connectivity was the single issue brought up most often by reviewers. 
Many commented that wolves are unusually good dispersers and movement 
between core recovery areas was probably not going to be a significant 
wolf conservation issue in the NRM. Several believed that wolves would 
soon colonize neighboring states. Nearly everyone commented that the 
interchange of individuals between the sections of the metapopulation 
and more importantly maintenance of connection to the Canadian 
population. Several comments emphasized the importance of maintaining 
some minimum number of wolves in northwestern Montana to maintain the 
connection to the Canadian population. Other reviewers noted that such 
connectivity could be easily maintained by management actions (such as 
translocation) rather than natural dispersal. Movement into the GYA was 
mentioned as a specific concern by some because that was the only 
recovery area where wolf movement from other recovery areas appeared it 
could be a concern, and it was the southern-most tip of a much larger 
connected North American wolf population. A majority believed the 
Service's proposal defined a viable wolf population but others believed 
it needed to be improved by providing a measurable definition of 
connectivity. Others believed that documenting successful reproduction 
was an important measure of population viability and liked the concept 
used in the 1994 EIS definition. The importance of future wolf 
management (state or tribal management), primarily in maintaining 
human-caused mortality below a level that would cause extirpation and 
management that would foster some connectivity (either natural or man-
induced) were the most critical components of determining long-term 
population viability * * * The true test of wolf population viability 
will be determined by subsequent management practices. Past management 
practices--such as (1) reintroduction of wolves

[[Page 15132]]

from two Canadian sources (Alberta and British Columbia) and from 
numerous packs in each area, (2) subsequent management relocations 
between all three recovery areas, (3) the natural dispersal 
capabilities of wolves and proximity of core recovery areas to one 
another, (4) documented routine interchange with Canadian wolf 
populations and between Idaho and northwestern Montana, (5) a young 
population age structure with successful pup production and survival, 
and (6) the establishment of wolf populations in and around core 
refugia (central Idaho Wilderness, YNP, Glacier National Park and 
associated public lands to these areas) have produced a robust and 
viable wolf population that currently has very high genetic and 
demographic diversity that occupies core refugia in the highest quality 
wolf habitat in the NRM of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Maintenance of 
those conditions in the wolf population will depend solely on long-term 
future management to (1) regulate human-caused mortality and (2) 
maintain genetic connectivity among population segments, including 
Canada, either through deliberate relocation of wolves and/or 
encouraging sufficient natural dispersal'' (Bangs 2002, pp. 3-4, 8-9).
    Development of the Service's recovery goal clearly recognized that 
the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and 
genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the 
NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural 
dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments 
and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it 
was ever required (Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Groen et al. 2008).
    We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs 
as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are 
maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use `breeding 
pairs' (packs that have at least an adult male and an adult female and 
that raised at least 2 pups until December 31) to describe successfully 
reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7-8; Mitchell 
et al. 2008). The breeding pair metric includes most of the important 
biological concepts in wolf conservation. Specifically, we thought it 
was important for breeding pairs to have: Both male and female member 
together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation 
of a distinct territory (generally 500-1,300 km\2\ (200-500 mi\2\) and 
almost always in suitable habitat); enough pups to replace two adults; 
off-spring that become yearling dispersers; at least 4 wolves following 
the point in the year with the highest mortality rates (summer and 
fall); all social structures and age classes represented within a wolf 
population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger wolves.
    Often we do not know if a specific pack actually contains an adult 
male, adult female, and two pups in winter; however, group size has 
proven to have a strong correlation with breeding pair status (Mitchell 
et al. 2008). Research indicates a pack size of around 9 equates to one 
breeding pair (large packs have complex age classes--pups, yearlings 
and older adults). In the future, the States may be able to use pack 
size in winter as a surrogate to help reliably identify each pack's 
contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to 
better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf 
population recovery.
    We also have determined that an essential part of achieving 
recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and 
individual wolves among the three States and the three recovery zones. 
Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf 
recovery and long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its 
distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding 
pairs and wolves. While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-
distributed population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a 
disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves 
is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 
recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM and to 
facilitate natural connectivity.
    Following the 2002 review of our recovery criteria, we began to use 
States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward 
recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2009, Table 4). Because Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the 
original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation 
structure would be best conserved by equally dividing the overall 
recovery goal between the three States. This approach made each State's 
responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It 
avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the 
responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf 
breeding pairs in a shared recovery area that was the responsibility of 
the adjacent State. State regulatory authorities and traditional 
management of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State 
basis. Management by State would still maintain a robust wolf 
population in each core recovery area because they each contain manmade 
or natural refugia from human-caused mortality (e.g., National Parks, 
wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those areas 
remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of dispersing 
wolves in each State. Recovery targets by State promote connectivity 
and genetic exchange between the metapopulation segments by avoiding 
management that focuses solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively 
distinct core recovery areas and promote a minimum level of potential 
natural dispersal to and from each population segment. This approach 
also will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the 
GYA because it is shared by all three States. A large and well-
distributed population within the GYA is especially important because 
it is the most isolated recovery segment within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et 
al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19).
    The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum 
number of breeding pairs and individual wolves needed to achieve and 
maintain recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf population always 
exceeds the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, wolves 
in each State shall be managed for at least 15 breeding pairs and at 
least 150 wolves in mid-winter. This and other steps, including human-
assisted migration management if required (discussed below), will 
maintain the NRM DPS's current metapopulation structure. Further 
buffering our minimum recovery goal is the fact that Service data since 
1986 indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each breeding pair has 
corresponded to 14 wolves in the overall NRM wolf population in mid-
winter (including many wolves that travel outside these recognized 
breeding pairs) (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). Thus, managing for 15 
breeding pairs per State will result in substantially more than 150 
wolves in each State (>600 in the NRM). Additionally, because the 
recovery goal components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf 
population is near its annual low point, the average annual wolf 
population will be much higher than these minimal goals.
    We further improved, provided additional safety margins, and 
assured that the minimum recovery criteria would always be exceeded in 
our 2009 post-delisting monitoring plan. Three scenarios could lead us 
to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to

[[Page 15133]]

determine if relisting is warranted including: (1) If the wolf 
population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf 
population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves 
in either Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at the end of the year; (2) if 
the portion of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls 
below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one 
of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State 
law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to 
the wolf population. Overall, we believe the NRM wolf population will 
be managed for over 1,000 wolves including over 300 wolves and 30 
breeding pairs in the GYA (in 2008 there were 35 breeding pairs and 449 
wolves in the GYA). This far exceeds post-delisting management targets 
of at least 45 breeding pairs and more than 450 wolves in the NRM. The 
NRM wolf population: (1) Has at least this number of reproductively 
successful packs and this number of individual wolves each winter (near 
the low point in the annual cycle of a wolf population); (2) is 
equitably distributed within the 250,000 km\2\ (100,000 mi\2\) area 
containing 3 areas of large core refugia (National Parks, wilderness 
areas, large blocks of remote secure public land) and at least 170,228 
km\2\ (65,725 mi\2\) of suitable wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically 
diverse and has demonstrated successful genetic exchange through 
natural dispersal and human-assisted migration management between all 
three core refugia. It therefore no longer needs the protections of the 
Act and is a viable and fully recovered wolf population.
    Our recovery and post-delisting management goals were designed to 
provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient representation, 
resilience, and redundancy for their long-term conservation. We have 
expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and 
when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 
1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 
1; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; and this final rule). After 
evaluating all available information, we conclude the best scientific 
and commercial information available continues to support the ability 
of these recovery goals to ensure the population does not again become 
in danger of extinction.
    Genetic Diversity Relative to our Recovery Criteria--Currently, 
genetic diversity throughout the NRM is very high (Forbes and Boyd 
1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 
19). Wolves in northwestern Montana and both the reintroduced 
populations are as genetically diverse as their source populations in 
Canada; thus, inadequate genetic diversity is not a wolf conservation 
issue in the NRM at this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1089; vonHoldt 
et al. 2007, p. 19). Genetic connectivity resulting from natural 
dispersal alone, even in the GYA, appears adequate to prevent genetic 
drift and inbreeding depression that could threaten the wolf 
population. As a result, there is currently no need for management 
activities designed to further increase genetic diversity anywhere in 
the NRM DPS. However, should genetic problems ever materialize, an 
outcome we view as extremely unlikely, the States will utilize agency 
assisted genetic management to address the issue. Because genetic 
changes happen very slowly, the States would have many years, perhaps 
decades, to design and implement appropriate remedial actions. In 
short, the NRM wolf population is not now and will not ever be 
threatened by genetic diversity issues. This issue is discussed further 
in our response to comments and in Factor E below.
    Recovery and Genetics issues raised by the July 18, 2008 federal 
court injunction--The July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court for the 
District of Montana preliminary injunction order heavily cited vonHoldt 
et al. (2007). This study concluded ``if the YNP wolf population 
remains relatively constant at 170 individuals (estimated to be YNP's 
carrying capacity), the population will demonstrate substantial 
inbreeding effects within 60 years,'' resulting in an ``increase in 
juvenile mortality from an average of 23 to 40%, an effect equivalent 
to losing an additional pup in each litter.'' The court also cited 
previous Service statements that call for ``genetic exchange'' among 
recovery areas. The court further stated that dispersal of wolves 
between the GYA and the northwestern Montana and central Idaho core 
recovery areas was ``a precondition to genetic exchange.'' The 
preliminary injunction order cited our 1994 EIS (Service 1994) and 
vonHoldt et al. (2007) to support its conclusion that a metapopulation 
had not been demonstrated in the NRM.
    The vonHoldt et al. (2007) paper did an excellent job of analyzing 
the empirical data regarding the pedigree for YNP wolves. That data 
proved the ``almost complete'' natural selection for outbreeding by 
wolves and the high genetic diversity of wolves in YNP. We appreciate 
their recognition of our deliberate efforts to conserve genetic 
diversity. Specifically vonHoldt et al. (2007) stated that ``Overall, 
our findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the reintroduction in 
preserving genetic diversity over the first decade of wolf recovery in 
Yellowstone'' (vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). Furthermore, we agree that 
any totally isolated wildlife population that is never higher than 170 
individuals which randomly breeds will lose genetic diversity over 
time. It is also true that high levels of inbreeding can sometimes, but 
not always, result in demographic issues such as reduced survival or 
reduced fertility. Such outcomes sometimes, but not always, result in 
demographic problems that threaten population viability.
    However, we question many of the assumptions that underpin the 
predictive modeling portion of vonHoldt et al. (2007) study's 
conclusions. First, while the study found no evidence of genetic 
exchange into YNP (8,987 km\2\ (3,472 mi\2\)), the Park is only a small 
portion of the GYA (63,700 km\2\ (24,600 mi\2\)). Further limiting the 
study's ability to detect genetic exchange among subpopulations is the 
fact that most wolves that disperse to the GYA tend to avoid areas with 
existing resident packs or areas with high wolf densities, such as YNP. 
Moreover, even among the YNP wolves the study was limited to a 
subsample of Park wolves from 1995-2004 (i.e., the radio collared 
wolves). Thus, not surprisingly, subsequent analysis of additional 
wolves across the GYA has demonstrated gene flow among the GYA and the 
other recovery areas (vonHoldt et al. 2008; Wayne 2009, pers. comm.).
    It is also important to consider that our ability to detect genetic 
exchange within the NRM population is further limited by the genetic 
similarity of the NRM subpopulations. Specifically, because both the 
central Idaho and GYA subpopulations originate from a common source, 
only first and possible second generation offspring of a dispersing 
wolf can be detected. Additional genetic analysis of wolves from 
throughout the NRM population, including a larger portion of the GYA 
than just YNP, is ongoing.
    Second, the vonHoldt et al. (2007) prediction of eventual 
inbreeding in YNP relies upon several unrealistic assumptions. One such 
assumption limited the wolf population analysis to YNP's (8,987 km\2\ 
(3,472 mi\2\)) carrying capacity of 170 wolves, instead of the more 
than 300 wolves likely to be managed for in the entire GYA (63,700 
km\2\ (24,600 mi\2\)) by Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The vonHoldt et 
al., (2007) predictive model also capped the

[[Page 15134]]

population at the YNP population's winter low point, rather than at 
higher springtime levels when pups are born. Springtime levels are 
sometimes double the winter low. Most importantly, the vonHoldt et al. 
(2007) assumed no gene flow into the area; an assumption now proven 
incorrect. This issue is fully explained in Factor E below.
    Conclusion of a reanalysis of the wolf recovery goals for the NRM 
DPS--In its July 18, 2008 preliminary injunction order, the District 
Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their 
claim that the NRM had not achieved its recovery goal because genetic 
exchange was `promised' by the recovery criteria but had not occurred 
between wolves in the GYA area and the other recovery areas. The court 
cited a recent genetic study of wolves in YNP (vonHoldt et al. 2007). 
The court also suggested that higher rates of mortality associated with 
State management would further reduce the future opportunity for 
genetic exchange and ultimately threatened the wolf population. As a 
result of the court ruling we have reevaluated our wolf recovery goal 
for the NRM DPS and determined it is still scientifically valid, 
represents the minimum wolf population that would not be threatened or 
endangered in the foreseeable future, and all the biological conditions 
associated with the recovery goal have been completely achieved. Our 
reasoning is detailed below and in our discussion of Factor E.
    The wolf recovery goal for the NRM has been repeatedly reevaluated 
and improved as new scientific information warranted. Modifications of 
the 1987 recovery plan goals based on recent information, further 
analysis, and new scientific thinking were made in 1994 (Service 1994), 
1999 (Service 1999), 2002 (Bangs 2002), 2008 (73 FR 10514, February 27, 
2008), and in this rule. As a result of the court ruling, we have 
carefully reevaluated our recovery goal again and reaffirmed that 
``Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of 
subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should 
have a high probability of long-term persistence'' because it would 
contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing packs that were 
distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas of 
suitable habitat, to be viable for the long-term (Service 1994, p. 
6:75). The vast majority of wolf experts throughout the world who were 
contacted believed the NRM wolf recovery goal represented the minimum 
criteria to describe a viable and recovered wolf population (Service 
1994, p. 6-75; Bangs 2002).
    Genetic studies in the NRM are continuing. While that work 
demonstrates that both human-assisted and natural genetic exchange has 
occurred in the GYA, the rate at which this exchange has naturally 
occurred in the GYA is being determined. However, vonHoldt et al. 
(2008) reported that ``Based on migrant detection and assignment test 
our results suggest that adequate genetic connectivity exists between 
central Idaho and northwestern Montana populations, there is limited 
effective dispersal between central Idaho or northwestern Montana to 
GYA (although 15 unknown GYA individuals need to be resolved) and there 
have been no migrants genetically detected that have (naturally) 
dispersed into the YNP portion of the GYA.'' They went on to state 
``Since this analysis only includes samples up to 2004, and due to 
sample size limitations in some areas (GYA outside of YNP), adding more 
samples and including samples up to 2008 may alter interpretation. 
Specifically, genetic connectivity may be higher between GYA and other 
recovery areas than currently believed.'' We concurred with that 
determination. Indeed subsequent analysis confirmed offspring from some 
wolves that naturally dispersed into the GYA, as well as the wolf pups 
that were relocated into YNP in 1997, have been detected as additional 
samples were analyzed (Wayne 2009, pers. comm.). We will continue to 
collect and analyze genetic samples to monitor the genetic health of 
the NRM wolf population (Groen et al. 2008).
    Regardless of the outcome of those ongoing genetic studies--
    (1) Ongoing or confirmed genetic exchange was never required by our 
recovery goal, although it has now been documented. The recovery goal 
assumed that the presence of dispersing wolves from other recovery 
areas alone was enough evidence of the likelihood of `genetic' exchange 
among recovery areas (the reason wolves disperse is to find mates and 
breeding opportunities). Sixty-eight percent of relocated (human-
assisted dispersal) wolves in the NRM became breeders (Bradley et al. 
2005). The presence of individual natural dispersing wolves in every 
recovery segment, including the GYA, indicates that the NRM has a 
metapopulation structure and that no segment is completely isolated 
from the others.
    (2) Because GYA and central Idaho wolves share a recent common 
genetic history (siblings released in each area), it is very difficult 
to detect anything beyond first or second generation offspring from 
long range dispersing wolves. Significant changes in genetic health 
generally take place over many generations and decades not years.
    (3) A metapopulation is one where no segment is totally isolated 
from the others. A metapopulation does not require a certain level of 
natural or human-assisted migration management during a specified time 
period to meet the definition of a metapopulation. We have proven 
human-assisted migration management is easy to do with wolves. However, 
at least for decades, there should be no genetic or demographic reasons 
to move more wolves or their genes between the subpopulations and/or 
Canada. However, it is also common sense that a wolf population in 
three equal subpopulations managed near the minimum levels of 500 
wolves would be far more likely to require future human-assisted 
migration management than a wolf population managed at over 1,000 
wolves in mid-winter.
    (4) The assertion that successful recovery can only depend on 
solely natural processes is not accurate. If that were the case 
management of any wolf population, including the ongoing red wolf and 
Mexican wolf programs, as well as in any other potential wolf recovery 
programs in the U.S. (or in many parts of the world) could never lead 
to recovery. In addition, nearly all recovery programs under the Act 
and the subsequent management of those populations after delisting will 
require human intervention such as captive breeding, relocations, 
population augmentations, control of exotics or predators, maintenance 
or preservation of important habitat through prescribed fire, control 
of fire, flooding, and etc. In addition, most routine State and federal 
management programs for common wildlife species still require continued 
human management intervention by: Human control by agencies or by 
public hunts to raise management funding, limit property damage, and 
foster public tolerance; reintroductions, augmentation and captive 
breeding/rearing; habitat manipulation (fire and firefighting, logging, 
crops, water control structures, etc.); control of exotics, invasive 
species, or pests; and many other common wildlife management tools.
    (5) The Service's recovery goal never required that offspring from 
long distance dispersing wolves and resident wolves be proven for the 
recovery goal to be met. Relocations or mere presence of dispersing 
wolves was believed to be adequate proof of connectivity. ``Recovered 
Wolf Population--In the northern Rockies a recovered wolf population is 
10 breeding pairs of

[[Page 15135]]

wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 successive years with some level of 
wolf movement between areas'' (Service 1994, pp. 6-7). However, 
regardless of the 1994 definition, natural dispersal and human-assisted 
migration management has resulted in documented genetic exchange 
between dispersing and resident wolves among all three recovery areas, 
including the GYA.
    (6) The level of natural dispersal that has been documented to date 
makes it highly unlikely that further human-assisted migration 
management would ever be required--even in the GYA, by far the most 
isolated recovery area in the NRM, especially if populations are 
managed at higher (>1,000 wolves) rather than lower (<500 wolves) 
numbers.
    (7) There are currently absolutely no genetic or demographic 
problems in any of the core recovery segments, including the GYA. The 
proximity of the three NRM recovery segments and the natural dispersal 
abilities of wolves represent a classic wolf metapopulation structure 
that will be maintained into the foreseeable future. The States, except 
Wyoming, committed to initiate migration management, should it ever 
needed, and their commitment completely resolves a highly unlikely 
theoretical future genetic inbreeding problem (that would still not 
threaten or endanger the NRM wolf population) by a guaranteed proven 
solution to genetic inbreeding; namely human-assisted migration 
management (Groen et al. 2008).
    (8) The States (except Wyoming, which declined to sign the 2008 
Genetics Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Groen et al. 2008) and 
Service have committed to maintain that natural metapopulation 
structure of the NRM wolf population to the extent possible by 
encouraging natural dispersal and effective migrants and have 
implemented management practices that should foster both (maintaining 
the wolf population at higher rather than minimum levels, greater 
rather than more restricted pack distribution throughout suitable 
habitat, and reducing human-caused wolf mortality during key dispersing 
and reproductive time periods, and maintain the integrity of the core 
recovery areas/refugia (largely National Parks and wilderness areas)). 
In addition the States and Service and other federal agencies and have 
committed to monitor wolf genetics over time and should data suggest it 
is appropriate, conduct human-assisted migration management, which we 
believe is extremely unlikely to be necessary (Groen et al. 2008).
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--In 1989, we formed an Interagency 
Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and 
Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; 
Service et al. 1989-2009, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic 
recovery tasks (Service et al. 1989-2009, pp. 1-2), in addition to the 
standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed 
species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 
(2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting 
other non-lethal measures, or by killing them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 
7); (3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf 
relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, 
livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based 
information to the public and mass media so that people could develop 
their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed 
perspective.
    The size and distribution of the wolf population is estimated by 
the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is 
published in an interagency annual report (Service et al. 1989-2009, 
Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our 
cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored over 1,100 
wolves in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to 
reduce/resolve conflict with livestock. The Working Group's annual 
population estimates represent the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population size and trends, 
as well as distributional and other information.
    Recovery by State--At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met 
its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 
30 breeding pairs and over 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 2001, 
Table 4). Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive 
years, the temporal element of recovery was not achieved until the end 
of 2002 when 663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were present (Service et 
al. 2003, Table 4). By the end of 2008, the NRM wolf population will 
have achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal for 9 
consecutive years (Service et al. 2001-2009, Table 4; Service 2008; 68 
FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006).
    By the end of 2008, the NRM gray wolf population included 
approximately 1,639 NRM wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in 
Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in 
Wyoming). The wolf population estimate for 2008 is slightly higher than 
that for 2007, indicating a declining rate of increase as suitable 
habitat becomes increasingly saturated with resident wolf packs.
    From 1995 to 2008, the NRM wolf population increased an average of 
about 22 percent annually with increases ranging from 8 to 50 percent 
(Service et al. 2009, Table 4). In 2008 the overall population 
increased at the slowest rate since 1995. Figure 2 illustrates wolf 
population trends by State from 1979 to 2007.

[[Page 15136]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.004

    As discussed previously, after the 2002 peer review of the wolf 
recovery efforts, we began using States, in addition to recovery areas, 
to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2009, 
Table 4). However, because the original recovery plan included goals 
for core recovery areas we have included the following discussion on 
the history of the recovery efforts and status of these core recovery 
areas, including how the wolf population's distribution and 
metapopulation structure is important to maintaining its viability and 
how the biological characteristics of each core recovery area differ 
(Service et al. 2009, Table 4).
    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--The 
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km\2\ (33,386 mi\2\) 
includes Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves in 
this recovery area were listed and managed an endangered species. 
Wolves naturally recolonized this area from Canada. Reproduction first 
occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream et al. 1989). The 
natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat 
(Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 17-19), the interim control plan (Service 
1988, 1999), and the interagency recovery program combined to 
effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, p. 7-13). 
By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known 
breeding pairs. However, since 1997, the estimated number of breeding 
pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partly due to actual population size 
and partly due to monitoring effort. It varied from 4 to 23 breeding 
pairs and from 49 to 276 wolves (Service et al. 2009, Table 4), but 
generally increased. By the end of 2008, we estimated 276 wolves in 18 
breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area (Service et 
al. 2009, Table 4).
    The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves 
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat 
and it is more fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 560; Smith et al. 
2008, p. 1). Some of the variation in our wolf population estimates for 
northwestern Montana is due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the 
area's thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly 
on white-tailed deer, resulting in smaller packs and territories, which 
lowers the chances of a pack being detected (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 
878). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana 
Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) since 2005 were likely responsible for 
some of the higher population estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and 2004 
also likely exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves, but were not 
documented simply due to less intensive monitoring those years (Service 
et al. 2009, Table 4). By the end of 2009, this recovery area will 
contain over 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves for the fourth consecutive 
year (2005-2008), and probably has done so for the last seven years 
(2002-2008) (Service et al. 2009, Table 4).
    Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among northwestern 
Montana, central Idaho and adjacent Canadian populations demonstrating 
that northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically and genetically 
linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in central Idaho 
(Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-8; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-
1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez et al. 2008d). Because of fairly 
contiguous, but fractured suitable habitat wolves dispersing into 
northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or form 
new packs and supplement this segment of the overall wolf population 
(Boyd et al. 2007; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, 
p. 1226; Boyd et al. 1995, p. 140; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; 
vonHoldt et al. 2008; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez et 
al. 2008d).
    Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness complex, northwestern 
Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large numbers of 
overwintering wild ungulates and few livestock. Therefore, wolf numbers 
may not ever be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in central 
Idaho or the GYA. However, that population segment has persisted for 
nearly 20 years, is robust today, and habitat there is capable of 
supporting over 200 wolves (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). State 
management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan (2003), 
will ensure this population segment continues to thrive (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho 
Recovery Area's 53,600 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\) includes the Selway 
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth 
Wilderness Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in

[[Page 15137]]

central Idaho; and adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, 
p. iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada 
were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts 
et al. 1997, p. 7). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from 
British Columbia were released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). Central 
Idaho contains the greatest amount of highly suitable wolf habitat 
compared to either northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 
2005, p. 559). Consequently, the central Idaho area population has 
grown substantially and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in 
the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho 
Recovery Area's increase in its wolf population estimate was due to an 
increased monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game 
(IDFG). At the end of 2008, we estimated 914 wolves in 42 breeding 
pairs in the central Idaho recovery area (Service et al. 2009, Table 
4). By the end of 2008, this recovery area will have contained at least 
10 breeding pair and 100 wolves for 11 consecutive years (1998-2008) 
(Service et al. 2009; Service 2008).
    Recovery in the GYA--The GYA recovery area (63,700 km\2\ [24,600 
mi\2\]) includes YNP; the Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, 
and Teton Wilderness Areas (the National Park/Wilderness units); 
adjacent public and private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent parts of 
Idaho and Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). The wilderness portions of the 
GYA are primarily used seasonally by wolves due to high elevation, deep 
snow, and low productivity in terms of sustaining year-round wild 
ungulate populations (Service et al. 2008, Figure 3). In 1995, 14 
wolves representing 3 family groups from Alberta were released in YNP 
(Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and 
Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). In 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 
wolves representing 4 family groups from British Columbia. Finally, 10 
5-month old pups removed from northwestern Montana in a wolf control 
action were released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, 
p. 787). Only 2 of these 10 pups survived past 9 months of their 
release, but both became breeding adults and their genetic signature is 
common both in YNP and the GYA (VonHoldt 2008). By the end of 2008, we 
estimated 449 wolves in 35 breeding pairs in the GYA (Service et al. 
2008). By the end of 2008, this recovery area had at least 10 breeding 
pair and 100 wolves for 9 consecutive years (2000-2008) (Service et al. 
2009; Service 2008).
    Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding 
pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4). The population recovered in 2006, primarily because numbers 
outside YNP in Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2008). Most of this decline occurred in YNP which 
declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 
wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, Tables 
1-4). This decline likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat 
in YNP was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared 
to limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when 
reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 2006, p. 942; Vucetich et 
al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) a suspected 2005 outbreak of disease (canine 
parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper (CD)) reduced that years' pup 
survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 
2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20). By the end of 2007, 
the YNP wolf population had rebounded and was estimated to contain 171 
wolves in 10 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2008). In 2008, we saw a 
relatively high number of wolves killing other wolves and a high 
mortality rate among pups (this may be due to a disease outbreak, but 
the NPS will not be sure until winter when park biologists capture 
wolves and test their blood for antibodies). At the current time the 
YNP wolf population may be 124 wolves in 12 packs and only 6 breeding 
pairs (Service et al. 2009). Additional significant growth in the 
National Park/Wilderness portions of the Wyoming wolf population above 
200 wolves is very unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated 
with resident wolf packs. Maintaining wolf populations safely above 
recovery levels and promoting demographic and genetic exchange in the 
GYA segment of the NRM area will depend on wolf packs living outside 
the National Park/Wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and 
southwestern Montana.
    For further information on the history of NRM wolf recovery, 
recovery planning (including defining appropriate recovery criteria), 
population monitoring (through the end of 2008), and cooperation and 
coordination with our partners in achieving recovery, see the 
``Recovery'' section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month status review (71 
FR 43410), Service weekly wolf reports (1995-2008), and the Rocky 
Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports (Service et al. 1989-
2009) at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov.
    Summary of the demographic characteristics of the NRM wolf 
population--In late 2008, the NRM wolf population was estimated to 
contain about 1,639 wolves in nearly 200 packs (two or more wolves with 
a territory); 95 of these packs also classified as breeding pairs 
(packs with an adult male, adult female, and at least 2 pups on 
December 31). After delisting it will be managed by the States, 
National Park Service, and Service to average over 1,100 wolves, 
fluctuating around 400 wolves in Montana, 500 in Idaho, and 200 to 300 
in Wyoming. The NRM wolf population is a three part metapopulation, 
composed of core areas of suitable habitat and refugia in northwestern 
Montana, central Idaho and the GYA. The most isolated subpopulation in 
the NRM is the GYA. The territories of persistent breeding pairs in GYA 
and central Idaho are 160 km (100 mi) apart, but packs and occasionally 
breeding pairs are often within 100 km (60 mi) of each other. The GYA 
had 449 wolves as of Dec 31, 2008, but will likely be managed above 300 
wolves in portions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in the long term. 
Central Idaho and northwest Montana are connected by routine dispersal 
events to the contiguous western Canadian wolf population that contains 
12,000 wolves in British Columbia and Alberta. Collectively, the NRM is 
distinct in the lower 48 United States because it is surrounded by 
large expanses of unsuitable habitat in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, 
Utah, Colorado, and the Dakotas.
    Average dispersal distance by wolves in the NRM is 100 km (60 mi) 
and drops off sharply past 300 km (190 mi). Several individuals have 
gone >600km (>400 mi), but none of these long distant dispersers in the 
United States are known to have survived long enough to breed. 
Comparing a model of theoretical suitable wolf habitat in the NRM 
(Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559) with the distribution of wolf packs since 
2002 indicates most suitable habitat is filled with resident packs 
(Service et al. 2003-2009, Figure 1). The outer boundary of the entire 
NRM wolf population has not changed much (a minimum convex polygon of 
280,000 km\2\ (~110,000 mi\2\) since 2002 (Figure 1)). Nearly all wolf 
population growth has occurred within the suitable habitat area within 
the past 6 years. Suitable habitat is typically forested, public land, 
seasonally grazed by livestock (mainly cattle), and has abundant wild 
ungulates (primarily elk, deer, and moose). Wolf packs have not 
persisted in unsuitable habitat (open

[[Page 15138]]

prairie and high desert, more human activity & access, abundant 
livestock throughout the year, fewer wild ungulates) even under the 
Act's most protective designation as ``endangered''.
    The two major causes of mortality are agency control of problem 
wolves and illegal killing--each one causing on average about a 10% 
mortality rate annually (3% unintentional human-caused and 3% natural). 
Average radio-collared wolf (n = ~940 wolves) annual survival was 74 
percent, and varied from 80 percent in national parks and remote 
wildness areas down to 60 percent in areas more developed by humans 
(Murray et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008). There is an average of just 
over five pups per pack, but that decreased to an average of about 4 
pups by winter. Periodically there are as few as 2 surviving pups in 
packs in a few localized areas (YNP) due to outbreaks of canine 
diseases (largely canine distemper). Only about 60% of all wolf packs 
classified as breeding pairs each year and adult and pup survival, 
rather than reproduction, was the key determinate on a pack's final 
status. Those packs that did not qualify either were not surveyed 
intensively enough to document final status, did not raise at least 2 
pups, were not confirmed to contain both an adult male and female on 
Dec 31, or contact with them was lost (missing, killed, radio-collar 
loss, etc) before winter. Therefore, the breeding pair estimate 
represents a minimum and conservative measure of the number of wolf 
packs that actually meet the breeding pair metric.
    The NRM population grew at an average annual rate of 22 percent per 
year from 1995-2008 (Service et al. 2009, Table 4). The NRM population 
in 2008 grew slowly, indicating it could be approaching the carrying 
capacity of suitable habitat. Wolf populations regulate their 
distribution by their social territoriality. Packs defend exclusive 
areas of 200 to 500 square miles and defend those areas from other lone 
wolves and packs. Wolves regulate their density depending on food 
availability. If food is limited pack territories are larger meaning 
fewer can fit into a limited space. If prey is abundant packs can 
fulfill their needs in a smaller area and therefore more packs can fit 
into a smaller area. In the NRM, with its limited suitable habitat and 
relatively fixed prey base, the wolf population has grown by having 
wolves in more places within suitable habitat not by having more wolves 
in the same space or packs beginning to occupy unsuitable habitat. We 
believe that scientific evidence such as the well documented self 
regulation of wolf populations by prey density and social strife 
(Fuller et al. 2003); stagnant overall distribution of packs since 2002 
(Figure 1); limited amount of suitable habitat in the NRM (Oakleaf et 
al. 2006); high mortality of wolves in unsuitable habitat due to 
chronic conflicts with people (Smith et al. 2008); increase livestock 
depredations and more control (in many areas); and slowly of wolf 
population growth rates in recent years (Service et al. 2009); all 
indicate that the NRM wolf population maybe approaching its carrying 
capacity in suitable habitat. Maintaining wolf numbers above 1,500 
maybe difficult as the rate of conflicts per wolf would increase 
greatly if packs tried to occupy unsuitable habitat. Movement and 
breeding by dispersing wolves between northwestern Montana, central 
Idaho and southwest Canada appears common. GYA is the most distinct 
area, but between radio telemetry data (1995-2008) and genetic analysis 
(1995-2004) it appears that there is about one natural dispersing wolf 
entering the GYA per year and a little more than one effective migrant 
per generation (a `new' wolf that breeds every four years) in the GYA 
system. Contemporary statistics for genetic diversity from 2002-2004 
for central Idaho, northwestern Montana, and the GYA, respectively are; 
n = 85, 104, 210; allelic diversity = 9.5, 9.1, 10.3; observed 
heterozygosity = 0.723, 0.650, 0.708; expected heterozygosity = 0.767, 
0.728, 0.738. (vonHoldt et al. 2008). These levels have not diminished 
since 1995. The small differences between expected and observed 
heterozygosity around 0.70 on a scale of zero (no diversity) to 1 
(maximum possible diversity, which is very unlikely to be encountered 
in a wild population) and high allelic (alleles are the different forms 
of a gene) diversity averaging over 9 alleles per locus (location of a 
gene on a chromosome) demonstrate all subpopulations within the NRM 
wolf populations have high standing levels of genetic variability. By 
all measures the NRM wolf population is extremely demographically and 
genetically diverse, will remain so, and is completely biologically 
recovered.

Public Comments Solicited

    In our proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties 
submit information, data, comments or suggestions (72 FR 6106, February 
8, 2007). The comment period was open from February 8, 2007 through May 
9, 2007 (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007), 
from July 6, 2007 through August 6, 2007 (72 FR 36939, July 6, 2007), 
and from October 28, 2008 through November 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926, 
October 28, 2008). We also held eight public hearings and eight open 
houses on the proposal (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, 
March 29, 2007; 73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007). During the 150-day comment 
period, we received over 520,000 comments including approximately 
240,000 comments during our most recent comment period. Comments were 
submitted by a wide array of parties, including the general public, 
environmental organizations, sportsman and outfitter groups, 
agricultural agencies and organizations, and Tribal, Federal, State, 
and local governments.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our Interagency Policy for Peer Review in 
Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994) and the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review, we solicited independent review of the 
science in the proposed delisting rule from eight well-published North 
American scientists with extensive expertise in wolf biology. All eight 
peer reviewers submitted comments on the proposed delisting rule during 
the initial 90-day comment period (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 
14760, March 29, 2007). Five of those experts reviewed the proposal 
again after we reopened the comment period (73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007) 
to allow consideration of Wyoming's revised wolf management plan and 
its impact upon our proposal. Finally, on October 29, 2008, we provided 
these eight experts and nine others the opportunity to review and 
comment on our February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6106) delisting proposal and our 
October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926) notice reopening the comment period. 
None offered any additional comments on the rule making, although 
several offered comments on our draft genetics MOU (Groen et al. 2008).
    Generally, the reviewers agreed with our conclusion that the wolf 
population in the NRM DPS is biologically recovered and is no longer 
threatened as long as the States adequately regulate human-caused 
mortality. The reviewers provided many valuable thoughts, questions, 
and suggestions for improving the document. Issues identified by a 
majority of reviewers included suggestions to expand the discussion 
related to: The recovery criteria (connectivity, foreseeable future, 
metapopulation, and breeding pairs); the adequacy of State wolf 
management plans and their future commitments; how the DPS boundary and 
criteria for suitable habitat were developed; options to retain the 
Act's protections in

[[Page 15139]]

portions of Wyoming; and the effect of human-caused mortality on the 
wolf population.

Summary of Public Comments

    We reviewed and considered all comments in this final decision. 
Substantive comments received during the comment periods and all new 
information have been addressed below or incorporated directly into 
this final rule. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together 
under subject headings in a series of ``Issues'' and ``Responses.''

Technical and Editorial Comments

    Issue 1: Numerous technical and editorial comments and corrections 
were provided by respondents on nearly every part of the proposal. 
Several peer reviewers and others suggested or provided additional 
literature to consider in the final rule.
    Response 1: We corrected and updated this final rule wherever 
appropriate and possible. We edited the rule to make its purpose and 
rationale clearer. We shortened and condensed several sections by not 
repeating information that was already contained in the references 
cited. Several other sections were expanded to better explain our 
position.
    The literature used and recommended by the peer reviewers and 
others has been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in this 
final rule. We also reviewed and added literature in development and in 
press to our reference list when it represents the best scientific and 
commercial data available. The list of literature cited in this rule 
will be posted on our Web site (http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/).

Compliance With Laws, Regulations and Policy

    Issue 2: Numerous parties suggested that delisting the NRM DPS does 
not comply with our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities.
    Response 2: We have carefully reviewed the legal requirements of 
the Act, its implementing regulations, and relevant case law, all 
relevant Executive, Secretarial, and Director Orders, Departmental and 
Service policy, and other Federal policies and procedures. We believe 
this rule and the process by which it was developed fully satisfies all 
of our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities. Issues relating 
to specific concerns such as identifying a DPS, using State boundaries 
as part of the DPS boundary, retaining the Act's protections in 
significant portions of the NRM DPS, legal criteria for judging 
adequate regulatory mechanisms, adequacy of the public comment process, 
clarity of our proposal, and several other legal requirements are each 
specifically addressed elsewhere in this rule. Furthermore, on December 
12, 2008 a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department 
of the Interior, ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under 
Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' 
(U.S. DOI 2008). The Service fully agrees with the analysis and 
conclusions set out in the Solicitor's opinion. This action is 
consistent with the opinion. The complete text of the Solicitor's 
opinion can be found at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
    Issue 3: Some commenters suggested that a new NEPA analysis on the 
1995 reintroduction was needed because wolves have exceeded levels 
analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Others 
suggested NEPA compliance on the delisting was needed for other 
reasons.
    Response 3: The 1994 EIS was limited to the NRM wolf reintroduction 
efforts and is not applicable to the delisting process. As noted in the 
proposed rule, NEPA compliance documents, such as environmental 
assessments or environmental impact statements, need not be prepared in 
connection with actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act 
(listings, delistings, and reclassifications). A notice outlining the 
Service's reasons for this determination was published in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    Issue 4: Some commenters suggested that we did not adequately 
consult with Native American Tribes, as required by Secretarial Order 
3206 and our Native American Policy.
    Response 4: During the development of the proposal and this final 
rule, we endeavored to consult with Native American Tribes and Native 
American organizations to provide them information concerning the 
proposal and gain an understanding of their perspectives. We made 
additional efforts to contact and inform Tribes during the comment 
period, including providing the opportunity for informational meetings 
with Tribal representatives before the open houses and hearings on the 
delisting proposal. As we have become aware of Native American 
concerns, we have tried to address those concerns to the extent allowed 
by the Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other Federal 
statutes. Specifically, we worked closely with and fund the Nez Perce 
Tribe's wolf management program, assisted the Wind River Tribes in 
developing a Tribal Wolf Management Plan (Wind River Tribes 2007) that 
we approved in June 2007, and coordinated with the Salish and Kootenai 
and Blackfeet Tribes regarding wolf management on their Tribal lands.

Recovery Goals, Recovery Criteria, and Delisting

    Issue 5: Some commenters suggested that we should not use numerical 
quotas in reclassification or delisting decisions for the gray wolf. 
Commenters offered a multitude of reasons why delisting is warranted/
not warranted or premature/overdue.
    Response 5: The Act specifies that objective and measurable 
criteria be developed for recovering listed species. For a detailed 
discussion of the NRM wolf recovery criteria see the Recovery section. 
This final delisting determination is based upon the species' status 
relative to the Act's definition of threatened or endangered and 
considers potential threats to the species as outlined in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. Population numbers and status provide useful 
information for assessing the species' vulnerability to these factors. 
As described in detail in this rule, the species no longer meets the 
definition of threatened or endangered in all of its range, thus, 
delisting across most of the NRM DPS is warranted.
    Issue 6: Some commenters requested that we further explain the 
recovery criteria. These commenters expressed confusion over the 
current recovery goal because recent modifications have not been 
accomplished through the recovery planning process.
    Response 6: The Service's current recovery goal for the NRM gray 
wolf population is: Thirty or more breeding pairs (an adult male and an 
adult female that raise at least 2 pups until December 31) comprising 
300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially 
isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between 
subpopulations (Service 1994; Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Step-down 
recovery targets require Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to each maintain 
at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves by managing for a safety 
margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-
winter. Genetic exchange can be natural or, if necessary, agency 
managed. The rule now provides a fuller explanation of the recovery 
goals and their evolution over time (see the Reclassification and 
Recovery Goals section).
    Issue 7: Several commenters used the higher numbers of wolves 
required for recovery of wolves in the WGL DPS as evidence that the NRM 
wolf population is too low to delist.

[[Page 15140]]

    Response 7: The recovery goals for the WGL DPS and the NRM DPS 
differ because the biological circumstances (such as prey type and 
density, wolf density, habitat suitability, terrain, other ecological 
conditions, the history of recovery and planning efforts, and potential 
for human conflict) in each area differ. The WGL can support more and 
higher densities of wolves because of high white-tailed deer density, 
homogenous and more contiguous suitable habitat, different patterns of 
livestock density, distribution, and management, and different patterns 
of human access. However, the standards for achieving recovery have the 
same biological foundation. Each set of recovery goals required a 
metapopulation structure, numerical and distribution delisting criteria 
to be exceeded for several years, State plans that would adequately 
regulate wolf mortality, and sufficient elimination or reduction of 
threats to the population. The standards for achieving recovery in the 
WGL DPS and NRM DPS are both scientifically valid and realistically 
reflect the biological similarities and differences between each area.
    Within the NRM DPS, most of the 170,227 km\2\ (65,725 mi\2\) of 
suitable habitat for pack persistence is occupied and likely at or 
above long-term carrying capacity. The occupied portions of the NRM DPS 
have remained constant since 2002. Given limitations in available 
suitable habitat for pack persistence, significant expansion of the 
wolf population into new areas of the NRM DPS is unlikely. We believe 
maintaining the NRM gray wolf population at or above 1,500 wolves in 
currently occupied areas would slowly reduce wild prey abundance in 
suitable wolf habitat. This would result in a gradual decline in the 
number of wolves that could be supported in suitable habitat. Higher 
rates of livestock depredation in these and surrounding areas would 
follow. This too would reduce the wolf population because problem 
wolves are typically controlled.
    The Great Lakes wolf population also grew until it saturated 
suitable habitat. Wolves in the Minnesota portion of the Great Lakes 
regions have not increased their distribution and numbers in the past 
ten years. In both the Great Lakes region and the NRM DPS, we set 
recovery targets at approximately one-third of carrying capacity, while 
the States plan to manage at about two-thirds of carrying capacity. We 
believe the biological carrying capacity of suitable habitat is set by 
wild prey distribution and density, ability of packs to persist, raise 
young and provide dispersers back into the population, level of 
conflict with people, overall rate of reproduction and morality, and a 
density and distribution of wolves and wolf packs necessary to maintain 
a viable metapopulation.
    Issue 8: Some commenters felt that the 1994 recovery goal was 
inadequate to ensure the continued viability of the NRM DPS. 
Specifically, they stated that the 1994 EIS could not properly evaluate 
the recovery goals because predicting the number of wolves the two 
then-unoccupied recovery zones might support was not possible. Some 
thought that the wolf recovery goals should be reevaluated given 
historic or current wolf numbers and distribution. Others thought that 
additional protection of the ecosystem, such as reduced livestock 
grazing, eliminating roads, and increasing restrictions on human 
development, on which the NRM wolves depend would be necessary to 
accomplish successful recovery in areas of historic occupancy. Some 
commenters stated that 2,000 to 6,000 or more wolves were necessary to 
maintain a viable and recovered wolf population. Others indicated that 
the wolf population was growing out of control and should be reduced to 
the minimum recovery goal of 300 wolves in 30 breeding pairs.
    Response 8: We do not dispute the fact that the NRM can support a 
wolf population that is several times higher than the minimum numerical 
recovery goal necessary to meet the Act's requirements. However, under 
the Act, species recovery is considered to be the return of a species 
to the point where it is no longer threatened or endangered. Recovery 
under the Act does not require restoring a species to historic levels 
or even maximizing possible density, distribution, or genetic 
diversity. The Service has reviewed the NRM wolf recovery goal to 
ensure it is adequate and that it has been fully achieved (see 
discussion in Recovery section). We have modified it when scientific 
evidence warranted. We determined that a 3-State wolf metapopulation 
that requires maintenance of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 
100 wolves in mid-winter per State by managing for a safety margin of 
at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter per 
State is biologically recovered. Montana and Idaho have committed to 
maintain the NRM wolf population well above their minimum numerical and 
distributional share of the NRM wolf population. In Wyoming, the 
continuation of National Park Service and Service wolf management will 
assure that Wyoming's share of the NRM wolf population is maintained 
well above recovery levels. Collectively, these commitments indicate 
that the entire NRM wolf population is likely to consist of 973 to 
1,302 wolves in 77 to 104 breeding pairs (See Recovery Planning and 
Factor D).
    Commenters provided no convincing scientific evidence that at least 
2,000 to 6,000 wolves are required in a wolf population for it to be 
recovered to meet the Act's purposes. Wolf populations in many parts of 
the world have remained viable at much lower levels unless they were 
deliberately extirpated by people. Furthermore, not only is the current 
population of 1,639 wolves far above minimum recovery levels, we have 
concluded that there is not enough suitable habitat in the NRM DPS to 
support 2,000 to 6,000 wolves over the long term without tolerating 
rates of livestock depredation and impacts to big game populations many 
times higher than has occurred in the past twenty years. Additional 
habitat protections in suitable habitat will not meaningfully increase 
carrying capacity of the NRM DPS. Restoration into areas currently 
considered unsuitable for pack persistence would require massive 
Federal and State programs to reduce or eliminate livestock on Federal, 
State, Tribal and, mostly, private property. Such an approach is 
unnecessary and unwarranted to remove the threat of extinction to the 
NRM DPS for the foreseeable future. Specifically, we do not believe 
there is a need for additional habitat protections in the NRMs as the 
DPS contains sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to maintain a 
healthy and viable wolf population in the long-term (as discussed in 
Factor A below). To the extant that a larger population is desired by 
some to sustain biological viability, the NRM wolf population 
represents a 650 km (400 mi) southern range extension of a vast 
contiguous wolf population that numbers over 12,000 wolves in western 
Canada and about 65,000 wolves across all of Canada and Alaska.
    While some commenters felt that the NRM wolf population should be 
reduced to minimum recovery levels, the Act does not require or 
authorize the Service to manage a listed species to keep it from 
surpassing minimum recovery goals. States are also unlikely to 
accommodate this request as they have agreed to manage for a wolf 
population at least 50 percent above minimum recovery levels and will 
likely manage for a population of over 1,000 wolves, well above even 
this minimum level. Due to smaller safety margins to account for 
stochastic events, it would require much more intensive and costly 
monitoring and management to assure the future conservation of a

[[Page 15141]]

recovered wolf population that was composed of less than 500 wolves 
than it would for the greater than 1,000 wolves that will be maintained 
in the NRM by the States and Service after delisting.
    Issue 9: Some commenters questioned the objectivity of the peer 
review process for the recovery goals.
    Response 9: We used an extensive unbiased scientific peer review 
and public review process and our own expertise to help investigate, 
and modify as necessary, the recovery goals. We purposely invited 
reviews from experts with widely divergent philosophies to increase the 
range of opinions and perspectives. While the comments of some former 
litigants selected quotes from one end of the bell curve of all the 
diversity of opinion that was offered on wolf recovery goals to support 
their perspective (Fallon 2008), a review of the peer review comments 
in their entirety reveal the wide diversity of opinion (Bangs 2002). We 
continue to conclude, as did over three-fourths of the experts 
contacted, that the recovery goal is adequate to ensure wolves in the 
NRM do not again become threatened or endangered. Additionally, peer 
reviews of the State wolf management plans and the rulemaking process 
also confirmed the adequacy of the recovery goals to maintain a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. See the discussion in the 
recovery section for more details.
    Issue 10: We received numerous comments related to the recovery 
objective of having genetic exchange between subpopulations, the 
isolation of the GYA recovery area, and a perceived failure to meet the 
recovery goal because of the lack of successful migrants into the GYA. 
Many commenters expressed opinions on available options to achieve the 
genetic exchange mentioned in the recovery goal. Some commenters stated 
that only natural connectivity and gene flow constituted recovery. Some 
of these individuals believed the July 18, 2008, District Court 
preliminary injunction order mandated natural connectivity. Numerous 
commenters opined that agency-managed genetic exchange (moving 
individual wolves or their genes into the affected population segment) 
was ``a government dating program'' and did not constitute ``true 
recovery'' under the Act. Other commenters believed that it was 
biologically immaterial to wolf population status and genetic vigor 
whether such exchange occurred solely by natural dispersal or by human-
assisted migration management. Others stated that while natural 
connectivity was desirable to reduce the need for management 
intervention and cost, human-assisted migration management was an 
important safeguard, if ever needed. Still other commenters concluded 
that even if the GYA was totally isolated, biological problems are 
unlikely to materialize at a meaningful level. These commenters pointed 
to wolf biology, strong recovery standards for the ecosystem, and 
actual real world cases of isolated wolf populations to support their 
position. Opinions and theoretical predictions varied on what level of 
gene flow was required and if State management practices would increase 
or decrease those opportunities. Finally, commenters provided thoughts 
on our draft memorandum of understanding regarding the protection of 
genetic diversity of NRM gray wolves. Some commenters stated there was 
no need for the MOU as State wolf management plans already committed 
potential signees to manage the issue. Other commenters stated that a 
promise of future action by the States was not legally sufficient to 
resolve future genetic concerns and allow delisting. Some said the MOU 
guaranteed genetic connectivity would never threaten the NRM wolf 
population.
    Response 10: Currently, genetic diversity throughout the NRM DPS is 
very high (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; 
vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2008). Wolves in 
northwestern Montana and both the reintroduced populations are as 
genetically diverse as their vast, secure, healthy, contiguous, and 
connected source populations in Canada; thus, inadequate genetic 
diversity is not a wolf conservation issue in the NRM at this time 
(Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). This 
genetic health is the result of deliberate management actions by the 
Service and its cooperators since 1995. It is misleading to compare the 
large, connected, and genetically robust NRM wolf population to very 
small, very inbred and very isolated wolf populations in order to 
forecast theoretical problems the NRM population may have with genetic 
diversity, let alone to an extent that could threaten the viability of 
the NRM wolf population. Dr. L.D. Mech, the world's foremost authority 
on wolves, responded to our inquiry about ways we might guarantee to 
ensure the future genetic health of the NRM wolf population (Fuller et 
al. 2003, p. 189-190; Groen et al. 2008) as ``I consider this a 
nonissue.'' Genetic issues are discussed further in Factor E below.
    We agree that a portion of the Service's recovery goal calls for 
``genetic exchange between subpopulations'' (see the Recovery section 
above). Genetic exchange was also a major focus of the July 18, 2008, 
District Court preliminary injunction order. The Recovery section of 
this rule now clarifies the Service's recovery goal, including the 
genetic exchange portion of it, to correct any misunderstandings or 
alternative interpretations of what constitutes biological wolf 
recovery in the NRM. This section provides wording from past documents 
to demonstrate that the Service recovery goal was never dependent on 
natural connectivity or proven multi-generation genetic exchange within 
any recovery segment. Instead, the primary purpose of this portion of 
the recovery goal was to ensure that no recovery area was totally 
isolated. The 1994 EIS (Service 1994, p. 6-7) defined a ``Recovered 
wolf population'' as ``10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 areas 
for 3 successive years with some level of movement between areas.'' 
Natural dispersal and successful reproduction of radio-collared wolves 
has been documented between all three subpopulation.
    Some commenters provided scientific papers that dealt with 
potential wildlife conservation problems resulting from low genetic 
diversity and inbreeding, or that such problems were unlikely to be 
resolved by only one immigrant. We appreciate those papers and 
perspectives and recognize low genetic diversity can have costs to 
population health. However, the problems resulting from low genetic 
diversity and inbreeding cited were in wildlife populations that 
started from very few founders and remained at low levels for long 
periods of time, remained isolated, existed in small fragmented 
habitats, and no management was taken to resolve problems. But even 
those populations grew very rapidly in suitable habitat after human-
caused mortality was regulated. These examples have virtually no 
relevance to the NRM wolf population. The NRM wolf population is large. 
It started from many diverse founders, grew rapidly, has very high 
genetic diversity, is not isolated, and it is attached to a Canadian 
population composed of 12,000 wolves. Wolves in the NRM live in 3 
genetically and demographically connected areas of secure suitable 
habitat covering an area of nearly 240,000 km\2\ (100,000 mi\2\) and 
management actions have been and will continue to be used to resolve 
any actual genetic problems that might develop in the future. In 
addition, the purpose of the Act is not to maximize genetic diversity 
or to quibble about

[[Page 15142]]

genetic theory or the results of theoretical models and their 
assumptions. The Act is intended to prevent species from becoming 
extinct and clearly the NRM wolf population will never be threatened by 
low genetic diversity, genetic drift, or inbreeding. See Factor E for a 
detailed discussion of this issue.
    Implementation of the recently finalized Genetics MOU (Groen et al. 
2008), which was improved by public and peer review comment, makes it 
even more unlikely that agency-managed genetic exchange would be 
necessary in the foreseeable future. This MOU recognizes that genetic 
diversity is currently very high throughout the NRM DPS and commits to 
establish and maintain a monitoring protocol to ensure that necessary 
levels of gene flow occur so that the population retains high levels of 
genetic and demographic diversity (Groen et al. 2008). The number of 
effective migrants needed to maintain genetic diversity in any one 
recovery area is a function of its overall population size, the number 
of dispersers that successfully breed, and the demographic parameters 
of that population segment. As noted above, we believe current levels 
of natural connectivity are sufficient to address any theoretical 
genetic issues. However, we recognize work on this issue is ongoing. 
The MOU ensures this issue will be appropriately managed into the 
foreseeable future by the NRM DPS's State and Federal partners as new 
information comes to light (Groen et al. 2008). Should genetic or 
demographic issues ever materialize that could threaten the NRM wolf 
population, an outcome we believe is extremely unlikely, the MOU 
ensures States will implement techniques to facilitate agency-managed 
genetic exchange (moving individual wolves or their genes into the 
affected population segment) (Groen et al. 2008).
    We believe Wyoming must institute additional protections to 
facilitate natural genetic exchange. Specifically, the State's 
regulatory framework should minimize take of non-problem wolves in all 
suitable habitat and across all of Wyoming's potential migration routes 
among NRM subpopulations. Statewide trophy game status will assist in 
this regard as migrating wolves use the current predator area. This 
measure is particularly important during peak dispersal, breeding, and 
pup rearing periods. In addition to requiring that Wyoming manage for 
at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter in 
their State, Wyoming must also manage for at least 7 breeding pairs and 
at least 70 wolves in Wyoming outside the National Parks. Such 
requirements are necessary to provide adequate buffers to prevent the 
population from falling below recovery levels. This secondary goal will 
provide dispersing wolves more social openings and protection from 
excessive human-caused mortality. This will also maintain a 
sufficiently large number of wolves in the GYA; larger population size 
is a proven remedy to genetic inbreeding. Until Wyoming develops 
adequate regulatory mechanisms, continued Federal management of the 
Wyoming wolf population will maximize potential for genetic exchange.

Future Wolf Numbers

    Issue 11: Many commenters pointed out that the States will manage 
for fewer wolves than currently exist. Some commenters thought that 
fewer wolves would reduce the number of dispersing wolves and limit 
natural connectivity among the subpopulations. Others recommended that 
we recognize and take into account the fact that wolf numbers can 
fluctuate dramatically.
    Response 11: The delisted NRM DPS wolf population is likely to be 
reduced from its current levels of around 1,639 wolves by State 
management. Below carrying capacity (the current carrying capacity of 
suitable habitat in the NRM may be around 1,500 wolves), the population 
is likely to continue to reproduce at high rates. However, attempts to 
maintain the population above 1,500 wolves may be difficult because 
suitable habitat will be fully occupied and packs attempting to 
colonize unsuitable habitat would cause chronic conflict with 
livestock. Regardless, wolf populations in the three States containing 
most of the occupied and most of the suitable habitat in the NRM DPS 
will be managed for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves 
so that the population never goes below recovery levels. The entire NRM 
wolf population is likely to consist of 973 to 1,302 wolves in 77 to 
104 breeding pairs. Specifically, State projections indicate the NRM 
wolf population in Montana and Idaho will likely be managed for around 
673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 79 breeding pairs (See Recovery Planning 
and Factor D). In Wyoming, the Act's protections will remain in place, 
thus, Wyoming is likely to maintain a wolf population of about 300 
wolves in 22 breeding pairs. We believe maintenance well above the 
minimum recovery goal is more than sufficient to maintain wolf recovery 
in the NRM.
    We recognize that the planned reduction in overall population 
numbers could reduce dispersal and connectivity among subpopulations. 
If the population is managed for over a thousand wolves, as expected, 
we believe the impact on dispersal and connectivity will be negligible. 
If the population is managed to the minimum recovery target of 150 
wolves per State, dispersal would be noticeably impacted, which could 
require costly and intensive management to mitigate. However, even when 
wolf populations were low in number and throughout the period when 
mortality averaged 23 percent of the population annually, some 
dispersal events occurred between all three recovery areas. We expect 
some dispersal will continue regardless of the number managed for. 
State and Tribal management in Montana and Idaho, in combination with 
continued Federal management of Wyoming, will continue to focus on this 
issue, especially in regards to the GYA. We believe these efforts will 
ensure sufficient levels of connectivity among the subpopulations. 
Should genetic issues that could threaten the population ever 
materialize, an outcome we believe is extremely unlikely, agency-
managed genetic exchange will be used to correct the issue.
    We and our State partners recognize that all wildlife populations, 
including wolves, can fluctuate widely over a relatively short period 
of time. By managing for at least 50 percent above the minimal recovery 
levels, and likely for over one thousand wolves, State and Federal 
management provide an adequate safety margin. This margin, combined 
with the State's commitment to adaptively manage the species as needed, 
adequately addressed concerns about population fluctuations.

Additional Recovery Efforts

    Issue 12: Several commenters thought that the Service should have 
modified our recovery planning and implementation efforts after 
revising the listing to a single lower 48-State listing in 1978. 
Commenters requested we develop a single recovery plan for the lower 
48-State listed entity before delisting any portion of it. Other 
commenters thought that the Service should use subspecies to identify 
DPSs across the gray wolf's historical range, and these DPSs should 
replace or supplement the current recovery zones. Still others 
expressed their opinion that additional recovery efforts across the 
entire lower 48-States were unwise and unnecessary. The adjacent States 
of California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and Washington were 
mentioned most frequently for additional recovery programs. Other

[[Page 15143]]

commenters recommended wolves be reintroduced into places such as 
Central Park in New York City or the National Mall in Washington, DC.
    Response 12: We believe possible future wolf recovery efforts are 
beyond the scope of this rulemaking as such actions are not necessary 
to ensure that the NRM DPS remains unlikely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    Nevertheless, let us clarify our position on this issue. As noted 
in the 1978 reclassification rule, we replaced the previous subspecies 
listings with a single conterminous 48-State entity in order to ``most 
conveniently'' handle the gray wolf listing. Our 1978 reclassification 
rule provided assurances that we would continue to recognize valid 
biological subspecies for purposes of our research and conservation 
programs (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). The NRM DPS approximates the 
U.S. historic range of the purported NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. 
irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2; 39 FR 1171, January 
4, 1974). We never intended, nor do we think it is realistic, to 
recover the species across the entire lower 48-States.
    Finally, we believe we have satisfied our statutory 
responsibilities for recovery planning. Section 4(f)(1) of the Act 
instructs us to develop plans for the conservation and survival of 
threatened and endangered species. The Act further states that priority 
be given to species that are most likely to benefit from such plans. To 
this end, we have prioritized gray wolf recovery planning efforts to 
focus on the NRM, the Great Lakes Region, and the Southwest. We 
completed a recovery plan for the NRM in 1980 and revised it in 1987. 
In the Great Lakes Region, we completed a recovery plan in 1978 and 
revised it in 1992. In the Southwest, a recovery plan was completed in 
1982. Any additional planning is discretionary. At this time the 
Service's resources will be focused on delisting the recovered wolf 
populations in the Midwest and NRM, and recovering gray wolves in the 
southwest and red wolves (Canis rufus) in the southeast.
    Issue 13: Several commenters thought that wolf recovery should 
require recolonization of all historical range or, at least, the 
portions of the historical range that could be made suitable. Some 
recommended that wolves remain listed to promote wolf restoration 
within unoccupied portions of the species' historic range, both in and 
beyond the NRM DPS. Others indicated that the concepts of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation need to be addressed over a much broader 
area. Some believed that our interpretation of recovery led us to focus 
on occupied habitat and controlling excessive rates of human-caused 
mortality rather than ``true recovery.'' It was stated that ``true 
recovery'' requires natural connectivity or linkage, protection and 
enhancement of existing population levels, widespread habitat 
protection and restoration, and protective regulatory mechanisms.
    Response 13: We believe these recommendations would expand the 
purpose of the Act. The Act defines conservation as the use of all 
methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered or threatened 
species to the point where the measures provided pursuant to the Act 
are no longer necessary. According to our implementing regulations (50 
CFR 424.11), when a species no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species under the Act, it is recovered, and we 
are to delist it.
    Restoration of historically occupied areas can play a role in 
achieving the goal of recovery. In this case, occupancy has been 
restored and will be maintained across the vast majority of the 
suitable habitat with the NRM DPS. Maintained occupancy across most 
suitable habitat in Montana and Idaho ensures that the NRM DPS remains 
unlikely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all 
of its range. Continued Federal protections in Wyoming ensure this 
significant portion of the NRM DPS will be maintained. Occupancy across 
large portions of the historical range, unless required to preclude the 
NRM DPS from again becoming threatened or endangered, are beyond the 
requirements of the Act.
    Reintroducing wolves to areas of highly unsuitable habitat outside 
the NRM was not considered relevant to this rule. Furthermore, most 
historic wolf habitat in the contiguous United States has been so 
modified by people that it is currently unsuitable for wolves.
    Resiliency, redundancy, and representation (described in detail in 
the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis section below) are important 
factors in the long-term conservation status of any species (Shaffer 
and Stein 2000). Within the NRM DPS, each of the States and each of the 
recovery areas meaningfully contributes to its resiliency, redundancy, 
and representation. Across the lower 48-States, the three wolf 
populations in the lower 48-States (WGL DPS, NRM DPS, and Mexican wolf) 
provide the necessary resiliency, redundancy, and representation. These 
three populations also represent all the genetic diversity remaining in 
wolves south of Canada after their widespread extirpation during 
European colonization (Leonard et al. 2005, p. 9). Additionally, the 
species remains abundant in many areas of the northern hemisphere. 
Collectively, this information shows that these principles of 
conservation biology are satisfied.
    We dispute the assertion that we have inappropriately focused our 
recovery efforts on occupied habitat and mortality control. In fact, we 
have focused recovery efforts on wolf population levels, distribution, 
habitat, connectivity, all forms of mortality, wolf/human conflicts, 
diseases and parasites, predation, human attitudes, genetics, and 
dispersal (Service et al. 2002-8). We have worked to maintain public 
tolerance of wolves by limiting damage to private property. These 
recovery efforts led to significant increases in wolf numbers and 
range, allowing wolves to reoccupy habitats they were absent from since 
the 1930s. Our efforts also provided demographic, genetic, and habitat 
security. Wolf packs now occupy most of the large blocks of suitable 
habitat within the DPS. This comprehensive approach to recovery will be 
continued under State management in Montana and Idaho in the future. 
Additional recovery actions necessary to achieve a more widely 
distributed and numerically abundant population are not necessary to 
meet the definition of recovered under the Act.
    Issue 14: Many commenters thought that we failed to recognize the 
ecological importance of trophic cascades (the ripple effect in 
predator, herbivore, plant, and scavenger communities caused by 
restoring a keystone species like wolves) and ecological effects 
emanating from wolf restoration in the NRM. Some commenters stated that 
the Act mandates that a species be ``ecologically effective.'' Still 
other commenters thought we should use an ``ecosystem approach'' when 
implementing recovery. Finally, some commenters suggested delisting 
does not fulfill parts of the Service mission which includes, ``working 
with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit to the American 
people.''
    Response 14: We recognize that wolf recovery appears to have caused 
trophic cascades and ecological effects that affect numerous other 
animal and plant communities, and their relationships with each other. 
These effects have been most pronounced in pristine areas, such as in 
YNP. While these effects likely

[[Page 15144]]

still occur at varying degrees elsewhere, they are increasingly 
modified and subtle the more an area is affected by humans (Smith et 
al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, 
pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 
1245). While some believe we should stall delisting until these 
cascading ecological effects are restored throughout the DPS or beyond, 
this approach is not a requirement of the Act. Instead, when a species 
no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act, it is recovered, and we are to delist it. Similarly, the 
Act does not require that we achieve or maintain ``ecological 
effectiveness'' (i.e., occupancy with densities that maintain critical 
ecosystem interactions and help ensure against ecosystem degradation) 
(Soule et al. 2003, p. 1239).
    Service policy intends that we apply an ecosystem approach in 
carrying out our programs for fish and wildlife conservation (National 
Policy Issuances 95-03 and 96-10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal 
of such an approach is to strive to contribute to the effective 
conservation of natural biological diversity through perpetuation of 
dynamic, healthy ecosystems when carrying our various mandates and 
functions. Preserving and recovering endangered and threatened species 
is one of the more basic aspects of an ecosystem approach to 
conservation. Successful recovery of a rare species requires that the 
necessary components of its habitat and ecosystem be conserved, and 
that diverse partnerships be developed to ensure the long-term 
protection of those components. Thus, the recovery success demonstrated 
for gray wolves, a keystone or ``highly interactive species'' (as 
defined by Soule et al. 2003), also is a demonstration of the ecosystem 
approach.
    Finally, we believe delisting portrays successful adherence to our 
mission statement. Gray wolf recovery programs involve many partners in 
the private and public sector, at all levels of government, and include 
numerous other State and Federal agencies. The wolf recovery successes 
described in this rule resulted from working with others to conserve, 
protect, and enhance gray wolf populations in the NRM. That success has 
now reached a point where the NRM wolf population, except Wyoming, no 
longer qualifies for protection under the Act, so we are delisting most 
of the NRM DPS. Long-term maintenance of a recovered gray wolf 
population will provide a continuing benefit to the American people.
    Issue 15: Some commenters suggested that we should delist gray 
wolves in areas outside of the proposed DPS because: Wolves are common 
elsewhere (in other areas of the lower 48 States or in Alaska and 
Canada); wolves have recovered (in that area or elsewhere); wolves are 
extirpated in many areas and could be delisted on the basis of 
extinction in those areas; keeping wolves listed where there is little 
or no suitable habitat results in irresolvable conflicts; and a State 
can manage a resident species better than the Federal government.
    Response 15: The Federal status of wolves under the Act outside of 
the NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this action. An evaluation of these 
areas for either delisting or additional recovery efforts will be 
forthcoming in a separate effort.

Identifying the NRM Distinct Population Segment

    Issue 16: Some commenters suggested that we improperly recognized 
the NRM DPS. Some asserted that the Service may not identify a DPS 
within a broader pre-existing listed entity for the purpose of 
delisting the DPS. Other held the opposite view, that a DPS-level 
delisting was allowed. These commenters also noted that the NRM 
population met the DPS policy's criteria for discreteness and 
significance, thus, should be recognized as DPS. They suggested that 
precluding delisting until entire lower 48-State entity was recovered 
would punish the States that had recovered the species. Some opined 
that a DPS could not be created and delisted in the same listing 
action.
    Response 16: As described above, we have determined the NRM DPS is 
biologically based, appropriate, and was developed in accordance with 
the Act and the Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy. Our 
ability to identify a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity 
was the subject of a recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia (Humane Society of the United States v. 
Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 07-0677 (PLF) (D.D.C., Sept. 29, 2008)). 
This order remanded and vacated our February 7, 2008, final rule that 
identified the WGL DPS of gray wolves and determined that these wolves 
should be delisted (72 FR 6052). The court found that the Service had 
made that decision based on its interpretation that the plain meaning 
of the Act authorizes the Service to create and delist a DPS within an 
already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and concluded that the Act 
is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority. The court 
accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service could provide a 
reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent with the 
text, structure, legislative history, judicial interpretations, and 
policy objectives of the Act.
    While the Service acknowledges that the ESA is arguably ambiguous 
on the ``precise question'' posed by the court, it notes that the 
court's question does not accurately describe what we did in the Final 
Rule. What we actually did, under the precise language of the Act, was 
to determine, pursuant to section 4(a)(1), that gray wolves in the 
Western Great Lakes area constituted a DPS and that the DPS was neither 
endangered nor threatened, and then revised the list of endangered and 
threatened species, pursuant to section 4(c)(1), to reflect those 
determinations. Our conclusion is that we had clear authority to make 
the determinations and the revisions. We did not delist a previously 
unlisted species; rather, we revised the existing listing of a species 
(the gray wolf in the lower 48 States) to reflect a determination that 
a sub-part of that species (the Western Great Lakes DPS) was healthy 
enough that it no longer needed the ESA's protections and such action 
is the same as the action we are taking today regarding the NRM DPS 
when we determine that wolves in most of the NRM DPS no longer need ESA 
protections and that the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 
should be revised to reflect the current status of these wolves. Our 
authority to make these determinations and to revise the list 
accordingly is found in the precise language of the ESA. Moreover, even 
if that authority was not clear, our interpretation of this authority 
to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the 
endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations 
under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the ESA's 
text structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, 
and policy objectives.
    As stated previously, on December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was 
issued by the Solicitor, ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority 
Under Section 4(c)(1) of the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' 
(U.S. DOI 2008). This opinion represents the views of the Service and 
fully supports the Service's position that it is authorized in a single 
action to identify a DPS within a larger listed entity, determine that 
the DPS is neither endangered nor threatened, and then revise the List 
of Endangered and

[[Page 15145]]

Threatened Wildlife to reflect those determinations. The opinion also 
notes that, although the term ``delist'' is not used in the Act, it is 
used extensively in the regulations implementing the section 4 listing 
provisions of the Act, such as 50 CFR 424.11(d). As explained in 
footnote 8 to the Solicitor's opinion, ``As used by FWS, ``delisting'' 
applies broadly to any action that revises the lists either to remove 
an already-listed entity from the appropriate list in its entirety, or 
to reduce the geographic or taxonomic scope of a listing to exclude a 
group of organisms previously included as part of an already-listed 
entity (as was the case with the Western Great Lakes DPS of gray 
wolves).'' The Service fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions 
set out in the Solicitor's opinion and this action is consistent with 
the opinion. The complete text of the Solicitor's opinion can be found 
at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/.
    In regard to the NRM wolves, such an approach is further supported 
by the fact that the DPS is consistent with over 30 years of recovery 
efforts in the NRMs in that: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S. historic 
range of the NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, 
p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) which was the originally listed entity in 
1974 (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the DPS boundaries are 
inclusive of the areas focused on by both NRM recovery plans (Service 
1980, pp. 7-8; Service 1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental impact 
statement (EIS) (Service 1994, Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is 
inclusive of the entire Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential 
Experimental Population areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).
    Issue 17: Some commenters suggested that the NRM gray wolf 
population is not a DPS because all populations in the lower 48 States 
were once connected. Thus, the population should not be considered 
discrete.
    Response 17: A comprehensive evaluation of the NRM gray wolf 
population's discreteness is included in the ``Analysis for 
Discreteness'' section of the rule above. Historical distribution has 
no bearing on the NRM population's current discreteness. The boundaries 
of the NRM DPS consider likely dispersal distances and surrounding 
unsuitable habitat. We believe a continuous uninterrupted population 
throughout the lower 48-States, as existed historically, is not 
achievable. The best scientific and commercial information available 
indicates the NRM population will remain markedly separated from other 
gray wolf populations in the lower 48-States. Occupancy in the 
intervening areas is unsustainable because the areas have been too 
modified by people for wolves to survive.
    Issue 18: Several people stated that the DPS policy is to be used 
only in listing decisions and that using it in a delisting decision 
violates Congressional intent and the legislative and statutory 
structure of the Act.
    Response 18: The Act, its implementing regulations, and our DPS 
policy provide no support for this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether 
``any species'' is endangered or threatened. Numerous sections of the 
Act refer to adding and removing ``species'' from the list of 
threatened or endangered plants and animals. Section 3(15) defines 
``species'' to include any subspecies ``* * * and any DPS of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife * * *'' The Act directs us to 
list, reclassify, and delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of 
vertebrate species. It contains no provisions requiring, or even 
allowing, DPSs to be treated in a different manner than species or 
subspecies when carrying out the listing, recovery, and delisting 
functions mandated by section 4. Furthermore, our DPS Policy states 
that the policy is intended for ``the purposes of listing, delisting, 
and reclassifying species under the Act'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996), and that it ``guides the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 
population segments for the purposes of listing, delisting, and 
reclassifying under the Act'' (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996).
    These comments also overlook the untenable situation that would 
arise if DPSs could be listed, but could never be delisted, after they 
have been successfully recovered. Clearly Congress did not envision 
such an outcome when amending the definition of species to include 
vertebrate DPSs.
    Issue 19: Some commenters pointed out that the recognition of the 
NRM DPS created a remnant population. Some commenters suggested this 
violates the Act as the Act allows us to ``consider listing only an 
entire species, subspecies, or DPS'' (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 
161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, we cannot declare 
part of a listed species a DPS without also identifying the remaining 
listed species as DPS(s).
    Response 19: While in some situations it may be appropriate to 
recognize multiple DPSs simultaneously, the Act does not require it. 
This flexibility allows the Service to subsequently list or delist 
additional DPSs when additional information becomes available or as the 
conservation status of the taxon changes. Importantly, a court stated 
that the Act allows this flexibility. In National Wildlife Federation 
v. Norton (385 F. Supp. 2d 553, 565 (D. Vt. 2005), the court found that 
``Nowhere in the Act is the Secretary prevented from creating a `non-
DPS remnant,' especially when the remnant area was already listed * * 
*'' Our current identification of a NRM DPS, while retaining the 
remaining other wolves listed as endangered or nonessential 
experimental, is consistent with this aspect of the District Court's 
ruling.
    Furthermore, just as the NRM DPS is discrete from the remaining 
populations in the lower 48 States, the remaining populations are 
discrete from the NRM DPS. The amended lower 48 State listing is 
discrete from Canadian populations of gray wolf as delineated by the 
United States/Canadian international boundary, with significant 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms. The amended lower 48 
State listing is significant in that its loss would result in a 
significant gap in the range of the taxon (C. lupus). Therefore, the 
amended lower 48 State listing is discrete and significant.
    Issue 20: Some commenters felt that a wolf dispersing outside of 
the DPS boundaries (e.g., into Colorado) may create confusion among 
State, Federal, and Tribal agencies regarding the status of that wolf. 
To address this confusion, some believed that any wolf originating from 
the NRM DPS should be considered part of that DPS, regardless of where 
it is geographically.
    Response 20: Consistent with Section 4(c) of the Act, the status of 
individual members of a species, subspecies, or DPS is dependent on 
their geographic location. We used easily identifiable boundaries, such 
as the center line of major highways or State borders, to minimize 
management confusion. Once this rule goes into effect, if a wolf goes 
beyond the NRM DPS boundary, it attains the listing status of the area 
it has entered (i.e., endangered in much of the lower 48 States, except 
where listed as nonessential experimental or delisted). Similarly, if a 
wolf enters the NRM DPS, except Wyoming, it would not be listed and 
would be managed according to the relevant State management plan. If a 
wolf enters Wyoming, it will be regulated as a non-essential, 
experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84 (i) and (n). State and Federal 
agencies across the region are aware of and understand the

[[Page 15146]]

management implications of this action. While we believe that future 
dispersal and conflicts outside the DPS will be rare, we will continue 
to work with any affected States or Tribes to resolve them.
    Issue 21: Numerous commenters suggested the boundary of the DPS was 
improperly developed. Some commenters suggested the DPS should have 
been larger, while others thought it should have been smaller. Some 
opined that the size of the NRM DPS prevents wolf dispersal outside the 
DPS to other areas of suitable habitat, thus the unsuitable habitat at 
the edges of the DPS became a barrier to dispersal. Some believe that 
because the boundaries were mainly highways or State borders, they were 
arbitrary and not based on sound biological principles or natural 
features like rivers. Montana recommended a DPS of only Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming based on the presence of a wolf population and State 
regulations guiding post-delisting wolf management. The adjacent States 
requested that the NRM DPS boundary be changed to include most of Utah, 
Nevada, and Oregon, western North and South Dakota, and none of 
Washington.
    Response 21: The boundary of the NRM DPS was determined by 
analyzing the distribution of potentially suitable and unsuitable 
habitat for wolves in the NRM and the documented dispersal distances of 
radio-collared wolves. These factors are the most likely to influence a 
split between the NRM DPS and other potential areas of occupancy. A 
smaller DPS might split the biological entity. A larger DPS might split 
a neighboring biological entity, should one ever be established.
    The boundary of the DPS was determined by the dispersal distances 
of wolves. The Service does not proactively prevent wolf dispersal in 
Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Likewise, Washington and Oregon State laws 
are, in general, as protective of wolves as the Act's experimental 
population regulations so the potential dispersal of wolves in those 
states is unaffected by delisting. Utah law also protects dispersing 
wolves, but such a small part of Utah will be delisted that it is 
unlikely to significantly affect dispersal into the endangered parts of 
Utah. Delisting simply means the federal legal framework for wolf 
conservation transitions to State law and regulation, not that wolves 
become unprotected. We conclude that the DPS boundary is unlikely to 
significantly affect the overall rate or survival of long distance 
dispersers. However, it will still remain unlikely that enough wolves 
will disperse outside the NRM DPS to start new populations because of 
the distances involved and the large amount of contiguous unsuitable 
habitat that is between NRM wolf breeding pairs and the closest 
theoretical suitable habitat capable of supporting wolf breeding pairs 
outside the NRM DPS.
    According to our DPS policy, an artificial or manmade boundary 
(such as Interstate, Federal, and State highways, State borders) may be 
used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the 
geographic area included within the DPS. We believe such use of easily 
understood boundaries will promote public understanding of the listing 
and ease in future management. In this case, the NRM DPS boundaries 
were defined along easily identifiable boundaries that represent the 
most appropriate DPS for this population (see DPS discussion in this 
rule for our rationale). While some suggested ``more biological'' 
boundaries like rivers or geological features, we do not believe such 
boundaries are of any greater biological meaning to wolves given their 
ability to cross such geographic features. In our view, the biological 
factors considered are likely to have the greatest influence on 
separation among populations.

Defining Suitable Habitat

    Issue 22: Some thought we should explain why some historically 
occupied lands were excluded from our definition of suitable habitat. 
Many commenters questioned our finding that peripheral portions of the 
DPS were insignificant. These commenters felt that this approach 
prevents further recovery by prematurely delisting unoccupied areas. 
These commenters requested that delisting in unoccupied areas should be 
precluded until threats are resolved in these areas and occupancy is 
secured. These commenters also contended that delisting such areas 
severed critical dispersal corridors. Some commenters cited wolf 
establishment in ``unsuitable'' portions of Oregon as evidence our 
position was in error.
    Response 22: Our identification of suitable habitat was based on 
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding pack 
persistence. Many areas of historic wolf habitat are no longer capable 
of supporting packs. Most of these areas have been so modified by human 
activities as to be unsuitable for wolves. This issue is discussed in 
more detail in Factor A below.
    We based our predictions of suitable and unsuitable habitat on the 
best scientific and commercial information as of the time of this rule. 
Oakleaf et al.'s (2006, p. 558) depiction of suitable habitat has been 
remarkably accurate when compared to wolf pack distribution over the 
past 6 years (Service et al. 2008, Figure 1). Carroll's et al. 2006) 
model was similar to Oakleaf's and it predicted some suitable habitat 
in northeast Oregon. We expect that someday a wolf pack will be 
confirmed in that area.
    A hundred years ago, people decided that wolves cannot live near 
livestock or people and so they exterminated all the wolves. Today, 
some people use the belief that wolves cannot live near livestock as a 
justification for removing all the livestock. It is true that wolves 
are such resilient animals that unsuitable habitat (e.g., mainly 
private prairie used for livestock grazing or human developments) could 
be transformed to suitable habitat by removing livestock, people, and 
human developments. However, this scenario is not realistic or 
necessary because far more than enough suitable habitat (e.g., mainly 
federal parks or forests containing abundant wild ungulates) exists to 
support many times over the minimum requirements of a recovered and 
viable wolf population. Such extreme measures are not reasonable and 
are not warranted or necessary to achieve wolf recovery in the NRM.
    Issue 23: Some commenters felt that we improperly considered more 
than biological criteria in defining suitable habitat by allowing the 
definition of suitable to consider human tolerance. Others stated that 
we misinterpreted the habitat suitability models because they only 
present probabilities of successful occupation by wolves under current 
conditions.
    Response 23: Suitable habitat for pack persistence considered a 
variety of factors, including, but not limited to, mortality. Suitable 
wolf habitat in the NRM is generally characterized as public land with 
mountainous, forested habitat that contains abundant year-round wild 
ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic 
livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 
agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat is not 
capable of supporting persistent packs. In the NRM, unsuitable habitat 
is generally considered to have the characteristics: Private land, flat 
open prairie or desert, low or seasonal wild ungulate populations, high 
road density, high numbers of year-round domestic livestock including 
many domestic sheep, high levels of agricultural use, and many people. 
When wolves occur in places with high levels of human activity, they 
experience an increased mortality risk. The level of impact from such 
mortality is directly related to the

[[Page 15147]]

location and numbers of humans and their activities. We recognize that 
areas unsuitable for pack persistence may still be occasionally 
traversed by wolves. Thus, some minimal level of protection is 
necessary in these areas.
    In terms of suitable habitat models, we recognize that none of the 
available models are exact indicators of what is ``suitable.'' Each 
model only identifies areas with a 50 percent or greater chance of 
being suitable. Thus, we made our determination based upon a number of 
factors including, but not limited to, these models.

Foreseeable Future

    Issue 24: Some folks believed that limiting foreseeable future to 
30 years was inappropriate.
    Response 24: We revised our definition of foreseeable future to 
take into account the variability of what is foreseeable for each 
threat factor. For some threat factors, a time horizon of more than 30 
years may be appropriate. For example, for our consideration of 
genetics (discussed under Factor E below), we reviewed a paper that 
looked 100 years into the future (vonHoldt et al. 2007).

Potential Threats to the NRM DPS

    Issue 25: A number of commenters disputed our analysis of the five 
listing factors, suggesting alternative scenarios where the NRM wolf 
population would be threatened in the future.
    Response 25: We updated and augmented the final rule's five-factor 
analysis to address specific issues raised. Our analysis of all of 
meaningful potential threat factors revealed that: (1) The NRM DPS is 
not threatened or endangered throughout ``all'' of its range (i.e., not 
threatened or endangered throughout all of the DPS); but (2) the 
Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range 
where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms. Thus, this final rule removes the Act's 
protections throughout the NRM DPS except for Wyoming. Wolves in 
Wyoming will continue to be regulated as a non-essential, experimental 
population.
    Issue 26: Some commenters felt that we did not fully evaluate or 
acknowledge the potential impacts from oil and gas development or other 
human development on the wolf population. Other habitat issues in the 
NRM that required additional consideration included rapid human 
population growth and the resulting increase in houses, roads, 
recreation, and wolf/human conflicts.
    Response 26: These issues are now considered under Factor A below.
    Issue 27: Some commenters thought that the Service should reduce 
the future threat to wolves by requiring that livestock be reduced or 
eliminated on public lands.
    Response 27: Wolves and livestock, primarily cattle and horses, can 
live near one another for extended periods of time without significant 
conflict if agency control prevents the behavior of chronic livestock 
depredation from becoming widespread in the wolf population. Through 
active management, most wolves learn that livestock can not be 
successfully attacked and do not view them as prey. However, when 
wolves and livestock mix, some livestock and some wolves will be 
killed. Furthermore, when wolves learn to attack livestock, the 
behavior is quickly learned by other wolves if it is not stopped. 
Because wild ungulates commonly winter on private property, even wolves 
that prey exclusively on wild ungulates will be in proximity to 
livestock during some portion of the year. Wolf recovery has occurred 
and will be maintained without substantial modification of traditional 
western land-use practices and without requiring the removal of 
livestock from public grazing allotments. Public lands in the NRM can 
have both large predators and seasonal livestock grazing. Livestock 
grazing practices on public and private lands do not need to be 
modified because wolf recovery is not threatened by the current levels 
of these activities. We believe State management will continue to 
successfully balance traditional livestock grazing practices, open 
space, and wolf conservation. If the wolf population were to expand 
significantly beyond its current outer boundaries, we anticipate that 
the level of livestock depredation would significantly increase. See 
Response 22.
    Issue 28: Some commenters were concerned about humane treatment of 
wolves and were opposed to certain methods of take, particularly aerial 
gunning and poisoning. Numerous parties suggested that the Service 
should not allow public hunting of wolves. Others suggested that we 
should require the use of non-lethal control tools to reduce conflict 
with livestock.
    Response 28: After delisting, the State, Tribal, and Federal 
entities will regulate take in a manner that will not threaten the wolf 
population. Wolves listed as a game animal (i.e., all wolves within the 
NRM DPS where the Act's protections are being removed) can only be 
taken by the public as proscribed by State statute, usually fair chase 
hunting or as furbearers by regulated trapping. Public take of wolves 
in the act of depredating on domestic animals is regulated by State 
defense of property laws and is limited to shooting. Wildlife agency 
professionals adhere to specific protocols when they capture, handle, 
or euthanize wildlife for research or management purposes. In the vast 
majority of situations, wolf control will be accomplished by regulated 
public hunting and trapping or agency control of problem wolves. State 
authorized wolf control may include, just as the federally authorized 
control program currently does, gunning from the air and ground 
trapping and, in a few cases, removing pups from dens. Deliberate 
poisoning of wolves will not be allowed due to current Environmental 
Protection Agency label restrictions on the use and application of all 
poisons (including M-44 devices) capable of killing wolves. Protections 
in National Parks would continue and would be unaffected by delisting.
    Hunting (and in some areas even unregulated hunting) has not 
threatened wolf populations (Boitani 2003). Hunting is a valuable, 
efficient, and cost-effective tool to help manage wildlife populations. 
Viable robust wolf populations in Canada, Alaska and other parts of the 
world are hunted and trapped and are not threatened by that type of 
take. The wolf population in Wyoming would remain listed and could not 
be legally hunted or trapped by the public under this rule. The Service 
recognized (Service 1994, p. 1-13) and encouraged (Bangs et al. in 
press; Bangs 2008) State wolf management programs to incorporate 
regulated public hunting in their wolf conservation programs. 
Conservation programs to restore large predators such as mountain 
lions, black bears, and wolves succeeded because of the historic 
restoration of wild ungulates, such as elk and deer, by State fish and 
game agencies and hunter dollars and involvement (Geist et al. 2001, p. 
175-181).
    While not required by the Act, the State, Tribal, and Federal 
managers will continue to use a combination of management options in 
order to reduce wolf/human conflicts, including nonlethal forms (Bangs 
et al. 2006). However, these methods are only effective in some 
circumstances, and no single tool is a cure for every problem. Lethal 
control will still be required in many circumstances. Lethal control 
also can improve the overall effectiveness of non-lethal methods 
(Brietenmoser et al. 2005, p. 70). In areas of the NRM DPS with year-
round high livestock density (unsuitable habitat) it is almost

[[Page 15148]]

impossible to prevent chronic livestock depredation if wolf packs form 
in those areas.
    Issue 29: Some commenters suggested that periodic population 
declines in portions of the NRM DPS related to disease occurrence and 
wolves killing other wolves to self-regulate the population 
demonstrated that delisting was premature.
    Response 29: There is a natural limit to how many wolves suitable 
habitat in the NRM can support. Preliminary data indicates wolf pack 
distribution has been stagnant since 2002, livestock conflicts and wolf 
control have increased (in some areas), and wolf numbers maybe 
stabilizing and that may limit the population long-term to around 1,500 
wolves. Wolf populations above carrying capacity appear to be more 
susceptible to disease than those below carrying capacity (Mech et al. 
2008, p. 833; Kreeger 2003, p. 202).
    Exposure to canid diseases is high in the NRM and localized disease 
outbreaks will continue to periodically occur but no diseases have 
impacted wolf recovery. State plans commit to monitoring wolf health to 
ensure any impacts caused by diseases or parasites are quickly 
detected. Furthermore, wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of 
available prey, intra-species conflict, other forms of mortality, and 
dispersal. Intra-species conflict appears to intensify when areas reach 
``social maximums.'' By managing for at least 50 percent above the 
minimal recovery levels, State and Federal management provide an 
adequate safety margin for such events. This margin, combined with the 
State's commitment to adaptively manage the species as needed, 
adequately addressed concerns about periodic population declines. 
Furthermore, wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe 
disruptions if mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent 
per year have been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller 
et al. 2003, pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2009, Table 4). Wolf biology 
in combination with careful monitoring and management ensure periodic 
population declines will not threaten or endanger the NRM DPS.
    Issue 30: Many people commented that the State regulatory 
frameworks were not adequate and should not have been approved. Some 
commenters cited anti-wolf statements by public officials and county 
ordinances as evidence that persecution of wolves will resume if 
delisting occurs.
    Response 30: We recognize that human persecution of wolves was the 
primary reason for their wide-spread extirpation across North America. 
We fully analyzed the nature and magnitude of this threat in Factors C, 
D, and E. below. Despite statements to the media by some public 
officials and some county ordinances that, if implemented, would be 
problematic for maintenance of a recovered wolf population, the 
official written policy and laws of the States supersede county rules 
and authorities and statements by politicians reported by the media. 
Our evaluation of State regulatory mechanisms considered all available 
laws, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, memorials, statements by 
elected officials, and State plans. State and Federal management 
ensures the continued long-term maintenance of a recovered NRM wolf 
population.
    Issue 31: Many commenters were concerned the States would not honor 
their commitments or would change their regulatory framework in a 
manner inconsistent with their wolf management plans after delisting. 
Such commenters pointed to State law or regulatory protections that 
changed after the publication of our previous final delisting 
determination.
    Response 31: We recognize that States can alter their regulatory 
framework after we issue a final delisting rule. Therefore, per our 
post-delisting monitoring requirements, we will initiate a status 
review to determine if relisting is warranted if States alter their 
State laws or management objectives in a manner that significantly 
increases the threat to the wolf population. Should relisting be 
required, we may make use of the emergency listing authorities under 
section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant risk to the well-
being of any recovered species. This measure will preclude inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms from threatening the wolf population in any State 
or recovery area. While our post-delisting monitoring window is 5 
years, meaningful changes in State law or management objectives that 
would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population could 
lead to reconsideration of listing, including the potential for 
emergency listing, at any point. For example, if a State changed their 
regulatory framework to authorize the unlimited and unregulated taking 
of wolves, a condition we have previously determined threatened a wolf 
population, emergency listing would be immediately pursued. Finally, as 
an additional layer of protection, the Act allows for citizen petitions 
to consider relisting should the population's status change.
    Issue 32: Some commenters indicated that that the States' defense 
of property laws represented an unregulated taking of wolves, because 
wolves could be killed regardless of the wolf population's status 
relative to the minimum recovery criteria. Other commenters suggested 
that we ignored the possibility of illegal take increasing once the 
protections of the Act were removed. Some commenters pointed to the 
high mortality levels that occurred after the previous delisting became 
effective as evidence that existing regulatory mechanisms are not 
adequate.
    Response 32: Except for the mortality that occurred in Wyoming's 
predatory animal area, nearly all of the NRM wolf mortality that 
occurred after our previous delisting took effect would have occurred 
even if the Act's protections had remained in place. In terms of take 
authorization, Idaho's and Montana's regulatory frameworks are similar 
to the existing nonessential experimental population regulations (59 FR 
60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, 
January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)). 
All forms of take will be considered in the States' total allowable 
mortality levels. While we expect the delisted NRM wolf population to 
be reduced from current levels, the NRM DPS will be managed for at 
least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves and is likely to 
consist of 973 to 1,302 wolves in 77 to 104 breeding pairs. Should 
periodic and unanticipated disruptions occur, wolf biology in 
combination with careful monitoring and management ensure declines will 
not threaten or endanger the NRM DPS. Montana and Idaho will manage the 
wolf population at high enough levels over their State minimums to 
provide a more than adequate safety margin for any additional Defense 
of Property take of wolves by private citizens. Furthermore, we believe 
such opportunities will be limited as it is uncommon to see a wolf 
attacking livestock, let alone be able to shoot it. In addition, the 
number of mountain lions and black bears taken under State regulations, 
and the number of wolves taken under similar federal regulations, has 
been low (about 8 percent of all problem wolves removed by agency 
authorized control) which further demonstrates that defense of property 
take is minor and will not exceed State safety margins.
    Issue 33: Some commenters thought wolf management plans were vague 
on how, whether, and to what extent enforcement would be carried out. 
Some commenters thought overwhelmingly anti-wolf public sentiment would 
discourage county and State attorneys from enforcing State wildlife 
laws,

[[Page 15149]]

particularly among attorneys with ambitions for higher public office.
    Response 33: Upon delisting, wolves in all States in the NRM DPS 
except Wyoming will become protected by State laws and regulations. In 
most cases, when State game agencies recommend prosecution, prosecution 
is pursued. As with all enforcement actions (State or Federal), the 
outcome depends upon the strength of the case. Such enforcement will 
ensure illegal activity remains minimal. While listed, illegal killing 
was estimated to be responsible for 10 percent of annual mortality. 
Following our previous delisting, there was no indication that illegal 
mortality levels changed from those occurring while wolves were 
delisted. While some level of illegal mortality will continue, State 
management well above minimal recovery levels, combined with wolves' 
reproductive capabilities, ensures the NRM DPS will not fall below 
recovery levels. Legal hunting opportunities may also reduce illegal 
killing. In the Midwest, it appeared that fewer wolves were illegally 
killed during the deer hunting season when wolves were delisted than 
when they were listed (Wydeven et al. 2008). Should failure to 
prosecute result in excessive mortality and an inability maintain the 
wolf population above recovery levels, an outcome we believe is 
extremely unlikely, we would consider relisting, including the 
potential for emergency relisting.
    Issue 34: We received numerous comments on the adequacy of 
Wyoming's 2003, 2007, and 2008 regulatory frameworks. Many commenters 
agreed with the July 18, 2008 District Court preliminary injunction 
order and suggested that it left no doubt that Wyoming's regulatory 
framework contained the same flaws as their 2003 regulatory framework. 
Some commenters recommended Wyoming be required to revise their wolf 
management law. Other commenters thought Wyoming's plan was adequate 
and pointed to our December 12, 2007 approval for support. Some of 
these commenters stated that a change in our position would result in 
an unobtainable moving target for Wyoming. The State of Wyoming 
strongly defended their 2007 law and their recent modification to 
develop an improved 2008 plan, and 2008 emergency regulations 
(Freudenthal 2008). The State of Wyoming suggested that we ``must 
consider the State's current wolf management statutes'' (2007 law, 2008 
regulations and plan), that we ``can not rely on the findings in a 
preliminary injunction order as a reason to reject the State's wolf 
management scheme,'' and that ``nothing in the text of the Act requires 
that the regulatory mechanisms governing the management of a species be 
statutory.'' Wyoming stated that our comments on their State plan which 
suggested a need to amend State law as the foundation for a revision to 
their regulatory framework ``provided irrefutable proof of this 
prejudged outcome.'' Finally, Wyoming wanted the Service clarify that 
it was in error to reject Wyoming's 2003 wolf plan and that the Service 
was correct in its 2007 approval of Wyoming's 2007 plan.
    Response 34: The best scientific and commercial data available 
demonstrates that the wolf population remains in need of the Act's 
protections in the Wyoming portion of the range because of inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms. The 2008 revisions in the Wyoming wolf 
management plan and emergency regulations (Chapter 21) are greatly 
improved over earlier versions, however they are still dependent on 
Wyoming statute and at times appear to promise actions that Wyoming 
statute prohibits. For example the Wyoming plan clearly commits to 
managing genetic connectivity, but State law allows no regulation of 
wolf mortality over 88 percent of the State, including many areas 
likely to be used by dispersing wolves. While we still believe most 
breeding pairs will remain inside of the boundary of the current trophy 
game area, the extent of the predatory animal area certainly limits 
most opportunity for genetic and demographic connectivity, a condition 
that will assist in sustaining wolf recovery in the GYA. We also 
believe our 2004 rejection of Wyoming's 2003 wolf management plan was 
correct (see 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). We also determined that in 
hindsight, we were probably too optimistic about what the law really 
committed Wyoming to and what could be accomplished by regulations 
alone. We also should have evaluated the potential for genetic 
connectivity more closely, when we determined the 2007 plan was 
sufficient. The very specific and deliberate intent, tone, and wording 
of Wyoming law clearly continues to be the major impediment to Wyoming 
developing and implementing a wolf management plan the Service can 
approve. In the past Wyoming has, with the exception of the 
professional recommendations they used to establish the proposed 2008 
hunting season, almost without exception encouraged wolf take to drive 
the wolf population down to minimum recovery levels. We believe that 
the best way for Wyoming to provide adequate regulatory mechanisms 
would be to develop a statewide trophy game management designation as 
the basis for any revised regulatory framework. At a minimum, this 
change would require a revision of Wyoming's wolf management law as the 
current law establishes the limits of the trophy game area to only 12 
percent of the State. Until Wyoming revises their statutes, management 
plan, and associated regulations, and is again Service approved, wolves 
in Wyoming shall remain protected by Act. See discussion in Factor D.
    Issue 35: Many parties commented on the amount of Wyoming that 
should be managed for maintenance of wolves including the size of 
Wyoming's trophy game area. Commenters suggested that wolf recovery 
could be accomplished: Without wolves in Wyoming; within Wyoming's 
National Parks; within Wyoming's National Parks and wilderness areas; 
or within the 12 percent of Wyoming currently designated as a trophy 
game area. Some believed Wyoming's 2007 law allowed the trophy game 
area to be expanded by the WGFC. Other commenters stated Wyoming's 
trophy game area should be much larger, including all suitable habitat 
and all potential dispersal corridors, or State-wide like all the other 
States in the NRM DPS. Some thought if wolves remained listed in 
Wyoming then they should continue be managed as experimental 
populations, others did not.
    Response 35: The predatory animal area of Wyoming covers at least 
88 percent of Wyoming and can not be expanded per Wyoming Statute. 
However, the 12 percent of Wyoming with trophy game protections can be 
reduced by WGFC. Statewide trophy game status: Will allow Wyoming Game 
and Fish Department (WGFD) more flexibility to devise a management 
strategy, including regulated harvest, that provides for self-
sustaining populations above recovery goals; prevents a patchwork of 
different management statuses; will be easier for the public to 
understand and, thus, will be easier to regulate; is similar to State 
management of other resources like mountain lions and black-bears; and 
is consistent with the current regulatory scheme in that the entire 
State is currently nonessential, experimental. Furthermore, maintenance 
of the Act's protections Statewide will assist Service Law Enforcement 
efforts that might otherwise be difficult if predatory animal status 
was allowed in portions of Wyoming. Finally, retaining the Act's 
protections in all of Wyoming is biologically warranted because: Wolf

[[Page 15150]]

dispersal capabilities allow them a range that encompasses the entire 
state; and retention of the Act's protections in only the current 
trophy game area would substantially limit potential genetic 
connectivity. This does not mean Wyoming must manage for wolf pack 
occupancy everywhere in Wyoming in the future as long as their 
management framework safely supports their share of a recovered wolf 
population and allows for adequate genetic and demographic connectivity 
into the future and incorporates normal wildlife population 
fluctuations, such as those that appear to have occurred in YNP in 
2008. Preliminary counts suggest the YNP segment of the wolf population 
may be 124 wolves in 12 packs with only 6 breeding pairs. However, the 
overall GYA population will be similar to 2007, indicating the 
importance of wolves in Wyoming outside YNP to maintaining wolf 
recovery in the GYA.
    Thus, this final rule removes the Act's protections throughout the 
NRM DPS except for Wyoming. Wolves in all of Wyoming will continue to 
be regulated as a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 
17.84 (i) and (n). We considered removing the Act's protection in those 
few often fragmented parts of Wyoming with adequate regulations, such 
as Wind River Tribal lands, National Parks and Refuges, but to ensure 
consistent enforcement of the Act, the potential wolf dispersal 
throughout Wyoming, and other reasons we did not. The adequacy of 
Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms is discussed further under Factor D 
below.
    Issue 36: Some believed Idaho mandated elimination of wolves. They 
quoted comments from state officials that suggested wolves be killed to 
minimum levels as soon as possible. Some indicated the Service should 
not have approved Idaho's wolf management plan. Others believed that 
the liberal nature of Idaho's March 28, 2008 defense of property law 
invited abuse and cited an incident where a person who chased a wolf 
for a mile before shooting it was not prosecuted. Some said Idaho's 
2002 plan makes clear its position is all wolf removal, that IDFG can 
reclassify wolves ID-36-201 and could expand methods of take (e.g., 
could broadcast poison). Others said the Service approved Idaho's plan 
before its step down implementation plan was developed, thus it was not 
known to be an adequate plan when approved. Others suggested Idaho's 
regulations were more than adequate and wolves should be delisted.
    Response 36: We coordinated extensively with Idaho on the 
development of its plan and carefully reviewed several drafts of the 
plan over the course of 2002. We stand by our conclusion that the Idaho 
plan constitutes adequate regulatory mechanisms. Idaho's implementation 
planning improved the specific wolf conservation measures Idaho would 
undertake. Central Idaho provides the largest contiguous block of 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRM as evidenced by the over 840 wolves 
living there now. The quality of this habitat, combined with the 
State's management strategy leave no doubt wolves will be maintained 
far above minimum recovery levels in Idaho. Idaho's comments on the 
proposed rule provide an excellent and detailed review of Idaho law, 
regulations and its formal position regarding the future of wolves in 
Idaho (Otter 2008). Both its description of how its defense of property 
laws and hunting regulations were developed are thorough and should 
remove any doubt that Idaho's regulatory framework will adequately 
regulate human-caused mortality and maintain a recovered wolf 
subpopulation in Idaho.
    We have also reviewed all the wolves taken under State defense of 
property regulations. Our March 2008 delisting was predicated on State 
defense of property laws being similar in their biological effect to 
the Acts' 2005 and 2008 experimental population regulations. The March 
28, 2008 law passed by the Idaho Legislature Idaho Code Sec.  36-1107 
was an amendment to an existing law that was specific to black bears 
and mountain lions. The law added wolves to the protection of property 
statute and added language that governed taking of wolves. It made the 
reporting of wolf mortality more stringent than that for bears and 
lions. Following the initial delisting of gray wolves, private control 
actions did not increase dramatically. From delisting through July 18, 
2008, eleven wolves were killed under Idaho's law. In 2006 and 2007, 
seven wolves were killed each year under the Act's 10(j) rule. The 
increase in wolves killed in 2008 by livestock and pet owners is 
consistent with an increase in wolves and concomitant depredations in 
Idaho that year.
    We reviewed the incident where an individual chased a wolf on a 
snow machine for a mile before shooting it. While IDFG recommended 
prosecution, the local county prosecutor determined the new law's 
definition of ``worrying'' may not have withstood the scrutiny of a 
jury under the circumstances in this case. The prosecutor supported 
IDGF issuing a warning to this individual in case should other 
questionable take occur in the future. We believe the particulars of 
this case make it unique. IDFG and the Idaho Attorney General's office 
are working with prosecutors to assure consistent enforcement of Sec.  
36-1107 throughout the state.
    In addition, all known Idaho wolf mortality, including that related 
to defense of property, count against the total mortality quota for 
that hunting unit and would be removed from the allowable hunting 
harvest. It is unlikely that such take would result in a level of take 
beyond that allowed by hunting district because hunting occurs after 
most defense of property take would occur. Thus, that level of 
mortality would be compensated for by either closing or reducing the 
hunting quota. Additionally, State management several times above 
minimum recovery levels provides further assurance that recovery will 
not be compromised by such sources of mortality. Therefore, we 
determine that the new law will not threaten the wolf population in 
Idaho as long as IDFG prosecutes most individuals who abuse it and 
Idaho maintains its commitment to manage their share of the wolf 
population well above minimum recovery levels.
    Issue 37: While most agreed that Montana appeared to have the best 
plan and regulatory framework of any State, and it should be the model 
for other states, others believed it was inadequate. Some thought the 
lack of a quota system on defense of property take of wolves allowed 
for unlimited and unregulated taking. Others thought that the level of 
hunting and trapping that Montana's plan could allow might threaten the 
wolf population.
    Response 37: Montana did an outstanding job of describing, in 
detail, its regulatory framework and its commitment to wolf management 
(McDonald 2008). We have reviewed all the wolves taken under State 
defense of property regulations. Our March 2008 delisting was 
predicated on State defense of property laws being similar in their 
biological effect to the Acts' 2005 and 2008 experimental population 
(10j) regulations. In Montana, only four wolves were taken by private 
citizens while wolves were delisted between March 28 and July 18, 2008, 
but all could have been taken under the Act's 10j regulations if the 
species had been listed. Montana conducted a thorough analysis before 
setting its hunting season quota and then chose a conservative harvest 
to build in extra caution. Montana regulatory frame clearly constitutes 
an adequate regulatory frame work for the purposes of the Act.

[[Page 15151]]

    Issue 38: Some commenters maintained that none of the NRM DPS 
should be delisted until Oregon, Washington, and Utah had approved wolf 
management plans.
    Response 38: Any wolf conservation by Washington, Oregon, Utah, and 
the Tribes will be beneficial, but is not necessary to either achieve 
or maintain a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. Still, Oregon 
and Utah have State wolf management plans/strategies and Washington is 
close to finishing theirs (See Factor D). We have assisted and 
consulted with them during those efforts. This is consistent with the 
recovery plan which considered parts of these States (Service 1987, p. 
2) as being associated with the NRM wolf population. Management in all 
three States appears likely to benefit the NRM DPS but not 
significantly.
    Issue 39: Some commenters wanted the States to manage for breeding 
pairs rather than undefined packs.
    Response 39: The discrepancy between breeding pairs and packs no 
longer appears relevant as the States and the Service have committed to 
measure wolf recovery criteria by breeding pairs and numbers of wolves 
(Montana 2003; IDFG 2007; Wyoming 2008, p. 13; Mitchell et al. 2008). 
However, Wyoming's comments seemed to suggest that YNP packs that did 
not raise pups in 2005 might qualify as breeding pairs anyway because 
they bred in 2006 (Freudenthal 2008, p. 8). This is not an accurate 
interpretation of the breeding pair metric.
    Issue 40: Some commenters recommended wolf management be 
transferred to the States and Tribes.
    Response 40: The Service agrees that a recovered wolf population is 
best managed by the respective States and Tribes. The States have 
relatively large and well-distributed professional fish and game 
agencies that have the demonstrated skills and experience that has 
successfully managed a diversity of resident species, including large 
carnivores. We believe these State agencies are similarly qualified to 
manage a recovered wolf population. State management of wolves will be 
in alignment with the classic State-led North American model for 
wildlife management which has been extremely successful at restoring, 
maintaining, and expanding the distribution of numerous populations of 
other wildlife species, including other large predators, throughout 
North America (Geist 2006, p. 1; Bangs 2008).
    Under cooperative agreements with us, Montana and Idaho, and Nez 
Perce Tribe have successfully managed wolves in those States for the 
past 4 to 13 years. The Blackfeet, Salish and Kootenia, and Wind River 
Tribes have also developed expertise in wolf management within their 
tribal wildlife agencies by participating in wolf management for the 
past several years. This allowed their organizations to develop 
experience, knowledge, and expertise in wolf management and 
conservation and to develop a track record of credibility and trust 
with state residents and local government agencies. Unfortunately, with 
the exception of a few months when wolves were delisted in 2008, 
Wyoming has chosen to not actively participate in wolf management. The 
Service worked closely with the States as they developed their wolf 
management plans to ensure that they will always maintain a wolf 
population that exceeds recovery criteria. We are confident the States, 
except Wyoming, and Tribes will adequately manage wolves so the 
protections of the Act will not again be required.
    Until Wyoming revises their statutes, management plan, and 
associated regulations, and they are approved by the Service, wolves in 
Wyoming continue to require the protections of the Act.
    Issue 41: Some parties raised a concern that State wolf management 
plans would not be implemented because funding for the plans is not 
guaranteed. These commenters thought that the lack of guaranteed 
funding undermined the adequacy of the regulatory mechanisms, thus, 
delisting should not occur.
    Response 41: It is not possible to predict with certainty future 
governmental appropriations, nor can we commit or require Federal funds 
beyond those appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). Even though 
federal funding is dependent on year-to-year allocations, we have 
consistently and fully funded wolf management. Federal funding will 
continue to be available in the future for State management, but 
certainly not to the extent while wolves were listed. The States 
recognize that implementation of their wolf management plans requires 
funding. The States have committed to secure the necessary funding to 
manage the wolf populations under the guidelines established by their 
approved State wolf management plans (Montana 2003, p. xiv; Idaho 2007, 
p. 24, 47-48; Idaho 2002; p. 23-25; Wyoming 2007, p. 29-31). All have 
worked with their congressional delegations to secure Federal funding, 
but recognized that other sources of funding may eventually be required 
to implement their plans. In addition to State license fees or other 
forms of State funding, Federal funding is available to help manage a 
delisted wolf population including in the form of direct 
appropriations, Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, other 
Federal grant programs, and private funding. The Service will continue 
to assist the States to secure adequate funding for wolf management. 
The Federal government will continue to fund wolf management in 
Wyoming. If wolf management by a State or Federal agency was 
inadequately funded to carry out the basic commitments of an approved 
State plan, then the promised management of threats by the States and 
the required monitoring of wolf populations might not be addressed. 
That scenario could trigger a status review for possible relisting 
under the Act, including possible use of the emergency listing 
authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a significant 
risk to the well-being of any recovered species.
    Issue 42: Several parties suggested that we should have considered 
the risk to the wolf population from catastrophic events such as fire, 
climate change, drought, disease, and stochastic events.
    Response 42: In response to these comments, we added a discussion 
of catastrophic events under Factor E below. Other potential 
catastrophic events are considered in other sections including our 
evaluation of habitat modification, diseases and parasites, human 
harassment and killing, genetic risks, climate change, and human 
attitudes. Wolves are one of the most adaptable and resilient land 
mammals on earth and, except for excessive human persecution, wolf 
populations can survive every type of natural catastrophic event. There 
is no record of a wolf population in historic habitat anywhere in the 
world ever being extirpated by a natural event, except perhaps during 
the ice ages.
    Issue 43: Some commenters requested the Service consider the 
potential for low genetic diversity to threaten the NRM DPS. They 
contend that the current or predicted population is not high enough to 
maintain long-term connectivity and genetic security. These commenters 
suggested this issue is of greatest concern in the GYA where geographic 
factors could isolate the population. Commenters recommended that we 
establish corridors of suitable habitat, or nearly contiguous pack 
territories, between the recovery areas. Some recommended that we 
provide habitat protections for identified natural linkage zones 
between and within the GYA and central Idaho and northwestern Montana. 
It also was recommended that we should designate critical habitat for 
these linkage zones.

[[Page 15152]]

    Response 43: We have greatly expanded our discussion in Factor E 
regarding genetics. Furthermore, Canadian authorities also have a long 
history of cooperation with us and have designed wolf management 
programs in Alberta and British Columbia to promote recovery and 
genetic exchange with Montana and Idaho (McDonald 2008). Assuming 
adequate regulation of take across all potential migratory corridors, 
we do not believe there is now or will be in the foreseeable future a 
need to develop specific habitat corridors for wolf dispersal. A number 
of factors make this unnecessary including: The current high levels of 
genetic diversity; assured future genetic exchange by natural dispersal 
or if necessary human assistance; the distance wolves routinely 
disperse through even highly unsuitable habitat; and the limited amount 
of current and future human development in the corridor between the 
recovery areas (and Canada), including the GYA, because of the amount 
and distribution of public land. Wolves have an unusual ability to 
rapidly disperse long distances, across virtually any habitat and 
select mates to maximize genetic diversity (Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 
1631; Linnell et al. 2005, p. 383; vonHoldt et al. 2007). Thus, 
connectivity issues are among the least likely to affect wolves when 
compared to nearly any other species of land mammal (Paquet et al. 
2006, p. 3; Liberg 2008, p. 1). If necessary any complications from a 
potential lack of natural habitat connectivity could be quickly 
resolved by agency-managed genetic exchange. Connectivity and genetics 
are discussed further below under factors A and E, respectively.
    Critical habitat can only be designated for threatened and 
endangered species. Furthermore, under section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the 
Act, critical habitat can not be designated for nonessential 
experimental populations. Therefore, across most of the NRM DPS, 
critical habitat has never been appropriate. Finally, since we are also 
removing the Act's protections across those portions of the DPS where 
the species was previously endangered these areas no longer qualify as 
potential critical habitat.
    Issue 44: Some commenters stated that we failed to consider the 
impacts of State hunts on the social structure of wolf packs.
    Response 44: Social status in wolf packs changes regardless of 
human-caused mortality and is part of wolf ecology. Humans do increase 
the rate of turn over, but healthy wolf populations all over the world, 
including Canada and Alaska, are harvested by people and wolf pack 
structure is amazingly resilient. The States have incorporated hunting 
seasons, bag limits, and fair chase methods of take to intentionally 
reduce the potential impact of human-caused mortality on pack breeding 
potential and its subsequent ability to successfully raise pups. This 
issue is considered under Factor E below.
    Issue 45: Some commenters encouraged us to investigate human 
dimensions with a protocol that would allow quantification of changes 
in the attitudes of the general public, farmers, hunters, and other 
stakeholders.
    Response 45: We agree that the values people hold about wolves may 
provide valuable insight into successful management strategies. The 
States have already conducted surveys about human values towards wolves 
(Idaho 2007, Appendix A; as one example) and will likely continue to do 
so in the future. We believe this information may be helpful to 
formulate State policies. However, such monitoring is not required by 
the Act in order to justify delisting.

Significant Portion of Range

    Issue 46: Several commenters stated that the 2007 Department of the 
Interior Solicitor's opinion (U.S. Department of the Interior, Office 
of the Solicitor 2007) was an incorrect interpretation of the Act. 
These commenters argued that we have authority to list or delist only 
whole species, subspecies, and DPSs--in other words, if we find a 
species to be in danger of extinction in only a significant portion of 
its range, we must list it and apply all of the protections of the Act 
to its entire range, even to portions of the range that are not at 
risk. These commenters opined that the partial listing approach 
represents a departure from thirty years of listing practice.
    In particular, some commenters suggested the NRM DPS should be 
protected rangewide because it retains the need for listing over a 
significant portion of its range. They suggested partial listings would 
lead to a limitless series of petitions and lawsuits over the status of 
taxa in portions of their ranges. Others suggested the NRM DPS should 
be delisted throughout its entire range, unless the threats are so 
severe in the Wyoming portion of the range that it puts the entire NRM 
DPS's future in doubt. These commenters suggested the Service's new 
listing approach inappropriately allows partial-listings when the loss 
of a portion of range results in a decrease, no matter how small, in 
the ability to conserve a species, subspecies, or DPS.
    Response 46: On March 16, 2007, the Solicitor of the Department of 
the Interior issued a memorandum opinion with an extensive evaluation 
of the meaning of ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (Department of the Interior, Office 
of the Solicitor 2007). We agree with the interpretation of the Act set 
forth in the Solicitor's opinion, and disagree with these comments for 
the reasons given in that opinion. Once we determine listing is 
appropriate, section 4(c) of the Act requires we ``specify with respect 
to each such species over what portion of its range it is threatened.'' 
In this case, we are specifying that the protections of the Act remain 
necessary in Wyoming. Thus, the protections of the Act shall remain in 
place in the Wyoming portion of its range. The interpretation of the 
Act advocated by these commenters fails to give sufficient 
consideration to the import of section 4(c), is inconsistent with 
legislative history of the Act that strongly supports the view that 
Congress intended to give the Secretary broad discretion to tailor the 
protections of the Act with the needs of the species.
    Moreover, even before the 2007 Solicitors opinion, we have applied 
differential levels of protections for species facing differential 
levels of threats in different parts of their range. For example, in 
1978, the gray wolf was protected as endangered in the lower-48 States, 
except in Minnesota, where it was protected as threatened (43 FR 9607, 
March 9, 1978). Nor is the listing determination for NRM DPS the only 
listing determination applying the Solicitor's opinion. In our 2008 
Gunnison prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) 12-month finding (73 FR 6660, 
February 5, 2008), we determined that the Gunnison's prairie dog does 
not warrant the Act's protections throughout its range, but that the 
significant portion of the species' range located in central and south-
central Colorado and northcentral New Mexico does warrant protection 
under the Act. On July 10, 2008, we determined the Preble's meadow 
jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) was not threatened throughout 
all of its range and the portion of the subspecies' range located in 
Colorado represented a significant portion of the range where the 
subspecies should retain its threatened status (73 FR 39790). Thus, 
this rule removes the Act's protections in Wyoming while retaining them 
in Colorado (73 FR 39790, July 10, 2008).
    According to the Solicitor's opinion, we have broad discretion in 
defining what portion of a range is ``significant,'' but this 
discretion is not unlimited.

[[Page 15153]]

Specifically, we may not define ``significant'' to require that a 
species is endangered only if the threats faced by a species in a 
portion of its range are so severe as to threaten the viability of the 
species as a whole. The comment that a portion of the range of a 
species can be significant only if its loss would put the future of the 
species in doubt rests on a single quote from hearing testimony on a 
bill that was a precursor to the Act. If by the future of the species 
being in doubt, the commenter meant that the threat to the portion of 
the range must threaten the entire species, such an interpretation 
would read the ``significant portion or its range.'' The Solicitor's 
opinion includes a comprehensive evaluation of this issue and the 
relevant case law.
    For this determination, we used an analysis similar to that we have 
used in other recent listing determinations: A portion of a species' 
range is significant if it is part of the current range of the species 
and it contributes substantially to the representation, resiliency, or 
redundancy of the species. The contribution must be at a level such 
that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the 
species. In other words, in considering significance, the Service asks 
whether the loss of this portion likely would eventually move the 
species toward extinction, but not to the point where the species 
should be listed as threatened or endangered throughout all of its 
range.
    Issue 47: Several commenters stated that the ``partial-listing'' 
approach allowed by the Solicitor's opinion undoes the effect of the 
1978 DPS amendments to the Act.
    Response 47: We do not believe this approach undoes the 1978 
amendments to the Act. Instead, it compliments the 1978 amendments. A 
DPS of a vertebrate species which interbreeds when mature is considered 
and treated as a species (i.e., a listable entity) under the Act. A 
significant portion of the range is a portion of the range of the 
listed entity (whether a full species, subspecies, or DPS of a 
vertebrate) that contributes meaningfully to the conservation of the 
species. Therefore, we may apply the protections of the Act in a 
significant portion of a DPS. In addition, we may apply the protections 
of the Act in a significant portion of a species or subspecies of non-
vertebrate.
    According to our DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), a DPS 
must be discrete and must be significant to the taxon to which it 
belongs (species or subspecies) as a whole. The term ``significant'' in 
the Act's definitions of endangered and threatened species should not 
be considered entirely equivalent to the ``significance'' element of 
the DPS policy. However, we recognize that many of the attributes 
(described below) we have identified as important for evaluating 
whether a portion of a species' range is significant are similar to the 
attributes identified in the DPS policy as being appropriate for 
evaluating the significance of a potential DPS. There is no requirement 
that a significant portion of the range be discrete, but similar to 
DPSs, a significant portion of the range must be significant. As 
explained in detail previously, the significance of a significant 
portion of the range is based on an evaluation of its contribution to 
the conservation of the listable entity being considered. The DPS 
policy lists four possible factors to consider when determining 
significance, but does not limit consideration of significance to only 
those four factors. The considerations we made in this instance for 
determining whether a portion is significant encompass and expand on 
some of the concepts in the DPS policy.
    Issue 48: Some commenters recommended we use a 4(d) rule to reduce 
regulatory restrictions in more secure portions of its range instead of 
the significant portion of range approach.
    Response 48: Special rules under section 4(d) of the Act apply only 
where the protections of the Act are in place. Thus, once we determined 
the NRM DPS was not threatened in all of its range, use of section 4(d) 
was no longer an option across most of the DPS. While a 4(d) rule 
allows us to tailor the Act's taking provisions as necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species, the approach 
used here also eliminates additional unnecessary regulation. We believe 
this approach is more consistent with the intention of Congress as 
expressed in the legislative history concerning the phrase 
``significant portion of its range.''
    Issue 49: Some commenters suggested a ``partial delisting'' would 
not improve the conservation status of the DPS and would treat 
different communities inequitably with regards to the level of 
protection required and costs associated with them over different 
geographic areas.
    Response 49: We believe this approach allows for a more surgical 
application of the Act, as envisioned by Congress when it wrote the 
``significant portion of its range'' language. The Act does not allow 
us to consider in this listing decision whether there would be higher 
costs in one portion of the range than in the rest of the NRM DPS. On 
the whole, we believe this targeted approach provides for the necessary 
and appropriate needs of the species, while avoiding unnecessary 
regulatory burdens.
    Issue 50: Many commenters provided opinions on what portion of 
Wyoming was a significant portion of range. Some commenters supported 
the position in our 2007 proposal that the only significant portion of 
Wyoming was the 12 percent identified in State law as the trophy game 
area. Many commenters were concerned that these boundaries would 
constrain our ability to maintain a recovered population in Wyoming and 
instead suggested all of Wyoming was a significant portion of range for 
wolves. Some commenters indicated the significant portion of Wyoming 
should include all areas of suitable habitat and potential dispersal 
corridors to other NRM DPS recovery areas. Other commenters thought the 
significant portion of Wyoming should include potential included 
corridors to States outside the NRM DPS and cited documented dispersal 
of wolves across various portions of Wyoming into South Dakota, 
Colorado, and Utah as evidence. Other commenters indicated that all of 
Wyoming was once historic habitat, thus all Wyoming should now be 
considered a significant portion of range. Still other commenters 
suggested that the significant portion of range should not split the 
recovery area and should include the entire GYA (including those 
portions of the recovery area in Montana and Idaho). Several commenters 
stated that management practicality favors use of the man-made 
boundaries. Our significant portion of range analysis can be found in 
the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis section of this rule below.
    Response 50: After careful consideration, we now believe that the 
boundaries of the significant portion of the range in Wyoming should be 
expanded to include the entire State. Retaining the Act's protections 
Statewide: Encloses and defines the area where threats are sufficient 
to result in a determination that a portion of a DPS' range is 
significant, and is endangered or threatened; clearly defines the 
portion of the range that is specified as threatened or endangered; and 
does not circumscribe the current distribution of the species so 
tightly that opportunities to maintain recovery are foreclosed. Man-
made boundaries are appropriate because of these boundaries correspond 
to differences in threat management; these differences in threat 
management result in biological differences in status. There also are a 
practical considerations (e.g., law enforcement) supporting use

[[Page 15154]]

of the State line to delineate the significant portion of range where 
the Act's protections are still necessary. Retention of the Act's 
protections throughout the GYA, including those portions in Idaho and 
Montana, is not necessary given the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms 
in those States. These issues are discussed further in the Conclusion 
of the 5-Factor Analysis section below.
    Issue 51: Some commenters expressed dissenting views and 
interpretations of the word ``range'' in the Act's phrase ``significant 
portion of its range.'' Several believed that ``range'' should mean 
historical range. Others opined that our definition was the same used 
in our 2003 rule that was invalidated by the court (68 FR 15804, April 
1, 2003). Still others suggested our consideration of significant 
portion of range should consider all suitable or potential habitat.
    Response 51: As elaborated in the 2007 memoradum opinion 
(Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 2007), we believe 
the law is clear that ``range'' in this phrase refers to ``current 
range,'' not ``historical range'' and that the Service therefore must 
focus primarily on current range. Data about the historical range and 
how the species came to be extinct in a portion of its historical range 
may be relevant in understanding or predicting whether a species is 
``in danger of extinction'' in its current range. The fact that a 
species has ceased to exist in what may have been portions of its 
historical range does not necessarily mean that it is ``in danger of 
extinction'' in a significant portion of the range where it currently 
exists. For the purposes of this rule, ``range'' includes all of the 
NRM DPS (as identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1). 
Thus, our five-factor analysis analyzed threats across all portions of 
the NRM DPS.

Public Involvement

    Issue 52: Some thought that the Service should have provided 
additional opportunities to learn more about the proposal and to 
provide comments including additional public hearings. Specifically, we 
received requests for hearings in Denver, Colorado, Seattle, 
Washington, Portland, Oregon, Washington, DC, and Jackson, Wyoming.
    Response 52: We have provided ample opportunity for public comment 
including public comment periods totaling 150 days. Such a lengthy 
comment period goes well beyond the basic requirements of the Act and 
other Federal rulemaking procedures. Section 4(b)(5)(E) requires that 
we hold one public hearing on proposed regulations if requested. During 
this rulemaking process we held eight public hearings and eight open 
houses (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007; 73 
FR 36939, July 6, 2007). We selected locations that were within a 
reasonable driving distance of where wolves live and in every State 
within the NRM DPS. We also alerted interested parties to the details 
of public hearings and opportunities for public comment. Public hearing 
times and locations and other avenues to comment were announced in the 
Federal Register, posted on our Web site and in our weekly wolf 
reports, and publicized in local and national press releases. All 
comments, whether presented at a public hearing or provided in another 
manner, received the same review and consideration. Commenting via 
electronic, hand delivery, or letter allowed unlimited space to express 
comments, as opposed to the public hearing format, which limited 
comments to three minutes in order to provide an opportunity for all 
attending to speak. Over 520,000 comments were received including 
approximately 240,000 comments during our most recent comment period. 
This significant effort satisfies our statutory responsibility under 
the Act.

Scientific Analyses

    Issue 53: Some commenters recommended we conduct a population 
viability analysis (PVA) or other additional modeling exercises or 
analysis before delisting.
    Response 53: The Act requires that we use the best scientific data 
available when we make decisions to list, reclassify, or delist a 
species. PVAs can be valuable as a tool to help us understand the 
population dynamics of a rare species (White 2000). They can be useful 
in identifying gaps in our knowledge of the demographic parameters that 
are most important to a species' survival, but they cannot tell us how 
many individuals are necessary to avoid extinction. The difficulty of 
applying PVA techniques to wolves has been discussed by Fritts and 
Carbyn (1995) and Boitani (2003). Problems include: Our inability to 
provide accurate input information for the probability of occurrence 
of, and impact from, catastrophic events (such as a major disease 
outbreak or prey base collapse); our inability to incorporate all the 
complexities and feedback loops inherent in wild systems and agency 
adaptive management strategies; our inability to provide realistic 
inputs for the influences of environmental variation (such as annual 
fluctuations in winter severity and the resulting impacts on prey 
abundance and vulnerability); temporal variation; selective outbreeding 
(vonHoldt et al. 2007); individual heterogeneity; and difficulty in 
dealing with the spatial aspects of extreme territoriality and the 
long-distance dispersals shown by wolves. Relatively minor changes in 
any of these input values into a theoretical model can result in vastly 
different outcomes. Thus, while we reviewed most of the wolf PVAs 
conducted to date, we believe conducting another PVA-type analysis on 
the effect of wolf population management would be of limited value in 
the NRM DPS. Instead, we relied upon an extensive body of empirical 
data on wolves and the NRM wolf population. We believe the State, 
Tribal and Federal commitments for adaptive management preclude any 
need to theorize regarding the NRM wolf population's future status. We 
also used models that employed PVA-like parameters and analysis to 
identify potentially suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS now and into 
the future (Carroll et al. 2003, 2006; Carroll 2006).
    While some suggested that we conduct a PVA based on maintenance of 
30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves or capping a wolf population at an 
arbitrary level, we believe this would lead to an inaccurate and 
misleading conclusion. Any such analysis would ignore the fluctuating 
nature of wildlife populations, actual requirements of the recovery 
goal, the commitments to manage well above that level, and to adapt 
their management strategies and adjust allowable rates of human-caused 
mortality should the population ever appear to not be meeting their 
management objectives that exceed recovery levels.
    One PVA that maybe instructive to the NRM was one from Wisconsin 
(1999). It suggested a totally isolated population of 300-500 wolves 
would have a high probability of persisting for 100 years under most 
scenarios evaluated. Managing wolves at a hypothetical cultural 
carrying capacity of 300 instead of allowing the population to reach 
the biological carrying capacity of 500 had little effect on the risk 
of extinction * * Virtually all simulated populations below 80 
individuals declined in the high environmental variability scenarios 
(Bangs 2002, p. 6).
    Issue 54: Some commenters felt that it was difficult to judge the 
scientific validity of the science we relied upon because some of the 
science and literature was gray literature, had not been peer reviewed, 
was in preparation, or was through personal communication.

[[Page 15155]]

    Response 54: While we attempt to use peer reviewed literature to 
the maximum extent possible, the Act requires us to make our decision 
based on the best scientific and commercial data available regardless 
of form. Because we have so many ongoing research and monitoring 
projects new data are constantly being collected, analyzed, peer 
reviewed, and published. Such information often represents the best 
scientific data available (Service et al. 2007, p. 64, 114, 183, 213). 
All citations have been and continue to be available upon request.

Relisting Criteria

    Issue 55: Some commenters recommended we develop a clear, 
unequivocal set of criteria for automatic relisting. Some commenters 
argued that monitoring is not sufficient if the results of 
investigations are not promptly incorporated in policy and management, 
and this type of rapid response requires availability of contingency 
funds, clear roles and authorities, and the power to impose the 
necessary actions on all involved partners. They state that because the 
effectiveness of the monitoring program depends upon adequate funding, 
the monitoring plan should have secure funding for at least five years 
before delisting occurs.
    Response 55: State, Tribal, and Federal partners have committed to 
monitor the wolf population according to the breeding pair standard and 
publish annual reports of their activities for at least the first 5 
years after delisting. We will post this information and our analysis 
of it annually.
    While the Act contains no provision for ``automatic'' relisting of 
a species based on quantitative criteria, we believe that our criteria 
for relisting consideration are clear. Three scenarios could lead us to 
initiate a status review and analysis of threats to determine if 
relisting is warranted including: (1) If the State wolf population 
falls below the minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 
breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either Montana or Idaho at 
the end of the year; (2) if the wolf population segment in Montana or 
Idaho falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the 
year in either of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a 
change in State law or management objectives would significantly 
increase the threat to the wolf population. All such reviews would be 
made available for public review and comment, including peer review by 
select species experts. Additionally, if any of these scenarios 
occurred during the mandatory 5-year post-delisting monitoring period, 
the post-delisting monitoring period would be extended 5 additional 
years from that point. If Wyoming were to develop a Service-approved 
regulatory framework it would be delisted in a separate rule and that 
proposed rule would contain additional post-delisting monitoring 
criteria for Wyoming.
    Any such status review would analyze status relative to the 
definition of threatened or endangered considering the 5 factors 
outlined in section 4(a)(1). If, at any time, data indicate that 
protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 
listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. If 
emergency listing was instituted, we would then have 240 days to 
complete a conventional listing rule before the protections of the 
emergency rule would expire.
    Funding for government programs is never certain at any level, but 
the funding to support wolf management activities of the various 
Federal and State agencies in the NRM has been consistently obligated 
for the past 20 years and we have a high level of confidence that the 
resources necessary to carry out the monitoring and management programs 
will continue for the foreseeable future. We may provide Federal 
funding for Federal monitoring requirements.

Use of Section 6 Agreements for States Outside the NRM DPS

    Issue 56: Our proposal solicited comments regarding our intention 
to use section 6 agreements to allow States outside the NRM DPS with 
Service-approved wolf management plans to assume management of listed 
wolves, including nonlethal and lethal control of problem wolves. Some 
commenter found this approach was inappropriate while others commended 
the idea.
    Response 56: This issue is not directly related to delisting in the 
NRM DPS and has been removed from this final rule.

Miscellaneous Issues Not Germane to This Rulemaking

    Issue 57: Some commenters pointed out the positive and negative 
economic impacts of wolves, especially related to tourism in YNP, 
livestock depredation, and competition with hunters for surplus big 
game. Many people believed wolf damage to livestock and big game 
populations was increasing and becoming much more of an economic 
burden.
    Response 57: Under the Act, listing decisions are not to consider 
economic factors. That said, we believe wolf-related tourism in places 
like YNP will not be affected by delisting. Additionally, State 
management will reduce economic losses caused by livestock depredation 
and competition with hunters for wild ungulates.
    Issue 58: Many members of the public commented on the timing of 
this regulation. Most thought this final determination was being 
rushed. Several commenters suggested that we postpone a final 
determination until Wyoming revises its regulatory framework including 
the passage of new wolf management legislation. Some commenters 
suggested that we should not finalize this regulation until final 2008 
wolf population data is available.
    Response 58: Section 4(b)(6)(A) of the Act indicates that we should 
publish final rules within one year of proposed rules. Section 
4(b)(1)(A) requires that we make such determinations solely on the best 
scientific and commercial information available. Given our statutory 
directive to make determinations within one year and instruction to 
consider ``available'' information, we felt further delay was not 
prudent. Our development of previous Federal Register documents allowed 
for this final rule to be prepared in much shorter timeframes than are 
typical for federal rulemaking.
    Furthermore, delisting of the NRM wolf population has been delayed 
for many years as we waited and encouraged Wyoming to develop a 
regulatory framework that would conserve a recovered wolf population 
and could withstand legal challenge. It would be even more unfair to 
the other States, who have done their part, to wait even longer on 
possible future actions by Wyoming. We hope to remove the Act's 
protections in Wyoming once the State has an adequate regulatory 
framework in place. This rule includes 2008 data.
    Issue 59: Several commenters, including Wyoming, opined that we 
should have started the rulemaking process over again (i.e., reproposed 
delisting) following the remand and vacatur of our previous final rule. 
A few commenters expressed confusion over what was being proposed. 
Specifically, they stated that ``To satisfy the Administrative 
Procedure Act's requirements for notice and comment rulemaking, 
interested parties must not be expected to `divine [the Agency's] 
unspoken thoughts' (Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1299 
(D.C. Cir. 2000)).''
    Response 59: The October 14, 2008 U.S. District Court order 
remanded and vacated our final rule. All other documents associated 
with this rulemaking remained in place. Thus, reproposing this action 
was unnecessary.

[[Page 15156]]

    We believe our February 8, 2007, (72 FR 6106) delisting proposal 
and the October 28, 2008, (73 FR 63926) notice reopening the comment 
period were clear in what we were proposing. Simply, we proposed to 
identify a NRM gray wolf DPS and remove most or all this DPS from the 
list of threatened and endangered wildlife. As noted in the proposal, 
if Wyoming failed to develop a management regime to adequately conserve 
wolves, we would retain the Act's protections in a significant portion 
of the range in the Wyoming portion of the NRM DPS. Our October 28, 
2008, (73 FR 63926) notice reopening the comment period, summarized 
numerous flaws in Wyoming's wolf management framework. This notice (73 
FR 63926, October 28, 2008) also noted that all documents relevant to 
evaluating the adequacy of Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms, including 
Wyoming State law, their wolf management plan, their implementing 
regulations (Wyoming Chapter 21), and other supporting information, 
were available on our website at: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov. When 
Wyoming issued emergency regulations and a draft revised wolf 
management plan on October 27, 2008, we immediately posted online. 
Failure to remedy the adequacy of their regulatory framework resulted 
in our decision to retain the Act's protections in Wyoming.
    Issue 60: Some commenters thought the recovery program illegally 
restored the wrong subspecies of wolf to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Response 60: In the mid-1980's, naturally dispersing wolves from 
Canada began to form packs in northwestern Montana. In 1995 and 1996, 
wolves were reintroduced to YNP and Central Idaho. For the 
nonessential-experimental areas, we selected donor wolves that had the 
greatest chance of resulting in a successful reintroduction program 
(Service 1994, p. 5-89). Specifically, we selected wolves living in 
habitat and feeding on prey most similar to those of the reintroduction 
areas (Service 1994, p. 5-89). Our 1994 EIS noted that wolf populations 
that historically inhabited the Yellowstone and central Idaho area were 
slightly smaller and contained fewer black color phase individuals than 
the more northern Canadian wolves that were dispersing southward and 
occupying Montana (Service 1994, p. 5-106). At the time, the 1994 EIS 
noted that recent molecular investigations indicated that gray wolves 
throughout North America were all one subspecies of gray wolf (Service 
1994, p. 5-106). The EIS went on to say that only red wolves and 
Mexican wolves were genetically distinct at the molecular level 
(Service 1994, p. 5-106). Resolution of species' subspecific taxonomy 
remains elusive as the science continues to evolve (Hall 1984, pp. 2-
11; Service 1994, pp. 1-21-22; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 353; Nowak 
1995, p. 375; Nowak 2003, pp. 248-50; Wayne and Vila 2003, pp. 223-4; 
Leonard et al. 2005; p. 1; Leonard and Wayne 2007, p. 1). Legally, the 
subspecies issue remains irrelevant, as the gray wolf has been listed 
at the species level in the lower 48 States since 1978.
    Issue 61: Many comments were made on issues that were not related 
to or affected by this rulemaking. Most often these issues involved: 
Strongly held personal opinions or perceptions about Federal, State, or 
Tribal government or authorities; property rights; mistrust of 
political leadership, environmentalists and/or judges; methods of take; 
risks to human safety; negative affects of wolves on elk and deer 
herds, hunting, State wildlife agency budgets, outfitting, or livestock 
production; negative affect of this action to tourism; ecosystem 
restoration; the U.S. Constitution; what would Jesus do; wildlife 
management in general; wolves and wolf management; and modifications to 
the NRM experimental population special 10(j) rule.
    Response 61: We respect these opinions, but they are beyond the 
scope of this rulemaking.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing 
species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as 
including any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and 
any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that 
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), 
we may remove the protections of the Act if the best available 
scientific and commercial data substantiate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is 
extinct; (2) the species has recovered; or (3) the original scientific 
data used at the time the species was classified were in error.
    A species may be delisted as recovered only if the best scientific 
and commercial data available indicate that it is no longer endangered 
or threatened. Determining whether a species meets the recovered 
definition requires consideration of the five categories of threats 
specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already 
listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is an 
evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the 
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the 
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the 
removal or reduction of the Act's protections.
    Under section 3 of the Act, a species is ``endangered'' if it is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its 
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion 
of its range.'' The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion 
of its range'' refers to the range in which the species currently 
exists. For the purposes of this rule, ``range'' includes all of the 
NRM DPS (as identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1).
    Evaluating whether the species should be considered threatened or 
endangered in all or a significant portion of its range is a multiple-
step analysis. If we determine that the species is endangered 
throughout all of its range, we list it as endangered throughout its 
range and no further analysis is necessary. If not, we then evaluate if 
the species meets the definition of threatened throughout all of its 
range. If the species is threatened in all of its range, we list the 
species as threatened and consider if any significant portions of its 
range warrant listing as endangered. If we determine that the species 
is not threatened or endangered in all of its range, we consider 
whether any significant portions of its range warrant consideration as 
threatened or endangered. If we determine that the species is 
threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, the 
provisions of the Act would only apply to the significant portion of 
the species' range where it is threatened or endangered.
    Foreseeable future is defined by the Services on a case-by-case 
basis, taking into consideration a variety of species-specific factors 
such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, demography, threat 
projection timeframes, and environmental variability. ``Foreseeable'' 
is commonly viewed as ``such as reasonably can or should be 
anticipated: Such that a person of ordinary prudence would expect it to 
occur or exist under the circumstances'' (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary 
of Law 1996: Western Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho 2005; CV 04-
168-MHW). For the NRM DPS, the foreseeable future differs for

[[Page 15157]]

each factor potentially affecting the DPS. It took a considerable 
length of time for public attitudes and regulations to result in a 
social climate that promoted and allowed for wolf restoration in the 
WGL DPS and NRM DPS. The length of time over which this shift occurred, 
and the ensuing stability in those attitudes, give us confidence that 
this social climate will persist for the foreseeable future in the 
portion of the DPS which we are removing from ESA protections. 
Available habitat and potential future distribution models (Carroll et 
al. 2003, 536; Carroll et al. 2006, Figure 6) predict out about 30 
years. For some threat factors, a longer time horizon may be 
appropriate. In our consideration of genetics, we reviewed a paper that 
looked 100 years into the future (vonHoldt et al. 2007). When 
evaluating the available information, with respect to foreseeable 
future, we take into account reduced confidence as we forecast further 
into the future.
    The following analysis examines all five factors currently 
affecting, or that are likely to affect, the NRM gray wolf DPS within 
the foreseeable future.

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

    The NRM DPS is approximately 980,803 km\2\ (378,690 mi\2\) and 
includes 402,606 km\2\ (155,447 mi\2\) of Federal land (41 percent); 
49,803 km\2\ (19,229 mi\2\) of State land (5 percent); 32,942 km\2\ 
(12,719 mi\2\) of Tribal land (3 percent); 427,998 km\2\ (165,251 
mi\2\) of private land (44 percent) (the remaining area is either water 
or lands in Washington that were not categorized into ownership in the 
geographic information system layers we analyzed). The DPS contains 
large amounts of three Ecoregion Divisions--Temperate Steppe (prairie) 
(312,148 km\2\ [120,521 mi\2\]); Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) 
(404,921 km\2\ [156,341 mi\2\]); and Temperate Desert (high desert) 
(263,544 km\2\ [101,755 mi\2\]) (Bailey 1995, p. iv).
    The following analysis focuses on suitable habitat (areas that have 
a 50 percent or greater change of supporting breeding pairs or 
persistent wolf packs) within the DPS and currently occupied areas. 
Then, unsuitable habitat is examined. Habitat suitability is based on 
biological features which impact the ability of wolf packs to persist. 
A number of threats to habitat are examined including increased human 
populations and development (including oil and gas), connectivity, 
ungulate populations, and livestock grazing.
    Suitable Habitat--Wolves once occupied or transited all of the NRM 
DPS. However, much of the wolf's historical range within this area has 
been modified for human use and is no longer suitable habitat to 
support wolf packs and wolf breeding pairs. We have reviewed the 
quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat relative to the 
biological requirements of wolves. In doing so we reviewed two models, 
Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 555-558) and Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 536-
548; 2006, pp. 27-31), to help us gauge the current amount and 
distribution of suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Both models ranked 
areas as suitable habitat if they had characteristics that indicated 
they might have a 50 percent or greater chance of supporting wolf 
packs. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM was typically characterized in 
both models as public land with mountainous, forested habitat that 
contains abundant year-round wild ungulate populations, low road 
density, low numbers of domestic livestock that are only present 
seasonally, few domestic sheep, low agricultural use, and few people. 
Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically just the opposite (i.e., private 
land, flat open prairie or desert, low or seasonal wild ungulate 
populations, high road density, high numbers of year-round domestic 
livestock including many domestic sheep, high levels of agricultural 
use, and many people). Despite their similarities, these two models had 
substantial differences in the area analyzed, layers, inputs, and 
assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll 
et al. (2006, p. 33) models predicted different amounts of 
theoretically suitable wolf habitat in areas examined by both models 
(i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming).
    Oakleaf's model was a more intensive effort that looked at 
potential wolf habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 
2005, p. 555). It used roads accessible to two-wheel and four-wheel 
vehicles, topography (slope and elevation), land ownership, relative 
ungulate density (based on State harvest statistics), cattle (Bos sp.) 
and sheep density, vegetation characteristics (ecoregions and land 
cover), and human density to comprise its geographic information system 
layers. Oakleaf analyzed the characteristics of areas occupied and not 
occupied by NRM wolf packs through 2000 to predict what other areas in 
the NRM might be suitable or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation 
(Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) 
ranked 170,228 km\2\ (65,725 mi\2\) as suitable habitat in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Carroll's model analyzed a much larger area (all 12 western States 
and northern Mexico) in a less specific way (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 
27-31). Carroll's model used density and type of roads, human 
population density and distribution, slope, and vegetative greenness to 
estimate relative ungulate density to predict associated wolf survival 
and fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 29). The combination of a 
geographic information system model and wolf population parameters were 
used to develop estimates of habitat theoretically suitable for wolf 
pack persistence. In addition, Carroll predicted the potential effect 
on suitable wolf habitat of increased road development and human 
density expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 30-31). Within the 
proposed DPS, Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 27-31) ranked 277,377 km\2\ 
(107,096 mi\2\) as suitable including 105,993 km\2\ (40,924 mi\2\) in 
Montana; 82,507 km\2\ (31,856 mi\2\) in Idaho; 77,202 km\2\ (29,808 
mi\2\) in Wyoming; 6,620 km\2\ (2,556 mi\2\) in Oregon; 4,286 km\2\ 
(1,655 mi\2\) in Utah; and 769 km\2\ (297 mi\2\) in Washington. 
Approximately 96 percent of the suitable habitat (265,703 km\2\ 
(102,588 mi\2\)) within the DPS occurred in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming. According to the Carroll model, approximately 28 percent of 
the NRM DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, 
pp. 27-31).
    The Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31-34) model tended to be more 
generous in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions 
than the Oakleaf (et al. 2006, pp. 558-560) model or that our field 
observations indicate is realistic. But Carroll's model provided a 
valuable relative measure across the western United States upon which 
comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not incorporate 
livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf model did 
(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-29; Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 556). Thus, 
that model did not consider those conditions where wolf mortality is 
high and habitat unsuitable because of chronic conflict with livestock. 
During the past 20 years, wolf packs have been unable to persist in 
areas intensively used for livestock production, primarily because of 
agency control of problem wolves and illegal killing.
    Many of the more isolated primary habitat patches that the Carroll 
model predicted as currently suitable were predicted to be unsuitable 
by the year 2025, indicating they were likely on the lower end of what 
ranked as suitable habitat in that model (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32). 
Because these areas were typically too small to support breeding

[[Page 15158]]

pairs and too isolated from the core population to receive enough 
dispersing wolves to overcome high mortality rates, we do not believe 
they are currently suitable habitat based upon on our data on wolf pack 
persistence for the past 20 years (Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs et al. 1998, 
p. 788; Service et al. 1999-2009, Figure 1).
    Despite the substantial differences in each model's analysis area, 
layers, inputs, and assumptions, both models predicted that most 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRM was in northwestern Montana, central 
Idaho, and the GYA, which is the area currently occupied by the NRM 
wolf population. These models are useful in understanding the relative 
proportions and distributions of various habitat characteristics and 
their relationships to wolf pack persistence. Both models generally 
support earlier Service predictions about wolf habitat suitability in 
the NRM (Service 1980, p. 9; 1987, p. 7; 1994, p. vii). Because 
theoretical models only define suitable habitat as those areas that 
have characteristics with a 50 percent or more probability of 
supporting wolf packs, the acreages of suitable habitat that they 
indicate can be successfully occupied are only estimates.
    The Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) model also indicated that these 
three areas had habitat suitable for dispersal between them and it 
would remain relatively intact in the future. However, northwest 
Montana and Idaho were much more connected to each other and the wolf 
population in Canada than to the GYA and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, 
p. 554). Collectively the three core areas are surrounded by large 
areas of habitat unsuitable for pack persistence. We note that habitat 
that is unsuitable for pack persistence may be important for 
connectivity between areas that are suitable for pack persistence.
    Overall, we evaluated data from a number of sources on the location 
of suitable wolf habitat in developing our estimate of currently 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Specifically, we considered the 
recovery areas identified in the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, 
p. 23), the primary analysis areas analyzed in the 1994 EIS for the GYA 
(63,700 km\2\ [24,600 mi\2\]) and central Idaho (53,600 km\2\ [20,700 
mi\2\]) (Service 1994, p. iv), information derived from theoretical 
models by Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 
554), our nearly 20 years of field experience managing wolves in the 
NRM, and locations of persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs since 
recovery has been achieved. Collectively, this evidence leads us to 
concur with the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) model's predictions that 
the most important habitat attributes for wolf pack persistence are 
forest cover, public land, high elk density, and low livestock density. 
Therefore, we believe that Oakleaf's calculations of the amount and 
distribution of suitable wolf habitat available for persistent wolf 
pack formation, in the parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, 
represents the most reasonable prediction of suitable wolf habitat in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    The area we conclude that is suitable habitat is depicted in 
Oakleaf et al.'s (2006) map on page 559. Generally, suitable habitat is 
located in western Montana west of I-15 and south of I-90; Idaho north 
of I-84; and northwest Wyoming (see figure 1 in 73 FR 63926, October 
28, 2008). A comparison of actual wolf pack distribution in 2006 
(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1) and Oakleaf et al.'s (2006, p. 559) 
prediction of suitable habitat indicates that nearly all suitable 
habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is currently occupied and areas 
predicted to be unsuitable remain largely unoccupied.
    Although Carroll determined there may be some (4 percent) 
potentially suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS outside of Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming, we believe it is marginally suitable at best and is 
insignificant to NRM wolf population recovery because it occurs in 
small isolated fragmented areas. While some areas predicted to be 
unsuitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have been temporarily 
occupied and used by wolves or even packs, we still consider them as 
largely unsuitable habitat. Generally, wolf packs in such areas have 
failed to persist long enough to be categorized as breeding pairs and 
successfully contribute toward recovery. Therefore, we consider such 
areas as containing unsuitable habitat and find that dispersing wolves 
attempting to colonize those areas are unlikely to form breeding pairs 
or contribute to population recovery.
    Unoccupied Suitable Habitat--Habitat suitability modeling indicates 
that the three NRM core recovery areas are atypical of other habitats 
in the western United States because suitable habitat in those core 
areas occur in such large contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson 
2004, p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35; Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559). 
Without core refugia areas like YNP or the central Idaho wilderness 
that provide a steady source of dispersing wolves, other potentially 
suitable wolf habitat is not likely to be capable of sustaining wolf 
breeding pairs. Some habitat ranked by models as suitable adjacent to 
core refugia may be able to support wolf breeding pairs, while other 
habitat farther away from a strong source of dispersing wolves may not 
be able to support persistent packs. This fact is important when 
considering suitable habitat as defined by the Carroll (et al. 2006, p. 
30) and Oakleaf (et al. 2006, p. 559) models, because wolf populations 
can persist despite very high rates of mortality only if they have high 
rates of immigration (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 183). Therefore, model 
predictions regarding habitat suitability does not always translate 
into successful wolf occupancy and wolf breeding pairs.
    Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 km\2\ [1,000 mi\2\]) patches of 
theoretically suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 34; Oakleaf et 
al. 2005, p. 559) (typically, isolated mountain ranges) often possess 
higher mortality risk for wolves because of their enclosure by, and 
proximity to, unsuitable habitat with a high mortality risk. In 
addition, pack territories often form along distinct geological 
features (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such as the crest of a rugged 
mountain range, so useable space for wolves in isolated long narrow 
mountain ranges may be reduced by half or more. This phenomenon, in 
which the quality and quantity of suitable habitat is diminished 
because of interactions with surrounding less-suitable habitat, is 
known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400-401). Edge effects are 
exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-to-area ratios 
(i.e., those that are long and narrow, like isolated mountain ranges) 
and in species with large territories, like wolves, because they are 
more likely to encounter surrounding unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and 
Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). Because of edge effects, some habitat areas 
outside the core areas may rank as suitable in models, but are unlikely 
to actually be successfully occupied by wolf packs. For these reasons, 
we believe that the NRM wolf population will remain anchored by the 
three recovery areas. These core population segments will continue to 
provide a constant source of dispersing wolves into surrounding areas, 
supplementing wolf packs and breeding pairs in adjacent, but less 
secure suitable habitat.
    Currently Occupied Habitat--We calculated the area currently 
occupied by the NRM wolf population by drawing a line around the outer 
points of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack territories 
in 2005 (Service et al. 2006, Figure 1; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006, 
p. 6640). We defined occupied wolf habitat as that area confirmed as

[[Page 15159]]

being used by resident wolves to raise pups or that is consistently 
used by two or more territorial wolves for longer than 1 month (Service 
1994, pp. 6:5-6). This approach includes all intervening areas 
including suitable or unsuitable habitat. Typically by the end of the 
year, only 50 percent of packs meet the criteria to be classified as 
breeding pairs. The overall distribution of wolf packs has been similar 
since 2000, despite a wolf population that has more than doubled 
(Service et al. 2001-2009, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press). This 
pattern persisted in 2006, 2007, and 2008. Since the wolf population 
has saturated most suitable habitat in the NRM DPS, significant growth 
in the population's outer distribution is unlikely. This final rule 
relied upon recent wolf monitoring data which has changed little in 
recent years (see Figure 1).
    We included areas between the core recovery segments as occupied 
wolf habitat because they are important for demographic and genetic 
connectivity. While these areas are no longer capable of supporting 
persistent wolf packs, dispersing wolves routinely travel through those 
areas and packs occasional occupy them (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6; Bangs 
2002, p. 3; Jimenez et al. 2008d). These areas include the Flathead 
Valley and other smaller valleys intensively used for agriculture and a 
few of the smaller, isolated mountain ranges surrounded by agricultural 
lands in western Montana. Important dispersal areas also include parts 
of western Wyoming outside the current State trophy game boundary, such 
as the Wyoming Range adjacent to Idaho and valleys north of Kemmerer. 
Dispersing wolves from Idaho that bred in the GYA likely crossed this 
area and survived during the winter breeding season, resulting in 
natural genetic connectivity.
    As of the end of 2004, we estimated approximately 275,533 km\2\ 
(106,384 mi\2\) of occupied habitat in parts of Montana (125,208 km\2\ 
[48,343 mi\2\]), Idaho (116,309 km\2\ [44,907 mi\2\]), and Wyoming 
(34,017 km\2\ [13,134 mi\2\]) (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). This 
pattern persisted in 2005-2008 (Service et al. 2006-2009). Although 
currently occupied habitat includes some prairie (4,488 km\2\ [1,733 
mi\2\]) and some high desert (24,478 km\2\ [9,451 mi\2\]), wolf packs 
have not used these habitat types successfully (Service et al. 2005-
2009, Figure 1). Since 1986, no persistent wolf pack has had a majority 
of its home range in high desert or prairie habitat. Landownership in 
the occupied habitat area is 183,485 km\2\ (70,844 mi\2\) Federal (67 
percent); 12,217 km\2\ (4,717 mi\2\) State (4.4 percent); 3,064 km\2\ 
(1,183 mi\2\) Tribal (1.7 percent); and 71,678 km\2\ (27,675 mi\2\) 
private (26 percent) (Service et al. 2005-2009, Figure 1).
    We determined that the current wolf population is a three-segment 
metapopulation and that the overall area used by persistent wolf packs 
has not significantly expanded since the population achieved its 
recovery goal. While there maybe occasional exceptions, stagnant outer 
distribution patterns for the past 6 years indicate there is probably 
limited suitable habitat for the NRM wolf population to expand 
significantly beyond its current outer boundaries. Carroll's model 
predicted that 165,503 km\2\ (63,901 mi\2\) of suitable habitat (62 
percent) was within the occupied area; however, the model's remaining 
potentially suitable habitat (38 percent) was often fragmented, in 
smaller, more isolated patches (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35) and to date 
has not been occupied by breeding pairs .
    The NRM wolf population occupies nearly 100 percent of the recovery 
areas recommended in the 1987 recovery plan (i.e., central Idaho, the 
GYA, and the northwestern Montana) (Service 1987, p. 23) and nearly 100 
percent of the primary analysis areas (the areas where suitable habitat 
was predicted to exist and the wolf population would live) analyzed for 
wolf reintroduction in central Idaho and the GYA (Service 1994, p. 
1:6). This pattern will continue because management plans for public 
lands in the NRM DPS will result in forest cover, high ungulate 
densities, low to moderate road and livestock densities, and other 
factors critical to maintaining suitable wolf habitat.
    Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range--Establishing a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM did not require land-use 
restrictions or curtailment of traditional land-uses because there was 
enough suitable habitat, enough wild ungulates, and sufficiently few 
livestock conflicts to recover wolves under existing conditions (Bangs 
et al. 2004, pp. 95-96). We do not believe that any traditional land-
use practices in the NRM need be modified to maintain a recovered NRM 
wolf population into the foreseeable future. We do not anticipate 
overall habitat changes in the NRM occurring at a magnitude that will 
threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable future because 71 percent of 
the occupied habitat is in public ownership that is managed for 
multiple uses that are complementary with suitable wolf habitat, and 
maintenance of viable wolf populations (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; 
Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 560).
    The GYA and central Idaho recovery areas, 63,714 km\2\ (24,600 
mi\2\) and 53,613 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\), respectively, are primarily 
composed of public lands (Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest 
contiguous blocks of suitable habitat within the NRM DPS. Public lands 
in National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas and large blocks of 
contiguous mountainous forested habitat are largely unavailable and/or 
unsuitable for intensive development. Central Idaho and the GYA provide 
secure wolf habitat and abundant ungulate populations, with about 
99,300 ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in central Idaho (Service 1994, 
pp. viii-ix). These areas are considered secure because they are not 
available for development due to their land-use classifications, 
management guidelines for other species (e.g., grizzly bears), habitat, 
access, and geological characteristics (Service 1993, 1996, 2007; 
Servheen et al. 2003; U.S. Forest Service 2006). Thus, they will 
continue to provide optimal suitable habitat for a resident wolf 
population and will be a dependable source of dispersing wolves to help 
maintain genetic connectivity and a viable wolf population in the NRM 
(Service 1994, p. 1:4). The central Idaho recovery area has 24,281 
km\2\ (9,375 mi\2\) of designated wilderness at its core (Service 1994, 
p. 3:85). The GYA recovery area has a core including over 8,094 km\2\ 
(3,125 mi\2\) in YNP and about 16,187 km\2\ (6,250 mi\2\) of designated 
wilderness (although these areas are less useful to wolves, except 
seasonally, due to high elevation) (Service 1994, p. 3:45). These areas 
are in public ownership that is not suitable and/or not available for 
human development of a scale that could possibly affect its overall 
suitability for wolves, and no foreseeable habitat-related threats 
would prevent them from supporting a wolf population that exceeds 
recovery levels.
    While the northwestern Montana recovery area (basically west of I-
15 and north of I-90 in Montana and Idaho) (84,800 km\2\ (33,386 
mi\2\)) also has a core of protected suitable habitat (Glacier National 
Park, the Bob Marshal Wilderness Complex, and extensive Forest Service 
lands), it is not as high quality or as contiguous as that in either 
central Idaho or GYA (Smith et al. 2008). The primary reason for this 
is that many ungulates do not winter throughout the Park or Wilderness 
areas because it is higher in elevation. Most wolf packs in 
northwestern Montana live west of the Continental Divide, where forest 
habitats are a fractured mix of private and public lands (Service et 
al. 1989-2008, Figure 1; Murrey et al. submitted 2008). This mix 
exposes wolves to high levels of mortality, and

[[Page 15160]]

thus this area supports smaller and fewer wolf packs. Wolf dispersal 
into northwestern Montana from the more stable resident packs in the 
core protected area (largely the North Fork of the Flathead River along 
the eastern edge of Glacier National Park and the few large river 
drainages in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex) and the abundant 
National Forest Service lands largely used for recreation and timber 
production rather than livestock production helps to maintain that 
segment of the NRM wolf population (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 786). Wolves 
also disperse into northwestern Montana from central Idaho and Canada 
and several packs have trans-boundary territories, helping to maintain 
the NRM population (Boyd et al. 1995, p. 136; Service 2002-2009, Figure 
1). Conversely, wolf dispersal from northwestern Montana into Canada, 
where wolves are much less protected, continues to draw some wolves 
into vacant or low-density habitats in Canada where they are subject to 
liberal hunting and agency control (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 790). Despite 
mortalities that occur in Canada, the trans-boundary movements of 
wolves and wolf packs that led to the original establishment of wolves 
in Montana connects the wolf population in the NRM to the much larger 
wolf population in Canada and will continue to have an overall positive 
effect on wolf genetic diversity and demography in the northwest 
Montana segment of the NRM wolf population.
    An important factor in maintaining wolf populations is the native 
ungulate population. Wild ungulate prey in these three areas are 
composed mainly of elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and (in 
the GYA) bison. Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn antelope 
also are common but not important, at least to date, as wolf prey. In 
total, 100,000 to 250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in each State 
where wolf packs currently exist (Service 1994, pp. viii-ix). The 
States in the NRM DPS have successfully managed resident ungulate 
populations for decades. State ungulate management plans, discussed in 
Factor D below, commit them to maintain ungulate populations at 
densities that will continue to support a recovered wolf population 
well into the foreseeable future (See Idaho 2007, p. 1-2; Curtis 2007, 
p. 14-21 as an examples of such plans).
    Last year, 2008 marked the first year since our reintroductions 
began that the NRM wolf population did not grow by 20 percent. We 
believe this slowing growth rate is the result of the NRM wolf 
population reaching carrying capacity. Human-caused mortality in 2008 
was not high enough to explain all the reduced growth in the 
population. At carrying capacity natural factors such as disease, 
social strife, and food limitations begin to help regulate wolf 
populations. As demonstrated by the NRM DPS's suspected carrying 
capacity, there is sufficient suitable habitat to maintain the NRM wolf 
population well above recovery levels but not significantly higher than 
current levels.
    Cattle and sheep are at least twice as numerous as wild ungulates 
even on public lands (Service 1994, p. viii). Most wolf packs have at 
least some interaction with livestock. Wolves and livestock can live 
near one another for extended periods of time without significant 
conflict if agency control prevents the behavior of chronic livestock 
depredation from becoming widespread in the wolf population. Through 
active management, most wolves learn that livestock can not be 
successfully attacked and do not view them as prey. However, when 
wolves and livestock mix, some livestock and some wolves will be 
killed. Conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the 
average annual removal of 8 to 14 percent of the NRM wolf population 
(Bangs et al. 1995, p. 130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. 
2005, pp. 342-344; Service et al. 2009, Tables 4, 5; Smith et al. 2008, 
p. 1). Such control promotes occupancy of suitable habitat in a manner 
that minimizes damage to private property and fosters public support to 
maintain recovered wolf populations in the NRM DPS without threatening 
the NRM wolf population.
    We do not foresee a substantial increase in livestock abundance 
across the NRM that would result in increased mortality. The opposite 
trend has been occurring. In recent years, about 200,000 hectares 
(500,000 acres) of public land grazing allotments have been purchased 
and retired in areas of chronic conflict between livestock and large 
predators, including wolves (Fischer 2008). Assuming adequate 
regulation of other threat factors (discussed below), we do not believe 
the continued presence of livestock will in any meaningful way threaten 
the recovered status of the NRM DPS in the foreseeable future.
    Within the GYA, human populations are expected to increase (Carroll 
2006). In six northwest Wyoming counties most used by wolves, the human 
population is projected to increase by roughly 15,000 residents between 
2000 and 2020 (from 105,215 in 2000 to 120,771 by 2020) (Wyoming 
Department of Administration and Information Economic Analysis Division 
2005). The Montana GYA counties are expected to increase by roughly 
35,000 people during this same time (from 120,934 in 2000 to 154,800 by 
2020) (NPA Data Services 2002). We anticipate similar levels of 
population growth in the remaining portions of the DPS given that the 
West, as a region, is projected to increase at rates faster than any 
other region (U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 2005).
    As human populations increase associated impacts will follow. We 
expect the region will see: Increased growth and development including 
conversion of private low-density rural lands to higher density urban 
and suburban development; accelerated road development and increasing 
amounts of transportation facilities (pipelines and energy transmission 
lines); additional resource extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, 
and wind development in certain areas); and added recreation on public 
lands (Robbins 2007). Despite efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife 
(Brown 2006, p. 1-3), some development will make some areas of the NRM 
less suitable for wolf occupancy. However, we expect these impacts will 
be minimal as sufficient habitat is secure.
    Wolves are one of the most adaptable large predators in the world 
and are unlikely to be substantially impacted by any threat except 
human persecution (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, p. 328-
330). Land-use restrictions on human development were not necessary to 
recover the wolf population. Even active wolf dens can be quite 
resilient to nonlethal disturbance by humans (Frame et al. 2007, p. 
316). The vast majority of suitable wolf habitat and the current wolf 
population is secure in mountainous forested Federal public land 
(National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas, and lands managed for 
multiple uses by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) 
that will not be legally available or suitable for intensive levels of 
human development. Furthermore, the range of wolves and grizzly bears 
overlap in many parts of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming and mandatory 
habitat guidelines on public lands for grizzly bear conservation 
guarantee and far exceed necessary criteria for maintaining suitable 
habitat for wolves (for an example, see U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) 2006). Current and projected levels of human use of public lands 
will be managed to limit resource impacts by the management plans of 
the appropriate land management agencies or governments.
    Most types of intensive human development predicted in the future 
will occur in areas that have already

[[Page 15161]]

been extensively modified by human activities and are unsuitable wolf 
habitat (Wyoming 2005, Appendix III). In terms of mineral extraction 
activities, such development is likely to continue to be focused at 
lower elevation, private lands and in open habitats, and outside of 
currently suitable and currently occupied wolf habitat (Robbins 2007). 
Development on private land near suitable habitats will continue to 
expose wolves to more conflicts and higher risk of human-caused 
mortality. However, the rate of conflict (now approximately 23 percent 
mortality per year) is well within the wolf population's biological 
mortality threshold (30 to 50 percent), especially given the large 
amount of secure habitat that will support a recovered wolf population 
and will provide a reliable and constant source of dispersing wolves. 
Furthermore, management programs (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348), 
research and monitoring, and outreach and education about living with 
wildlife can somewhat reduce such impacts.
    Modeling exercises also can provide some insights into future land-
use development patterns. While these models have weaknesses, such as 
an inability to accurately predict economic upturns or downturns, 
uncertainty regarding investments in infrastructure that might drive 
development (such as roads, airports, or water projects), and an 
inability to predict open-space acquisitions or conservation easements, 
we nevertheless think that such models are useful in adding to our 
understanding of likely development patterns. Carroll et al. (2003, p. 
541; 2006, p. 31) predicted future wolf habitat suitability under 
several scenarios through 2025, including increased human population 
growth and road development. Similarly, in 2005, the Center for the 
West produced a series of maps predicting growth through 2040 for the 
West (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2-7). These projections are available at: 
http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/2040.html. These models predict 
very little development across occupied and suitable portions of the 
NRM DPS. Threats were not predicted to alter wolf habitat suitability 
in the NRM DPS nearly enough to cause the wolf population to fall below 
recovery levels in the foreseeable future or even significantly effect 
wolf dispersal between the recovery segments, including the GYA. In 
many areas within the NRM DPS (including northwest Montana, the GYA, 
and northeast Oregon), habitat suitability will be increased beyond 
current levels as roads on public lands are reduced, a process underway 
in the NRM (Carroll et al. 2006, p.25; Servheen et al. 2003; Service 
1993, 1996, 2007; Brown 2006, 1-3).
    We acknowledge habitat suitability for wolves will change over time 
with human development, activities, and attitudes, but not to the 
extent that it is likely to threaten wolf recovery. Therefore, we do 
not believe there is a need to limit or manage future human population 
growth for wolf conservation in the NRM. Wolf populations persist in 
many areas of the world that are far more developed than the NRM 
currently is or is likely to be in the foreseeable future (Boitani 
2003, pp. 322-23). Current habitat conditions are adequate to support a 
wolf population well above minimal recovery levels and model 
predictions indicate that development in the NRM over the next 25 years 
is unlikely to change habitat in a manner that would threaten the NRM 
wolf population (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 544).
    Furthermore, we do not expect any threats to habitat or range to 
meaningfully impact dispersal or connectivity. Wolves have exceptional 
dispersal abilities including the ability to disperse long-distances 
across vast areas of unsuitable habitat. Numerous lone wolves have 
already been documented to have successfully dispersed through these 
types of developed areas (Jimenez et al. 2008d). Thus, we believe 
wolves are among the least likely species of land mammal to face a 
serious threat from reduced connectivity related to projected changes 
in habitat.
    At present, all three recovery areas appear sufficiently connected. 
There is more than enough habitat connectivity between occupied wolf 
habitat in Canada, northwestern Montana, and Idaho to ensure exchange 
of sufficient numbers of dispersing wolves to maintain demographic and 
genetic diversity in the NRM wolf metapopulation (Oakleaf et al. 2005, 
p. 559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; Boyd et al. 2007; vonHoldt et al. 
2007, p. 19). We have documented routine movement of radio-collared 
wolves across the nearly contiguous available suitable habitat between 
Canada, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 1991, 
p. 544; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1095-1096; Sime 2007). In 
addition, there are several shared transborder packs, between Canada, 
Montana, and Idaho. While the GYA is the most isolated core recovery 
area within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 
2007, p. 19), radio telemetry data demonstrate that the GYA is not 
isolated as at least one wolf naturally disperses into the GYA each 
year and at least 4 radio-collared non-GYA wolves have bred and 
produced offspring in the GYA in the past 12 years (1996-2008).
    Within the foreseeable future, some habitat degradation will occur 
between the core recovery areas. Overall, we believe this will have 
only minimal impacts on foreseeable levels of dispersal and 
connectivity. Model predictions through 2025 (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 
541; Carroll 2006, p. 32) and 2040 (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2-5, 14-15; 
http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/2040.html), in combination with 
our understanding of wolf dispersal capabilities, demonstrate the 
quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat, including consideration 
of intervening development, will remain more than sufficient to allow 
adequate levels of natural connectivity into the foreseeable future.
    Thus, threats to habitat are unlikely to disrupt connectivity in 
the foreseeable future. Factor E provides a detailed evaluation of the 
adequacy of current and expected levels of genetic exchange as well as 
alternative approaches to genetic exchange should they ever become 
necessary (an outcome we believe is extremely unlikely). Factor D 
discusses the adequacy of available regulatory frameworks to ensure 
genetic exchange will be maintained.
    Summary threats to Wolf Habitat--We do not foresee that impacts to 
habitat or range will occur at levels that will significantly affect 
wolf numbers or distribution, connectivity, or affect population 
recovery and long-term viability in the NRM. Occupied suitable habitat 
is secured by core recovery areas in northwestern Montana, central 
Idaho, and the GYA, including Wyoming. These areas include Glacier 
National Park, Grand Teton National Park, YNP, numerous U.S. Forest 
Service Wilderness Areas, and other State and Federal public lands. 
These areas will continue to be managed for high ungulate densities, 
moderate rates of seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road 
densities associated with abundant native prey, low potential for 
livestock conflicts, and security from excessive unregulated human-
caused mortality. Secure portions of the NRM DPS will be able to 
support large wolf populations well into the foreseeable future.
    Unsuitable habitat and small fragmented areas of suitable habitat 
outside of these core areas largely represent geographic locations 
where wolf breeding pairs would only persist in low numbers, if at all. 
Although such areas may historically have contained suitable habitat, 
wolf pack persistence

[[Page 15162]]

in these areas are not important or necessary for maintaining a viable, 
self-sustaining, and evolving representative wolf population in the NRM 
into the foreseeable future. Still, these areas may contribute to a 
healthy wolf population by facilitating dispersal between core recovery 
areas. The available data indicate that threats to habitat are unlikely 
to disrupt such connectivity in the foreseeable future.

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

    While listed under the Act, gray wolves could not be legally killed 
or removed from the wild in the NRM for commercial, recreational 
(hunting, trapping), or educational purposes. In the NRM, about 3 
percent of the wolves captured for scientific research, nonlethal 
control, and monitoring have been accidentally killed (Bangs et al. in 
press). Some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use 
of the pelts and other parts, but we believe illegal commercial 
trafficking in wolf pelts or wolf parts is rare. Illegal capture of 
wolves for commercial breeding purposes also is possible, but we have 
no evidence that it occurs in the NRM. We believe the prohibition 
against ``take'' provided for by Section 9 of the Act has discouraged 
and minimized the illegal killing of wolves for commercial or 
recreational purposes. Although Federal penalties under Section 11 of 
the Act will not apply if delisting is finalized other Federal laws 
will still protect wildlife in National Parks and on other Federal 
lands (Service 1994, pp. 1:5-9). In addition, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming 
(only in the trophy game area), Washington, Oregon, Utah, and the 
Tribes have similar laws and regulations that will protect wolves from 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, and 
educational purposes (this issue is also discussed in Factor D below). 
We believe these laws will continue to provide a strong deterrent to 
illegal killing of wolves by the public, except in Wyoming's predatory 
animal area, as they have been effective in State-led conservation 
programs for other resident wildlife such as black bears, mountain 
lions, elk, and deer. In addition, the State fish and game agencies, 
National Parks, other Federal agencies, and most Tribes have well-
distributed experienced professional law enforcement officers to help 
enforce State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife regulations (See Factor D).
    Scientific Research and Monitoring--From 1984 to 2008, the Service 
and our cooperating partners captured nearly 1,100 NRM wolves for 
monitoring, nonlethal control, and research purposes with 25 accidental 
deaths. If NRM wolves were delisted, the State, National Parks, and 
Tribes would continue to capture and radio-collar wolves in the NRM 
area for monitoring and research purposes in accordance with their 
State laws, wolf management plans, and regulations (See Factor D and 
Post-Delisting Monitoring sections below). We expect that capture-
caused mortality by Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, and 
universities conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and 
research will remain below 3 percent of the wolves captured, and will 
be an insignificant source of mortality to the wolf population.
    Education--We are unaware of any wolves that have been removed from 
the wild for solely educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that 
are used for such purposes are typically privately-held captive-reared 
offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons 
and are not protected by the Act. However, States may get requests to 
place wolves that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for 
research or educational purposes. Such requests have been, and will 
continue to be, rare; would be closely regulated by the State wildlife 
management agencies through the requirement for State or Federal 
permits, except in Wyoming's predatory animal area; and would not 
substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.
    Commercial and Recreational Uses--This section primarily addresses 
the potential for hunting and trapping across the NRM DPS post-
delisting. Other forms of human caused mortality are discussed under 
the discussion of human predation under Factor C.
    Wolf populations can maintain themselves despite sustained human-
caused mortality rates of between 30 and 50 percent per year (Keith 
1983; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182-184). When populations are maintained 
below carrying capacity and natural mortality rates and self-regulation 
of the population remain low, human-caused mortality can replace up to 
70 percent of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Wolf pups 
can also be successfully raised by other pack members and breeding 
individuals can be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd et al. 
2008, p. 1). Collectively, these factors mean that wolf populations are 
quite resilient to human-caused mortality if it is adequately 
regulated.
    Regulated hunting and trapping are traditional and effective 
wildlife management tools that can be applied to help achieve State and 
Tribal wolf management objectives (Bangs 2008). In the absence of the 
Act's protections, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, in the trophy game 
area, would use public harvest to manipulate wolf distribution and 
overall population size to help reduce conflicts with livestock and, in 
some cases, human hunting of big game, just as they do for other 
resident species of wildlife. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and some Tribes 
in those States, would allow regulated public harvest of surplus wolves 
in the NRM wolf population for commercial and recreational purposes by 
regulated private and guided hunting and trapping. Such take and any 
commercial use of wolf pelts or other parts would be regulated by State 
or Tribal law (see discussion of State laws and plans under Factor D).
    The regulated take of those wolves would not affect wolf population 
recovery or viability in Montana and Idaho because these States would 
allow such take only for wolves that are not needed to achieve the 
State's commitment to maintaining a recovered population (see Factor D 
below). If Montana and Idaho had implemented their planned hunt, the 
wolf population in Montana and Idaho would still be far in excess of 
recovered levels. In the trophy game areas of northwest Wyoming, if 
other sources of mortality had been adequately regulated, this level of 
hunter harvest would not threaten Wyoming's share of a recovered wolf 
populations; however, Wyoming's overall regulatory framework does not 
adequately regulate other sources of mortality. In the predatory area 
of Wyoming, commercial and recreational use would be unlimited and 
unregulated. This lack of regulation would not allow wolves to persist 
in predatory portions of the State. State laws in Washington, Oregon, 
and Utah do not currently allow public take of wolves for recreational 
or commercial purposes. These issues are discussed in much greater 
detail in Factor D below.
    In summary, we determine scientific and educational take to remain 
insignificant factors in maintaining the NRM wolf population well above 
recovery levels well into the foreseeable future. Furthermore, we 
believe Idaho and Montana will adequately manage commercial and 
recreational use for the foreseeable future. Commercial and 
recreational use in Wyoming will not be adequately managed. These 
issues are discussed fully in Factor D below.

C. Disease or Predation

    As discussed in detail below, a wide range of diseases may affect 
the NRM wolves. However, no diseases or parasites, even in combination, 
are of

[[Page 15163]]

such magnitude that the population is likely to become in danger of 
extinction in the foreseeable future. Similarly, predation does not 
pose a significant threat to the NRM wolf population. The rates of 
mortality caused by disease and predation are well within acceptable 
limits, and we do not expect those rates to change appreciably if NRM 
wolves are delisted. State plans commit to monitoring wolf health to 
ensure any new or new impacts caused by diseases or parasites are 
quickly detected. Natural predation on wolves is rare but predation by 
humans is a significant issue if not regulated. More information on 
disease and predation (including by humans) are discussed below.
    Disease--The NRM wolves are exposed to a wide variety of diseases 
and parasites that are common throughout North America. Many diseases 
(viruses and bacteria, many protozoa and fungi) and parasites 
(helminthes and arthropods) have been reported for the gray wolf, and 
several of them have had significant, but temporary impacts during wolf 
recovery in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 428; 
Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). The EIS on gray wolf reintroduction 
identified disease impact as an issue, but did not evaluate it further, 
as it appeared to be insignificant (Service 1994, pp. 1:20-21).
    Infectious disease induced by parasitic organisms is a normal 
feature of the life of wild animals, and the typical wild animal hosts 
a broad multi-species community of potentially harmful parasitic 
organisms (Wobeser 2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that these 
diseases and parasites will follow the same pattern seen in other areas 
of North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 428-429; Bailey et al. 1995, 
p. 445; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-204; Atkinson 2006, p. 1-7; Smith and 
Almberg 2007, 17-19; Johnson 1995a, b) and will not significantly 
threaten wolf population viability. The diseases and parasites of 
wolves are unlikely to effect human health and safety and most are 
already endemic in other wild carnivores and dogs. Nevertheless, 
because these diseases and parasites, and perhaps others, have the 
potential to impact wolf population distribution and demographics, 
careful monitoring (as per the State wolf management plans) will track 
such events (Atkinson 2006, p. 1-7). Should such an outbreak occur, 
human-caused mortality would be regulated over an appropriate area and 
time period to ensure wolf population numbers in the NRM DPS are 
maintained above recovery levels in those portions of the DPS.
    Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 
familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes, skunks (Mephitis 
mephitis), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). The population impacts of CPV 
occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to abnormally high pup 
mortality (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). 
Clinical CPV is characterized by severe hemorrhagic diarrhea and 
vomiting; debility and subsequent mortality is a result of dehydration, 
electrolyte imbalances, and shock. CPV has been detected in nearly 
every wolf population in North America including Alaska (Bailey et al. 
1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211; 
Johnson et al. 1994), and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost 
universal. Currently, nearly 100 percent of the wolves handled by MFWP 
(Atkinson 2006) and YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18) had blood 
antibodies indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. CPV might have 
contributed to low pup survival in the northern range of YNP in 1999. 
CPV was suspected to have done so again in 2005 and possibly 2008, but 
evidence points to canine distemper as being the primary cause of low 
pup survival during those years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 244; Smith 
2008). Pup production and survival in YNP returned to normal levels 
after each event (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18-19). The impact of 
disease outbreaks to the overall NRM wolf population has been localized 
and temporary, as has been documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 
441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211). Despite 
these periodic disease outbreaks, the NRM wolf population increased at 
a rate of about 22 percent annually from 1996 to 2008 (Service et al. 
2009, Table 4). Mech et al. (2008, p. 824) recently concluded CPV 
reduced pup survival, subsequent dispersal, and the overall rate of 
population growth in Minnesota (a population near carrying capacity in 
suitable habitat). It is possible that at carrying capacity the NRM 
population may be effected similarly and the overall rate of growth 
maybe reduced.
    Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, fever-causing disease of 
carnivores caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). It is common in 
domestic dogs and some wild canids, such as coyotes and foxes in the 
NRM (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). The prevalence of antibodies to this 
disease in samples of wolf blood in North American wolves is about 17 
percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209), but varies annually and by specific 
location. Nearly 85 percent of Montana wolf blood samples analyzed in 
2005 indicated nonlethal exposure to CD (Atkinson 2006). Similar 
results were found in YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). Mortality in 
wolves has been documented in Canada (Carbyn 1982, p. 109), Alaska 
(Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441), and in a 
single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). CD is not a 
major mortality factor in wolves, because despite high exposure to the 
virus, affected wolf populations usually demonstrate good recruitment 
(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-421). Mortality from CD has only been 
confirmed once in NRM wolves despite their high exposure to it, but we 
suspect it contributed to the high pup mortality documented in the 
northern GYA in spring 1999, 2005, and 2008. These periodic outbreaks 
will undoubtedly occur but as documented elsewhere CD does not threaten 
wolf populations and the NRM wolf population increased even during 
years with localized outbreaks. Park biologist's (Smith 2008, pers. 
comm.) believes that wolf deaths mainly occurred from CD when the YNP 
population was around the historic high of 170 wolves the previous 
winter. In 2008, wolf packs in Wyoming outside YNP (about 25 packs and 
18 breeding pairs) appear to have only slightly lower pup production 
(Jimenez 2008, pers. comm.), indicating the probable most severe 
disease outbreak in 2008 was localized to the northern range of YNP. 
This suggests CD mortality maybe associate with high wolf density, and 
possibly carrying capacity. Thus the NRM population may be more 
effected by CD, and other diseases when at the carrying capacity in 
suitable habitat.
    Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete bacterium, is spread primarily 
by deer ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species include humans, horses 
(Equus caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, white-footed 
mice (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus), 
coyotes, and wolves. In WGL populations, it does not appear to cause 
adult mortality, but might be suppressing population growth by 
decreasing wolf pup survival (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
1999, p. 61. Lyme disease has not been reported from wolves beyond the 
Great Lakes regions (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 
61).
    Mange (Sarcoptes scabeii) is caused by a mite that infests the 
skin. The irritation caused by feeding and burrowing mites results in 
intense itching, resulting in scratching and severe fur loss, which can 
lead to

[[Page 15164]]

mortality from exposure during severe winter weather or secondary 
infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Advanced mange can involve the 
entire body and can cause emaciation, decreased flight distance, 
staggering, and death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a long-term Alberta 
wolf study, higher wolf densities were correlated with increased 
incidence of mange, and pup survival decreased as the incidence of 
mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427-428). Mange has been shown 
to temporarily affect wolf population growth rates and perhaps wolf 
distribution (Kreeger 2003, p. 208).
    Mange has been detected in, and caused mortality to, wolves in the 
NRM almost exclusively in the GYA, and primarily east of the 
Continental Divide (Jimenez et al. 2008b; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith 
and Almberg 2007, p. 19). Those wolves likely contracted mange from 
coyotes or fox whose populations experience occasional outbreaks. 
Between 2003 and 2008, the percent of Montana packs with mange 
fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent of packs including infestation 
rates of 3%, 10%, 24%, 10%, 4%, and 0%, respectively. Between 2002 and 
2008, the percent of Wyoming packs with mange fluctuated between 3 and 
15 percent of packs including infestation rates of 5%, 8%, 12%, 3%, 9%, 
15%, and 15%, respectively. In these cases, mange did not appear to 
infest every member of the pack. For example, in 2008, manage was 
detected in 8 wolves from 4 different packs in YNP, one pack in Wyoming 
outside YNP, and a couple of packs in previously infested areas of 
southwestern Montana. Manage has never been confirmed in wolves in 
Idaho (Jimenez et al. 2008b, p. 1).
    In packs with the most severe infestations, pup survival appeared 
low, and some adults died (Jimenez et al. 2008b). In addition, we 
euthanized several wolves with severe mange for humane reasons and 
because of their abnormal behavior. We predict that mange in the NRM 
will act as it has in other parts of North America (Brand et al. 1995, 
pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208) and not threaten wolf 
population viability. Evidence suggests NRM wolves will not be infested 
on a chronic population-wide level given the recent response of wolves 
that naturally overcame a mange infestation (Jimenez et al. 2008b, p. 
1).
    Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) commonly feed on domestic 
dogs, but can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz et al. 1983, p. 372; 
Mech et al. 1985, p. 404). The lice can attain severe infestations, 
particularly in pups. The worst infestations can result in severe 
scratching, irritated and raw skin, substantial hair loss particularly 
in the groin, and poor condition. While no wolf mortality has been 
confirmed, death from exposure and/or secondary infection following 
self-inflicted trauma, caused by inflammation and itching, appears 
possible. Dog-biting lice were first confirmed in NRM wolves on two 
members of the Battlefield pack in the Big Hole Valley of southwestern 
Montana in 2005, and on a wolf in south-central Idaho in early 2006, 
but their infestations were not severe (Service et al. 2006, p. 15; 
Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2008c). The source of this 
infestation is unknown, but was likely domestic dogs. Lice have not 
been documented in the NRM since 2006.
    Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitus), blastomycosis, 
brucellosis, neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, canine 
coronavirus, viral papillomatosis, hookworm, tapeworm (Echinococcus 
granulosus, Foreyt et al. 2008, p. 1), lice, coccidiosis, and canine 
adenovirus/hepatitis have all been documented in wild gray wolves, but 
their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be 
significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419-429; Johnson 1995a, b, pp. 5-
73, 1995b, pp. 5-49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; Wisconsin Department 
of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214; Atkinson 
2006, p. 1-7). Canid rabies caused local population declines in Alaska 
(Ballard and Krausman 1997, p. 242) and may temporarily limit 
population growth or distribution where another species, such as arctic 
foxes (Alopex lagopus), act as a reservoir for the disease. We have not 
detected rabies in wolves in the NRM. Range expansion could provide new 
avenues for exposure to several of these diseases, especially canine 
heartworm, rabies, bovine tuberculosis, and possibly new diseases such 
as chronic wasting disease and West Nile virus, further emphasizing the 
need for vigilant disease monitoring programs.
    Because several of the diseases and parasites are known to be 
spread by wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence may increase if wolf 
densities increase. However, because wolf densities are already high 
and may be peaking (Service et al. 2009, Table 1 & Figure 1), wolf-to-
wolf contacts will not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease 
prevalence. The wolves' exposure to these types of organisms may be 
most common outside of the core population areas, where domestic dogs 
are most common, and lowest in the core population areas because wolves 
tend to flow out of, not into, saturated habitats. Despite this 
dynamic, we assume that most NRM wolves will continue to have exposure 
to most diseases and parasites in the system. Diseases or parasites 
have not been a significant threat to wolf population recovery in the 
NRM or elsewhere to date, and we have no reason to believe that they 
will become a significant threat to their viability in the foreseeable 
future.
    In terms of future monitoring, States have committed to monitor the 
NRM wolf population for significant disease and parasite problems. 
State wildlife health programs often cooperate with Federal agencies 
and universities and usually have both reactive and proactive wildlife 
health monitoring protocols. Reactive strategies consist of periodic 
intensive investigations after disease or parasite problems have been 
detected through routine management practices, such as pelt 
examination, reports from hunters, research projects, or population 
monitoring. Proactive strategies often involve ongoing routine 
investigation of wildlife health information through collection and 
analysis of blood and tissue samples from all or a sub-sample of 
wildlife carcasses or live animals that are handled. We do not believe 
that diseases or changes in disease monitoring will threaten wolf 
population recovery in the NRM DPS.
    Natural Predation--No wild animals routinely prey on gray wolves 
(Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 259-260). Occasionally wolves have been 
killed by large prey such as elk, deer, bison, and moose (Mech and 
Nelson 1989, p. 207; Smith et al. 2006, p. 247; Mech and Peterson 2003, 
p. 134), but those instances are few. Since the 1980s, wolves in the 
NRM have died from wounds they received while attacking prey on about a 
dozen occasions (Smith et al. 2006, p. 247). That level of natural 
mortality could not significantly affect wolf population viability or 
stability.
    Since NRM wolves have been monitored, only three wolves have been 
confirmed killed by other large predators. Two adults were killed by 
mountain lions, and one pup was killed by a grizzly bear (Jimenez et 
al. 2008a, p. 1). Wolves in the NRM inhabit the same areas as mountain 
lions, grizzly bears, and black bears, but conflicts rarely result in 
the death of either species. Wolves evolved with other large predators, 
and no other large predators in North America, except humans, have the 
potential to significantly impact wolf populations.
    Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation among 
wolves. Numerous mortalities have resulted from territorial conflicts 
between wolves and about 7 percent of wolf deaths are

[[Page 15165]]

caused by territorial conflict in the NRM wolf population (Smith 2007, 
p. 1). Wherever wolf packs occur, including the NRM, some low level of 
wolf mortality will result from territorial conflict. Wolf populations 
tend to regulate their own densities; consequently, territorial 
conflict is highest in saturated habitats like YNP. This cause of 
mortality is infrequent except at carry-capacity and does not result in 
a level of mortality (<3 percent rate of natural wolf mortality in the 
NRM) that would significantly affect a wolf population's viability in 
the NRM (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1).
    Human-caused Predation--Wolves are susceptible to human-caused 
mortality, especially in open habitats such as those that occur in the 
western United States (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). An active eradication 
program is the sole reason that wolves were extirpated from the NRM 
(Weaver 1978, p. i). Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In all 
locations where people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are 
killed to resolve conflicts with livestock (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 
Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-7). Occasionally, wolf killings 
are accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes 
and shot, or caught in traps set for other animals) (Bangs et al. 2005, 
p. 346) and some are reported to State, Tribal, and Federal 
authorities. A few (2 in 2008) wolves have been killed by people who 
stated that they believed their physical safety was being threatened.
    However, many wolf killings are intentional, illegal, and are never 
reported to authorities. Wolves may become unwary of people or human 
activity, and that can make them vulnerable to human-caused mortality 
(Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 300-302). In the NRM, mountain topography 
concentrates both wolf and human activity in valley bottoms (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1105), especially in winter, which increases wolf 
exposure to human-caused mortality. The number of illegal killings is 
difficult to estimate and impossible to accurately determine because 
they generally occur with few witnesses. Often the evidence has decayed 
by the time the wolf's carcass is discovered or the evidence is 
destroyed or concealed by the perpetrators. While human-caused 
mortality, including both illegal killing and agency control, has not 
prevented population recovery, it has affected NRM wolf distribution 
(Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93) preventing successfully pack establishment 
and persistence in open prairie or high desert habitats (Bangs et al. 
1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1989-2009, Figure 1).
    As part of the interagency wolf monitoring program and various 
research projects, about 30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been 
monitored with radio telemetry since the 1980s (Smith et al. 2008, p. 
1). The annual survival rate of mature wolves in northwestern Montana 
and adjacent Canada from 1984 through 1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher et 
al. 1997, p. 459) including 84 percent for resident wolves and 66 
percent for dispersers. A preliminary analysis of the survival data 
among NRM radio-collared wolves (Hensey and Fuller 1983, p. 1; Smith et 
al. 2008, p. 1) from 1984 through 2006 indicates that about 26 percent 
of adult-sized wolves die every year, so annual adult survival averages 
about 74 percent, which typically allows wolf population growth (Keith 
1983, p. 66; Fuller et al. 2003, p. 182). Wolves in the largest blocks 
of remote habitat without livestock, such as central Idaho or YNP, had 
annual survival rates around 80 percent (Smith et al., 2006 p. 245; 
Smith et al. 2008). Wolves outside of large remote areas had survival 
rates as low as 54 percent in some years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245; 
Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). This percentage is among the lower end of 
adult wolf survival rates that an isolated population can sustain 
(Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185).
    Of all mortalities of radio-collared wolves from 1984-2004, 21 
percent were killed by natural causes (including 7 percent wolf-to-wolf 
conflict), 15 percent died from human-caused mortality other than 
agency control (vehicles, capture-related, incidental trapping, 
accidents, and legal harvest of wolves that range into Canada), 28 
percent were killed in control actions, 21 percent were illegally 
killed, and in 15 percent cause of death was unknown (Smith 2007, p. 
1). Nevertheless, wolf numbers have increased at rate of about 22 
percent annually, until 2008, in the face of ongoing levels of human-
caused mortality.
    It should be noted that our analysis did not estimate the cause or 
rate of survival among pups younger than 7 months of age because they 
are too small to radio-collar. These survival rates may also be biased 
in other ways. Wolves are more likely to be radio-collared if they 
likely to come into conflict with people, so the proportion of 
mortality caused by agency depredation control actions could be 
overestimated by radio-telemetry data. Wolves initially radio-collared 
because of livestock depredation had higher rates of mortality (Murray 
et al. 2008, p. 1). People who illegally kill wolves may destroy the 
radio-collar, so the proportion of illegal mortality could be 
underestimated. Wolves that disperse long distances are much more 
difficult to locate than resident wolves, so their survival maybe even 
lower than telemetry data indicate (Murray et al. 2008, p. 1). The high 
proportion of wolves radio-collared in National Parks for research 
purposes can result in underestimating the overall rate of human-caused 
mortality in the NRM wolf population.
    Wolf mortality from agency control of problem wolves (which 
includes legal take by private individuals under defense of property 
regulations in rules promulgated under section 10(j) of the Act) is 
estimated to remove around 10 percent of adult radio-collared wolves 
annually. If the Act's protections were removed, we expect comparable 
levels of agency control. In terms of defense of property, from 1995 
through 2008, about 75 wolves were legally killed by private citizens 
under Federal defense of property regulations (Service 1994, pp. 2:13-
14; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 
FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) 
& (n)). Existing 10(j) regulations are similar to State laws that would 
take effect and direct take of problem wolves if wolves were delisted, 
except in Wyoming. Thus, we do not expect private citizen take under 
State defense of property laws to significantly increase the overall 
rate of wolf removal, except in Wyoming (Bangs et al. in press, pp. 19-
20). All sources of human-caused mortality would be considered in total 
allowable mortality levels. In Wyoming, State law mandates much more 
aggressive control in the Trophy game area and unregulated take in the 
predatory animal area and would far exceed take allowed under existing 
10(j) regulations. Given adequate regulatory mechanisms in all portions 
of the NRM DPS, except Wyoming, we believe this issue will not threaten 
the recovered status of the NRM DPS, except in Wyoming. These issues 
are discussed in more detail relative to State regulation in Factor D 
below.
    In our previous final rule we explained that, post-delisting, State 
management would likely increase the mortality rate outside National 
Parks and National Wildlife Refuges from its current level (Smith et 
al. 2008, p. 1). We explained that wolf mortality could nearly double 
without reducing the population (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185). In 2008, 
the high number of wolves in the NRMs, saturation of suitable habitat, 
and increased dispersal into unsuitable habitat, in combination with 
more

[[Page 15166]]

aggressive State management frameworks, resulted in about a forty 
percent increase (78 wolves) in agency authorized control actions from 
the previous year. As more wolves tried to establish themselves in 
unsuitable habitat livestock depredations increased and more wolves and 
a larger percentage of the wolf population were killed by agency 
control actions. However, this increase alone could not have resulted 
in the slower growth in the NRM wolf population. Increased agency 
control only explains between thirty-three percent of the difference 
between a predicted NRM wolf population of 1,876 wolves for 2008 
(assuming continued population growth of 24 percent as documented prior 
to 2008) and our actual mid-year 2008 estimate of 1,639 wolves, a 
difference of 237 wolves. We also think it's unlikely other sources of 
human-caused mortality made up the difference between these two 
estimates. Instead, we believe the NRM's slowing growth was primarily 
the result of reaching carry capacity where a host of natural causes 
(disease, social strife, starvation, etc.) have acted to help control 
the population.
    In summary, recent and predicted human-caused mortality rates will 
allow for rapid wolf population growth when the wolf population is 
below carrying capacity. The protection of wolves under the Act 
promoted rapid initial wolf population growth in suitable habitat. 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed to continue to regulate 
human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce the NRM wolf 
population below recovery levels. But only Montana, Idaho, Oregon, 
Washington, and Utah have adequate laws and regulations to fulfill 
those commitments and ensure that the NRM wolf population remains above 
recovery levels (see Factor D). Each post-delisting management entity 
(State, Tribal, and Federal) has experienced and professional wildlife 
staff to ensure those commitments can be accomplished.

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The following analysis summarizes the current regulatory approach 
as well as the regulatory mechanisms that would take effect post-
delisting. The analysis considers whether such post-delisting 
regulatory mechanisms in each portion of the NRM DPS are adequate to 
maintain the recovered status of the NRM DPS.
    Current Wolf Management--The 1980 and 1987 NRM wolf recovery plans 
(Service 1980, p. 4; Service 1987, p. 3) recognized that conflict with 
livestock was the major reason that wolves were extirpated, and that 
management of conflicts was a necessary component of wolf restoration. 
The plans also recognized that control of problem wolves was necessary 
to maintain local public tolerance of wolves and that removal of some 
wolves would not prevent the wolf population from achieving recovery. 
In 1988, the Service developed an interim wolf control plan that 
applied to Montana and Wyoming (Service 1988, p. 1); the plan was 
amended in 1990 to include Idaho and eastern Washington (Service 1990, 
p. 1). We analyzed the effectiveness of those plans in 1999, and 
revised our guidelines for management of problem wolves listed as 
endangered (Service 1999, p. 1). Evidence showed that most wolves do 
not attack livestock, especially larger livestock such as adult horses 
and cattle, but wolf presence around livestock will always result in 
some level of depredation (Bangs and Shivik 2001; Bangs et al. 2005, 
pp. 348-350). Therefore, we developed a set of guidelines under which 
depredating wolves could be harassed, moved, or killed by agency 
officials (Service 1999, pp. 39-40). The control plans were based on 
the premise that agency wolf control actions would affect only a small 
number of wolves, but would sustain public tolerance for non-
depredating wolves, thus enhancing the chances for successful 
population recovery (Mech 1995, pp. 276-276). Our assumptions have 
proven correct, as wolf depredation on livestock and subsequent agency 
control actions have remained compatible with recovery, as the wolf 
population expanded its distribution and numbers far beyond, and more 
quickly than, earlier predictions (Service 1994, p. 2:12; Service et 
al. 2007, Tables 4).
    The conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the 
average annual removal of 8 to 14 percent of the wolf population (Bangs 
et al. 1995, p. 130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. 2005, pp. 
342-344; Service et al. 2008, Tables 4, 5; Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). We 
estimate illegal killing removed another 10 percent of the wolf 
population, and accidental and unintentional human-caused deaths have 
removed 3 percent of the population annually (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). 
Even with this level of mortality, populations have expanded rapidly 
(Service et al. 2008, Table 5). Despite liberal regulations regarding 
wolf removal, nearly all suitable areas for wolves are being occupied 
by resident packs (Service et al. 2008, Figure 1; Oakleaf et al. 2005, 
p. 559). The outer NRM wolf pack distribution has remained largely 
unchanged since the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001-2009, Figure 1), 
indicating that wolf packs are simply filling in the areas with 
suitable habitat, not successfully expanding their range into 
unsuitable habitat. As we previously explained in the recovery section, 
we believe that the NRM wolf population is likely at or above long-term 
carrying capacity.
    Because wolf populations continually try to expand, we expect 
wolves will increasingly disperse into unsuitable areas that are 
intensively used for livestock production. A higher percentage of 
wolves in those areas will become involved in conflicts with livestock, 
and a higher percentage of those wolves will be removed to reduce 
future livestock damage. In the earlier stages of wolf restoration 
about 6 percent of the NRM wolf population was removed annually 
(Service et al. 2008, Table 5). In recent years, this total has more 
than doubled (Service et al. 2007-2009, Table 5). Fuller et al. (2003) 
reviewed all available wolf studies to determine whether a population 
increased, stabilized, or decreased based on its annual mortality 
rates. According to these field data, assuming the population is 
maintained below carrying capacity, human-caused mortality would have 
to remove somewhere between 34 percent and 50 percent of the wolf 
population annually before the population would decline (Fuller et al. 
2003, pp. 184-185). In practice, until 2008, the wolf population grew 
an average rate of 24 percent annually despite an annual mortality rate 
of 26 percent (ranging from 20 to 50 percent depending on location and 
year) (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). Actual capacity to withstand mortality 
will vary by geographic area. The State laws and management plans 
intend to balance the level of wolf mortality, primarily human-caused 
mortality, with the wolf population growth rate to achieve desired 
population objectives.
    Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms Within the NRM DPS--It has been 
long recognized that the future conservation of a delisted wolf 
population in the NRM depends almost solely on State regulation of 
human-caused mortality. In 1999, the Governors of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming agreed that regional coordination in wolf management planning 
among the State, Tribes, and other jurisdictions was necessary. They 
signed a MOU to facilitate cooperation among the three States in 
developing adequate State wolf management plans so that delisting could 
proceed. In this agreement, all

[[Page 15167]]

three States committed to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 
wolves per State. The States were to develop their pack definitions to 
approximate the current breeding pair definition. Governors from the 
three States renewed that agreement in April 2002.
    Because the primary threat to the wolf population (human caused 
mortality) still has the potential to significantly impact wolf 
populations if not adequately managed, we must find that the States 
will manage for sustainable mortality levels before we can remove the 
Act's protections. Therefore, we requested that the States of Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming prepare State wolf management plans to demonstrate 
how they would manage wolves after the protections of the Act were 
removed. With limited suitable habitat in Washington, Oregon, and Utah 
and on Tribal lands within the NRM DPS, we believe these areas will 
play only a small role in the conservation of the NRM DPS. We do not 
believe threats in those States or on Tribal lands are likely to be 
significant enough to affect wolf population recovery. Nevertheless, 
all areas within the NRM DPS are considered below.
    Several issues were key to our approval of State plans including: 
Consistency between State laws, management plans, and regulations; 
regulations that prevent excessive take; methods used to measure wolf 
population status; the organizational ability and skill to successfully 
monitor and manage State wolf populations; and commitments to manage 
wolves safely above minimum recovery levels. Our determination of the 
adequacy of those three key State management plans was based on the 
combination of Service knowledge of State law, the State management 
plans, wolf biology, our experience managing wolves for the last 20 
years, the success of wolf management in other areas of the world peer 
review of the State plans, the State response to peer review, and 
public comments including those from the States.
    State plans and other documents pertinent to State wolf management 
post-delisting can be viewed at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. All 
current State and Tribal management laws, plans, and regulations in the 
NRM DPS have been evaluated and are discussed below.
    Montana--Montana has demonstrated their capacity to manage their 
wolf population. In June 2005, MFWP entered into a Cooperative 
Agreement with the Service allowing it manage all wolves in the State 
subject to general oversight by the Service. The State's efforts have 
proven successful, as Montana's wolf population estimate increased from 
152 wolves in 15 breeding pairs in late 2004 to about 491 wolves in 34 
breeding pairs in 2008 (Service et al. 2009, Table 4). Preliminary data 
also indicated that Montana's wolf population in 2008 would be at 
higher levels than in 2007 (McDonald 2008). Their post-delisting 
approach is discussed in detail below.
    The gray wolf was listed under the Montana Nongame and Endangered 
Species Conservation Act of 1973 (87-5-101 MCA). Senate Bill 163, 
passed by the Montana Legislature and signed into law by the Governor 
in 2001 and Administrative Rules of Montana 12.2.501 and 12.5.201 
establish the current legal status for wolves in Montana. Upon Federal 
delisting, wolves would be classified and protected under Montana law 
as a ``Species in Need of Management'' (MCA 87-5-101 to 87-5-123). 
Montana law defines ``species in need of management'' as ``The 
collection and application of biological information for the purposes 
of increasing the number of individuals within species and populations 
of wildlife up to the optimum carrying capacity of their habitat and 
maintain those levels. The term includes the entire range of activities 
that constitute a modern scientific resource program, including, but 
not limited to research, census, law enforcement, habitat improvement, 
and education. The term also includes the periodic or total protection 
of species or populations as well as regulated taking.''
    Classification as a ``Species in Need of Management'' and the 
associated administrative rules under Montana State law create the 
legal mechanism to protect wolves and regulate human-caused mortality 
(including regulated public harvest) beyond the immediate defense of 
life/property situations. Some illegal human-caused mortality would 
still occur, but is to be prosecuted under State law and Commission 
regulations.
    In 2000, the Governor of Montana appointed the Montana Wolf 
Management Advisory Council to advise MFWP regarding wolf management 
after the species is removed from the lists of Federal and State-
protected species. In August 2003, MFWP completed a Final EIS pursuant 
to the Montana Environmental Policy Act and recommended that the 
Updated Advisory Council alternative be selected as Montana's Final 
Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Montana 2003, p. 131). See 
http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/default.html to view the MFWP Final 
EIS and the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
    Under the management plan, the wolf population would be maintained 
above the recovery level of 10 breeding pairs by managing for a total 
of at least 15 breeding pairs. Wolves would not be deliberately 
confined to any specific geographic areas of Montana nor would the 
population size be deliberately capped at a specific level. However, 
wolf numbers and distribution would be managed adaptively based on 
ecological factors, wolf population status, conflict mitigation, and 
human social tolerance.
    The plan and Administrative Rules commit MFWP to implement its 
management framework in a manner that encourages connectivity among 
wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, GYA, and Montana to maintain the 
overall metapopulation structure (see Factor E.). Overall, wolf 
management would include population monitoring, routine analysis of 
population health, management in concert with prey populations, law 
enforcement, control of domestic animal/human conflicts, implementation 
of a wolf-damage mitigation and reimbursement program, research, and 
information and public outreach. Montana's plan (Montana 2003, p. 132) 
predicted that under State management, the wolf population would be 
between 328 and 657 wolves with approximately 27 to 54 breeding pairs 
by 2015.
    An important ecological factor determining wolf distribution in 
Montana is the availability and distribution of wild ungulates. Montana 
has a rich, diverse, and widely distributed prey base on both public 
and private lands. The MFWP has and will continue to manage wild 
ungulates according to Commission-approved policy direction and species 
management plans. The plans typically describe a management philosophy 
that protects the long-term sustainability of the ungulate populations, 
allows recreational hunting of surplus game, and aims to keep the 
population within management objectives based on ecological and social 
considerations. The MFWP takes a proactive approach to integrate 
management of ungulates and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is to be 
balanced with maintaining sufficient prey populations to sustain 
Montana's segment of a recovered wolf population. Ongoing efforts to 
monitor populations of both ungulates and wolves will provide credible, 
scientific information for wildlife management decisions.
    MFWP will manage problem wolves in a manner similar to the control 
program currently being implemented in the experimental population area 
in

[[Page 15168]]

southern Montana. Similar to the current federal regulations in the 
experimental areas, Montana law (MCA 87-3-130) will allow a citizen to 
haze, harass, or kill a wolf that is seen attacking, killing, or 
threatening to kill a person or livestock or domestic dogs. 
Administrative Rules of Montana (12.9.1301 through 12.9.1305) will 
guide MFWP's approach to addressing wolf-livestock conflicts, including 
non-lethal and lethal control. Agency control of problem wolves is 
incremental and in response to confirmed depredations. State management 
of conflicts would become more conservative and no public hunting would 
be allowed if there were fewer than 15 breeding pairs statewide.
    State laws, Administrative Rules and Commission-approved 
regulations would allow agency management of problem wolves by MFWP and 
USDA-Wildlife Services (WS); take by private citizens in defense of 
private property; and, when the population is above 15 breeding pairs, 
regulated fair chase hunting of wolves. Montana law allowing take in 
defense of private property is similar to the 2005 experimental 
population regulations, whereby livestock owners can shoot wolves seen 
attacking or threatening livestock or domestic dogs as long as such 
incidents are reported promptly and subsequent investigations confirm 
that livestock were being attacked by wolves. Since 2004, MFWP has 
enlisted and directed USDA-WS in problem wolf management, just as the 
Service has done since 1987.
    For the 2008 hunting season, MFWP recommended a tentative state-
wide total harvest quota of 75 wolves, split across three wolf 
management units. The Commission's decision to adopt final quotas was 
pre-empted by issuance of the preliminary injunction. Thus, the 
Commission did not adopt final quotas. If it would have approved MFWP's 
recommendation and implemented, a MFWP simulation model predicted that 
one year later, there would be about 497 wolves, between 93 and 100 
packs, and between 44 and 61 breeding pairs in Montana; this would have 
been larger than the minimum 2007 population.
    This model simulation now appears to have been reasonable because 
without hunting, the wolf population increased by 69 wolves in 2008. 
Montana's wolf season-setting processes (framework and quotas) also 
incorporate adequate safety nets to prevent overharvest. These include: 
(1) Establishing quotas at a time of year (tentative in July and final 
in August) so that the most current monitoring data could be 
considered; (2) creation of a 1-800 hotline update so that hunters 
would know whether or not wolf harvest was legal (i.e. quota was open) 
prior to going hunting; (3) mandatory reporting of successful harvest 
within 12 hours so FWP can closely monitor hunter success and quota 
status; (4) mandatory carcass inspection within 10 days to verify age/
sex of harvested animals and collect other biological information; (5) 
closure of the season upon a 24-hour notice when a wildlife management 
unit the quota is filled; (6) FWP authority to initiate a season 
closure prior to reaching a quota when conditions or circumstances 
indicate the quota may be reached within 24 hours; (7) definite season-
ending closure date, regardless of whether the quotas were reached; and 
(8) emergency season closure at any time by order of the FWP 
Commission. If the full tentative state-wide harvest recommended MFWP 
had occurred in 2008, it would have resulted in an estimated statewide 
wolf population of 416 wolves in 35 to 40 breeding pairs. Should 
overharvest ever occur, next years harvest would be adjusted to 
compensate. No public hunting would be allowed if there were fewer than 
15 breeding pairs statewide.
    The MFWP Commission also prohibited more than 25% of the total 
allowable wolf management unit quota to be taken during the month of 
December. This would have limited wolf harvest when wolves are known to 
disperse at higher rates.
    Hunt and defense of property laws, regulations, and other 
background information can be viewed at: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov 
and in Montana's (2008) comments on the delisting proposal.
    When the Service reviewed and determined that the Montana wolf plan 
and regulatory framework met the requirements of the Act, we stated 
that Montana's wolf management plan would maintain a recovered wolf 
population and minimize conflicts with other traditional activities in 
Montana's landscape. We have also carefully reviewed Montana's 2008 
comments on this rule (McDonald 2008). In their comments Montana 
explained in detail how their regulatory framework guarantee's the 
secure future of wolves in Montana, the process used to develop 
Montana's hunting framework and quota system and its safeguards, and 
its commitment and the steps Montana had already taken to ensuring 
demographic and genetic connectivity with Canada and the other recovery 
areas. The Service has every confidence that Montana will implement, 
for the foreseeable future, the commitments it has made in its current 
laws, regulations, and wolf plan. Thus, we continue to determine that 
Montana's State law, wolf management plan, and implementing regulations 
provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to assure maintenance of 
the State numerical and distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf 
population well into the foreseeable future.
    Idaho--Idaho has demonstrated their capacity to manage their wolf 
population. In January 2006, the Governor of Idaho signed a Memorandum 
of Understanding with the Secretary of the Interior that provided IDFG 
the responsibility and authority to manage all Idaho wolves as a 
designated agent of the Service. The State's efforts have proven 
successful, as Idaho's wolf population estimate increased from 512 
wolves in 36 breeding pairs in late 2005 (Service et al. 2006, Table 4) 
to about 846 wolves in 39 breeding pairs in 2008 (Service et al. 2009). 
Slower growth and higher levels of conflicts in 2008 indicates suitable 
habitat maybe saturated and the wolf population will stabilize because 
it is at carrying capacity. Their post-delisting approach is discussed 
in detail below.
    The Idaho Fish and Game Commission (IFGC) has authority to classify 
wildlife under Idaho Code 36-104(b) and 36-201. The gray wolf was 
classified as endangered by the State until March 2005, when the IFGC 
reclassified the species as a big game animal under Idaho 
Administrative Procedures Act (13.01.06.100.01.d). The big game 
classification will take effect once this rule becomes effective. As a 
big game animal, State regulations will adjust human-caused wolf 
mortality to ensure recovery levels are exceeded. Title 36 of the Idaho 
statutes has penalties associated with illegal take of big game 
animals. These rules are consistent with the legislatively adopted 
Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (IWCMP) (Idaho 2002) and 
big game hunting regulations currently in place. The IWCMP states that 
wolves will be protected against illegal take as a big game animal 
under Idaho Code 36-1402, 36-1404, and 36-202(h).
    The IWCMP was written with the assistance and leadership of the 
Wolf Oversight Committee established in 1992 by the Idaho Legislature. 
Many special interest groups including legislators, sportsmen, 
livestock producers, conservationists, and IDFG personnel were involved 
in the development of the IWCMP. The Service provided technical advice 
to the Committee and reviewed numerous drafts before the IWCMP was 
finalized.

[[Page 15169]]

In March 2002, the IWCMP was adopted by joint resolution of the Idaho 
Legislature. The IWCMP can be found at: http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf.
    The IWCMP calls for IDFG: To be the primary manager of wolves after 
delisting; to maintain a minimum of 15 packs of wolves to maintain a 
substantial margin of safety over the 10 breeding pair minimum; and to 
manage them as a viable self-sustaining population that will never 
require relisting under the Act. Wolf take will be more liberal if 
there are more than 15 packs and more conservative if there are fewer 
than 15 packs in Idaho. The wolf population will be managed by defense 
of property regulations similar to those now in effect under the Act. 
Public harvest will be incorporated as a management tool when there are 
15 or more packs in Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with livestock 
producers or big game populations that outfitters, guides, and others 
hunt. The IWCMP allows IDFG to classify the wolf as a big game animal 
or furbearer, or to assign a special classification of predator, so 
that human-caused mortality can be regulated. In March 2005, the IGFC 
adopted the classification of wolves as a big game animal post-
delisting, with the intent of managing wolves similar to black bears 
and mountain lions, including regulated public harvest when populations 
are above 15 packs. The IWCMP calls for the State to coordinate with 
USDA-WS to manage depredating wolves depending on the number of wolves 
in the State. It also calls for a balanced educational effort.
    In November 2007, Idaho released its Wolf Population Management 
Plan for public review and comment (Otter 2007, p. 1; Idaho 2007). That 
plan is a more detailed step-down management plan compared to the 
general guidance given in the plan Idaho adopted in 2002 and discusses 
the State's intent to manage the population above 20 breeding pairs to 
provide hunting opportunities for wolves surplus to that goal (Idaho 
2007). The population goal within the plan calls for maintaining the 
population near or above the 2005 levels (approximately 520 wolves). 
The 2007 plan details how wolf populations will be managed to assure 
their niche in Idaho's wild places into the future (Otter 2007). It was 
finalized and adopted by the IFGC in March 2008.
    Maintenance of prey populations is an important part of continued 
wolf recovery. The IDFG will manage elk and deer populations to meet 
biological and social objectives according to the State's species 
management plans. The IDFG will manage both ungulates and carnivores, 
including wolves, to maintain viable populations of each. Ungulate 
harvest will focus on maintaining sufficient prey populations to 
sustain quality hunting and healthy, viable wolf and other carnivore 
populations. IDFG has conducted research to better understand the 
impacts of wolves and their relationships to ungulate population sizes 
and distribution so that regulated take of wolves can be used to assist 
in management of ungulate populations and vice versa.
    The Mule Deer Initiative in southeast Idaho was implemented by IDFG 
in 2005, to restore and improve mule deer populations. Though most of 
the initiative lies outside current wolf range and suitable wolf 
habitat in Idaho, improving ungulate populations and hunter success 
will decrease negative attitudes toward wolves. When mule deer 
increase, some wolves may move into the areas that are being 
highlighted under the initiative. Habitat improvements within much of 
southeast Idaho would focus on improving mule deer conditions. The 
Clearwater Elk Initiative also is an attempt to improve elk numbers in 
the area of the Clearwater Region in north Idaho where currently IDFG 
has concerns about the health of that once-abundant elk herd (Idaho 
2006). This is the same area where low elk numbers resulted in a 
proposal to temporarily reduce wolf density for 5 years in an attempt 
to increase elk numbers. Ultimately more prey always allows areas the 
potential to support more predators, including wolves.
    Once wolves are delisted, human-caused mortality will be regulated 
as directed by the IWCMP to maintain a recovered wolf population. In 
its preliminary injunction order, the District Court stated that 
Idaho's depredation control law was not likely to threaten the 
continued existence of the wolf in Idaho because that State has 
committed to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 
wolves. We agree with this conclusion. The Idaho management plan is 
designed to maintain the Idaho wolf population at over 500 wolves in 
midwinter. At this level, it would be impossible for the Idaho's 
defense of property regulations to significantly affect the overall 
rate of wolf mortality in Idaho (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1; Service et 
al. 2009, Table 5). Furthermore, every mortality, including defense of 
property mortality which usually occurs in summer, will be deducted 
from the fall hunting quota. Therefore, all wolves taken in defense of 
property in Idaho would simply reduce the amount that could otherwise 
be taken by hunters in the fall. Idaho provided a more detailed 
analysis of their regulatory framework in their comments (Otter 2008) 
to our 2008 notice (73 FR 63926, October 28, 2008) reopening the 
comment period on our February 8, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 6106).
    The court specifically noted that Idaho's final wolf hunting 
regulations set a quota for the 2008 hunting season of 428 wolves from 
all causes of mortality Statewide. We anticipate that most mortality 
from hunters would occur in the fall elk and deer season in October and 
November when access is greatest and more hunters are afield. Mortality 
limits were set by zone so that once reached, the hunting season for 
that zone would be closed. As implemented, Idaho included all take in 
defense of property in the total allowable mortality levels. Mandatory 
reporting of harvest or defense of property take is required within 72 
hours. The court's July 18, 2008, order preliminarily enjoining the 
delisting rule prevented implementation of the 2008 hunting season. Had 
the hunting season occurred, the maximum level of wolf mortality would 
have been a maximum (and likely unreachable) harvest of about 244 
wolves. If that one-year quota had been fully achieved it would have 
still likely resulted in a remaining wolf population in Idaho of at 
least 602 wolves by mid-winter 2008 (Otter 2008). In subsequent years, 
Idaho intended to greatly reduce the harvest to about 54 wolves per 
year to maintain the wolf population at or above 518 wolves statewide. 
Any changes in actual harvest or actual wolf population levels from 
theoretical predictions would be adjusted (adaptive management) in 
subsequent years. Wolf populations are so biologically resilient, Idaho 
habitat so productive and expansive, and Idaho is managing for such a 
large buffer above minimum population levels, that such typical year-
to-year fluctuations between theory and reality would never reduce the 
wolf population below State, let alone recovery minimum levels.
    Hunt and defense of property laws, regulations, and other 
background information can be viewed at: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov 
and are discussed in detail in Idaho's (Otter 2008) comments on the 
proposal for this delisting rule.
    Our analysis of Idaho's regulatory framework determined that the 
combined impact of the State law, their wolf management plans and IFGC 
actions and implementing regulations constitute a biologically-based 
and scientifically sound wolf conservation strategy. It will maintain 
the wolf

[[Page 15170]]

population well above recovery minimums and the methods that they will 
utilize to established the hunting quota system and harvest season it 
will promote natural connectivity from Idaho into the GYA (Otter 2008). 
The Service has every confidence that Idaho will implement, for the 
foreseeable future, the commitments it has made in its current laws, 
regulations, and wolf plan. Thus, we continue to determine that Idaho's 
State law, wolf management plan, and implementing regulations provide 
the necessary regulatory mechanisms to assure maintenance of the State 
numerical and distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population 
well into the foreseeable future.
    Wyoming--In 2007, the Wyoming legislature passed a State statute 
which provided the framework for Wyoming's wolf management once the 
wolf is delisted from the Act. Following the change in State law, 
Wyoming drafted a revised wolf management plan (Wyoming 2007). On 
November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan 
(Cleveland 2007, p. 1). On December 12, 2007, the Service determined 
that this plan, if implemented, would provide adequate regulatory 
protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of the recovered NRM wolf 
population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1-3). The plan 
went into effect upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming 
Secretary of State that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming 
wolf management law have been met (W.S. Sec. Sec.  23-1-109(b)&(c); 
Freudenthal 2007a, p. 1-3).
    Implementation of that law was premised on Wyoming's Governor 
certifying to the Wyoming Secretary of State that (1) the Service 
publishing a delisting rule that includes the entire State of Wyoming 
by February 28, 2007; (2) the Service completed a modification of the 
2005 special rule (10j) for the experimental population that addressed 
Wyoming's concerns about wolf management to maintain ungulate herds 
above State management objectives; and (3) settlement of the claims in 
Wyoming's lawsuit contesting the Service not approving Wyoming's 2003 
wolf management law and wolf plan. Wyoming provided the necessary 
certifications before the effective date and the Service-approved 2007 
Wyoming wolf management plan was legally authorized by Wyoming 
statutes. It was implemented on March 28, 2008, when the previous 
delisting rule became effective (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008).
    During the subsequent litigation, the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Montana reviewed our approval of Wyoming's regulatory 
framework. The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a 
wolf population that lacked evidence of genetic exchange between 
subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and 
capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 regulatory framework. The 
court was particularly concerned that Wyoming failed to commit to 
managing for at least 15 breeding pairs. The court also stated that 
accepting a ``small'' trophy game area designation (approximately 12 
percent of northwest Wyoming) was not supported by the record and was 
therefore arbitrary and capricious. Even more problematic, in the 
courts view, was the ``malleable'' nature of the trophy game area which 
could be diminished by the WGFC post-delisting. Finally, the court 
raised concerns with Wyoming's depredation control law which it viewed 
as significantly more expansive than existing experimental population 
regulations. The court concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to 
prevail on the merits of their claims.
    Based on the concerns expressed by the district court, we 
reanalyzed Wyoming's regulatory framework. A central component of 
Wyoming's regulatory framework is its plan to designate wolves as 
predatory animals across at least 88 percent of the State and manage 
wolves as a trophy game animal in the remaining portions of northwest 
Wyoming. The trophy game area totaled just over 31,000 km\2\ (12,000 
mi\2\) (12% of Wyoming) in northwestern Wyoming, including YNP, Grand 
Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent 
U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, and adjacent public 
and private lands.
    In the predatory area, wolves will experience unregulated human-
caused mortality. Wolves are unlike coyotes in that wolf behavior and 
reproductive biology results in wolves being extirpated in the face of 
extensive human-caused mortality. As we have previously concluded (71 
FR 43410, August 1, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, 
February 27, 2008), wolves are unlikely to survive in portions of 
Wyoming where they are regulated as predatory animals. This conclusion 
was validated this spring. After our previous delisting became 
effective, most of the wolves in the predatory animal area were killed 
within a few weeks of losing the Act's protection (17 of at least 28). 
Mortality included: 9 shot from the ground by private individuals, 
sometimes after being chased long distances by snowmobile; 2 shot by 
private aerial gunners permitted by the Wyoming Department of 
Agriculture; 5 killed by agency authorized control, and 1 died of 
unknown causes.
    ``Trophy game'' status allows the WGFC and WGFD to regulate methods 
of take, hunting seasons, types of allowed take, and numbers of wolves 
that could be killed. All other States within the NRM DPS manage wolves 
as a game species.
    We previously approved this approach because the 12 percent of 
Wyoming where wolves would be managed as a trophy game species included 
70 percent of the State's suitable wolf habitat and was presumed large 
enough to support Wyoming's share of a recovered wolf population. This 
approach failed to consider the impacts of the predatory animal area to 
genetic connectivity. As discussed fully in Factor E and the Conclusion 
of the 5-Factor Analysis sections below, we now believe Wyoming must 
institute additional protections to facilitate natural genetic exchange 
in order to constitute an adequate regulatory mechanism. Specifically, 
long distance dispersers from other recovery areas, especially from 
Idaho, are most likely to cross the predatory animal area to find and 
join other packs (facilitating genetic connectivity) east or south of 
YNP. This approach also had failed to consider the likelihood that some 
lone wolves or even breeding pairs or packs from the trophy game area 
may periodically and temporarily disperse from the trophy animal area. 
Some of these dispersers would normally return to the northwest 
Wyoming's core of suitable habitat. The current regulatory framework 
substantially increases the odds that these periodic dispersers will 
not survive, thus, impacting Wyoming's wolf population including 
opportunities for genetic and demographic exchange. Wyoming's 2008 plan 
commits to maintain genetic connectivity, but under State law they have 
no management authority or means in the predatory animal area to 
actually fulfill that promise.
    While the statute sets the legal maximum for Wyoming's trophy game 
area, ``This area may be diminished by rule of the commission if the 
commission determines the diminution does not impede the delisting of 
gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's management of wolves'' 
(Wyoming House Bill 0231, (xii)(l) p. 8). The first condition is not 
useful since wolves would have already been delisted for Wyoming's law 
to apply. As previously

[[Page 15171]]

determined (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), a smaller trophy game area is 
not sufficient to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf 
population. Our previous analysis failed to consider the possibility 
that the WGFC would alter these boundaries. We now determine that a 
reduction in the trophy game area and expansion of the predatory area 
would further limit breeding pair occupancy in Wyoming and reduce 
opportunities for successful dispersal and genetic exchange.
    Within the trophy game portions of the State, Wyoming State law 
mandates an ``aggressive'' wolf management strategy that we now 
determine is unlikely to conserve Wyoming's share of a recovered wolf 
population. One flaw with Wyoming's approach is the law's dependence on 
the National Parks to contribute at least 8 breeding pairs toward the 
total goal of at least 15 breeding pairs statewide. Such dependence 
could lead the Wyoming wolf population to quickly slide below recovery 
goals. While the National Parks will maintain more than 8 breeding 
pairs in most years, the National Parks' population will periodically 
fall below 8 breeding pairs. In 2005, disease and other factors caused 
the YNP population to fall to 118 wolves in 7 breeding pairs (Service 
et al. 2006). Preliminary data for 2008 indicates similar natural 
factors reduced the YNP population to 124 wolves in 6 breeding pairs 
(Smith 2008). Wyoming State law maintains that ``the (WGFC) shall 
promulgate rules and regulations requiring lethal control of wolves 
harassing * * * livestock and for wolves occupying areas where chronic 
wolf predation occurs.'' It goes on to state that ``permits shall be 
issued as long as there are seven (7) breeding pairs within the State 
and outside of YNP.'' The mandatory issuance of such lethal take 
permits are independent of predictions whether the year-end wolf 
population would be below 7 breeding pairs outside the National Parks 
or 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves Statewide. The law allows for 
cancellation or suspension of permits only if further lethal control 
could cause the relisting of wolves.
    Thus, State law mandates aggressive management until the population 
outside the National Parks fall to 6 breeding pairs. If such a 
management strategy had been fully implemented in 2008, when disease 
and other natural factors appear to have reduced the YNP population to 
6 breeding pairs, the total Wyoming population would have fallen to the 
minimum recovery goal and any additional unregulated mortality (e.g., 
illegal killing, defense of property, control of problem wolves, death 
following dispersal into the predatory area) eliminating breeding pairs 
would have pushed the Wyoming wolf population below minimum recovery 
levels. We have long maintained that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho must 
each manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in 
mid-winter to ensure the population never falls below the minimum 
recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State. As 
demonstrated here, Wyoming State law does not satisfy this standard. 
Thus, we now determine Wyoming State law would prevent Wyoming from 
maintaining its share of a recovered NRM wolf population into the 
foreseeable future.
    On March 13, 2008, WGFC issued regulations implementing the law 
(Wyoming Chapter 21). These regulations further demonstrate the 
inadequacy of the regulatory framework established by State law. As 
noted above, State law requires lethal control of wolves where chronic 
wolf predation occurs. The WGFC's implementing regulations defined a 
``chronic wolf predation area'' as any area where there were two or 
more livestock depredations over any time frame (Talbott 2008). The 
WGFC's March 25, 2008 wolf regulation guidance stipulated that once an 
area is deemed a chronic depredation area, the WGFD supervisor can 
issue permits without verification of predation. This interpretation 
meant that every part of the trophy game area outside the National 
Parks qualified as a chronic wolf predation area as every part of 
Wyoming has had two or more depredations on livestock by wolves since 
1995 and that issuance of lethal take permits would be mandatory on the 
part of WGFD provided seven packs were present outside the National 
Parks in Wyoming, regardless of the number of wolves in National Parks. 
The changes made in the emergency WGFC regulations in 2008 largely 
rectified that problem of unregulated take in the trophy game area.
    Shortly after our previous wolf delisting, WGFD issued its first 
trophy game area annual lethal take permit. This permit authorized 
lethal take of four wolves after the landowner reported seeing a wolf 
track on his private property. In early July, and despite no recent 
depredations, this same permit was modified by WGFD to include a total 
of nine people some of whom had no apparent connection to the property. 
In early May, a federal grazing permittee who had depredations on his 
allotment the previous summer requested that WGFD remove wolves prior 
to him placing his cattle on allotment or to provide him with a lethal 
control permit. As his grazing allotment was in the chronic wolf 
predation area (as was all of the trophy game area in Wyoming outside 
the National Parks), the WGFC regulations required them to issue the 
lethal take permit. Such examples demonstrate that the framework 
established by State law allows Wyoming to reduce their wolf population 
outside the National Parks to 6 breeding pairs regardless of whether 
the year-end wolf population would be below 7 breeding pairs outside 
the National Parks or 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves Statewide.
    At the point where we became aware of these implementing 
regulations, we began discussions with Wyoming about whether these 
regulations constituted an adequate regulatory mechanism. In response, 
WDGF asked the Wyoming Attorney General's Office to review the 
situation. On May 8, 2008, the Attorney General issued an opinion on 
the implementing regulation's definition of chronic wolf predation 
area. The regulation states `` `Chronic wolf predation area' means a 
geographic area within the Wolf Trophy Game Management Area where gray 
wolves have repeatedly (twice or more) harassed, injured, maimed or 
killed livestock or domesticated animals.'' The opinion found that the 
regulations use of ``twice or more'' was ambiguous and that in order to 
meet the intent of the Statute that wolves not be relisted, the State 
should interpret ``twice or more'' to mean within a calendar year 
(Martin 2008, p. 1-5). Consequently, the State determined that WGFD may 
not initiate wolf control actions, including issuing lethal take 
permits, unless an area had two or more instances of wolves harassing, 
injuring, maiming or killing livestock or domestic animals since 
January 1 of that year. While this significantly improved 
implementation of their regulations, we remained concerned about this 
ambiguity.
    Following this May 8, 2008, opinion, Wyoming indicated they would 
amend the regulations at their earliest opportunity. Revisions were 
finally made to their regulations after the District Court vacated and 
remanded our previous final rule.
    On October 27, 2008, Wyoming issued emergency regulations and a 
revised wolf management plan. We have closely reviewed Wyoming's 
comments on the proposed delisting rule (Freudenthal 2008) and all 
changes to Wyoming's regulatory framework. While we believe the revised 
regulatory framework is a vast improvement over its predecessor, the 
emergency regulation is temporary (it is only in effect for 120 days). 
Thus,

[[Page 15172]]

we can not rely on it as an adequate regulatory mechanism. Most 
importantly, these regulatory improvements do not address the 
legislative shortcomings noted above (i.e., a trophy game area that can 
be diminished and a statute that encourages the WGFC to manage the 
population toward the minimum recovery goals in a manner that allows 
the possible reduction of the wolf population to below recovery levels.
    We find that a regulatory framework for wolf management at minimum 
recovery levels is not adequate. Attempts to maintain any wildlife 
population at bare minimum levels are unlikely to be successful. As 
with all wildlife species, periodic disturbance or random events will 
occur. This fact was proven by the dramatic, but temporary changes, in 
wolves and breeding pairs in YNP in 2005 and 2008. Managing at minimal 
levels increases the likelihood that periodic disturbance or random 
events will leave the population below management objectives. Instead, 
the State wildlife agency should be given leeway in its management 
approach to compensate for periodic or random events, as Montana and 
Idaho have done. Managing to minimal recovery levels also increases the 
chances of genetic problems developing in the GYA population and would 
reduce the opportunities for demographic and genetic exchange in the WY 
portion to the GYA.
    We also reviewed Wyoming's proposed 2008 hunting season regulation. 
While the proposed 2008 hunting season was not implemented, we 
determined it was well designed, biologically sound, and, by itself, it 
would not have threatened Wyoming's share of the recovered NRM wolf 
population. Wyoming's hunting season was designed around an allowable 
hunter-caused mortality in each of four hunting districts in the trophy 
game area. Hunting would end by November 30, or in each subquota as its 
individual quota is filled, or when 25 wolves had been harvested, 
whichever is sooner. This level of hunter-caused mortality would remove 
a small portion of the wolves in Wyoming outside the national parks. If 
other sources of mortality had been adequately regulated, this level of 
hunter harvest would likely have resulted in a Wyoming wolf population 
outside the national parks of just under 200 wolves by December 31, 
2008 and nearly 400 wolves in the GYA. Because hunting harvest would 
end November 30, it would have had only minor negative impacts within 
the trophy game area on naturally dispersing wolves or the opportunity 
for effective genetic migrants into Wyoming. Wolves in YNP would not be 
substantially affected by a regulated public hunt, as hunting is not 
allowed in national parks and wolves rarely leave YNP during the time 
period when the fall hunting season would occur.
    Considering all of the above, we now determine that Wyoming's 
regulatory framework does not provide the adequate regulatory 
mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf 
population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were 
removed (Gould 2009). Until Wyoming revises their statutes, management 
plan, and associated regulations, and is approved by the Service, 
wolves in Wyoming remain listed as experimental population in this 
portion of the NRM DPS. Specific required revisions are discussed in 
the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis section of the rule below.
    Washington--Wolves in Washington are listed as endangered under the 
State's administrative code (WAC 232.12.014; these provisions may be 
viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/). Under Washington's 
administrative code (WAC 232.12.297), ``endangered'' means any wildlife 
species native to the State of Washington that is seriously threatened 
with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the State. Endangered species in the State of Washington are 
protected from hunting, possession, and malicious harassment, unless 
such taking has been authorized by rule of the Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Commission (RCW 77.15.120; these provisions can be viewed at: 
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/). If the NRM DPS is delisted, those areas 
in Washington included in the NRM DPS would remain listed as endangered 
by Washington State law until the wolf meets the statewide conservation 
objectives in the Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. The 
Conservation objectives will establish the targets for downlisting to 
threatened, downlisting to sensitive status, and then delisting from 
sensitive status. The areas in Washington not included in the NRM DPS 
would remain listed as endangered under both State and Federal law 
until further rulemaking is proposed.
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf family 
units in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998), 
agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful until summer 2008 when 
a breeding pair (at least an adult male and female and 6 pups) were 
confirmed near Twisp, Washington. Genetic analysis indicated that 
neither adult was related to the NRM wolves and had probably originated 
in central British Columbia. Intervening unsuitable habitat makes it 
highly unlikely that many wolves from the NRM population will disperse 
to the North Cascades of Washington in the future.
    Washington State does not currently have a final wolf conservation 
and management plan for wolves. However, the State established a wolf 
working group advisory committee and is preparing a draft State gray 
wolf conservation and management plan (see http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/). That plan should be finalized in late 2009. 
Interagency Wolf Response Guidelines have been developed by the 
Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and USDA WS to 
provide a checklist of response actions for five situations that may 
arise in the future (can be viewed at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/gray_wolf/contacts.htm. Wolf management in Washington may be 
beneficial to the NRM wolf population, but is not necessary for 
achieving or maintaining a population of wolves in the NRM DPS.
    Oregon--The gray wolf has been classified as endangered under the 
Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 496.171-192) since 1987. The law 
requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to conserve the 
species in Oregon. Anticipating the reestablishment of wolves in Oregon 
from the growing Idaho population, the Commission directed the 
development of a wolf conservation and management plan to meet the 
requirements of both the Oregon Endangered Species Act and the Oregon 
Wildlife Policy. ORS 496.012 states in part that ``It is the policy of 
the State of Oregon that wildlife shall be managed to prevent serious 
depletion of any indigenous species and to provide the optimum 
recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations 
of the citizens of this State.''
    In February 2005, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted 
the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Oregon 2005). The 
plan was built to meet the following five delisting criteria identified 
in State statutes and administrative rules: (1) The species is not now 
(and is not likely in the foreseeable future to be) in danger of 
extinction in any significant portion of its range in Oregon or in 
danger of becoming endangered; (2) the species' natural reproductive 
potential is not in danger of failure due to limited population 
numbers, disease, predation, or other natural or human-related factors 
affecting its continued existence;

[[Page 15173]]

(3) most populations are not undergoing imminent or active 
deterioration of range or primary habitat; (4) overutilization of the 
species or its habitat for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes is not occurring or likely to occur; and (5) 
existing State or Federal programs or regulations are adequate to 
protect the species and its habitat.
    The Plan describes measures the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (ODFW) will take to conserve and manage the species. These 
measures include actions that could be taken to protect livestock from 
wolf depredation and address human safety concerns. The following 
summarizes the primary components of the plan.
    Wolves that naturally disperse into Oregon will be conserved and 
managed under the plan. Wolves will not be captured outside of Oregon 
and released in the State. Wolves may be considered for Statewide 
delisting once the population reaches four breeding pairs for 3 
consecutive years in eastern Oregon. Four breeding pairs are considered 
the minimum conservation population objective, also described as Phase 
1. The plan calls for managing wolves in western Oregon, as if the 
species remains listed, until the western Oregon wolf population 
reaches four breeding pairs. This means, for example, that a landowner 
would be required to obtain a permit to address depredation problems 
using injurious harassment.
    While the wolf remains listed as a State endangered species, the 
following will be allowed: (1) Wolves may be harassed (e.g., shouting, 
firing a shot in the air) to distract a wolf from a livestock operation 
or area of human activity; (2) harassment that causes injury to a wolf 
(e.g., rubber bullets or bean bag projectiles) may be employed to 
prevent depredation, but only with a permit; (3) wolves may be 
relocated to resolve an immediate localized problem from an area of 
human activity (e.g., wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to the 
nearest wilderness area; (4) relocation will be done by ODFW or USDA-WS 
personnel; (5) livestock producers who witness a wolf in the act of 
attacking livestock on public or private land must have a permit before 
taking any action that would cause harm to the wolf; and (6) wolves 
involved in chronic depredation may be killed by ODFW or USDA-WS 
personnel; however, nonlethal methods will be emphasized and employed 
first in appropriate circumstances.
    Once the wolf is State-delisted, more options are available to 
address wolf-livestock conflict. While there are five to seven breeding 
pairs (the management population objective for Phase 2), landowners may 
kill a wolf involved in chronic depredation with a permit. Under Phase 
3 (more than seven breeding pairs), a limited controlled hunt could be 
allowed to decrease chronic depredation or reduce pressure on wild 
ungulate populations.
    The plan provides wildlife managers with adaptive management 
strategies to address wolf predation problems on wild ungulates if 
confirmed wolf predation leads to declines in localized herds. In the 
unlikely event that a person is attacked by a wolf, the plan describes 
the circumstances under which Oregon's criminal code and the Federal 
Act would allow harassing, harming or killing of wolves where necessary 
to avoid imminent, grave injury. Such an incident must be reported to 
law enforcement officials.
    A strong information and education program will ensure anyone with 
an interest in wolves is able to learn more about the species and stay 
informed about wildlife management activities. The plan identifies 
several research projects as being necessary for future success of 
long-term wolf conservation and management in Oregon. Monitoring and 
radio-collaring wolves are listed as critical components of the plan 
both for conservation and communication with Oregonians. An economic 
analysis provides estimates of costs and benefits associated with 
wolves in Oregon and wolf conservation and management. Finally, the 
plan requires annual reporting to the Commission on program 
implementation.
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, as approved by the Oregon Fish and 
Wildlife Commission in February 2005, called for three legislative 
actions which the 2005 Oregon Legislative Assembly considered, but did 
not adopt. In 2007, ODFW proposed the bill again in the state 
Legislature to make three legislative actions, but again they were not 
adopted. ODFW has no plans to reintroduce any wolf legislation in the 
2009 session. These actions were: (1) Changing the legal status of the 
gray wolf from protected non-game wildlife to a ``special status 
mammal'' under the ``game mammal'' definition in ORS 496.004; (2) 
amending the wildlife damage statute (ORS 498.012) to remove the 
requirement for a permit to lethally take a gray wolf caught in the act 
of attacking livestock; and (3) creating a State-funded program to pay 
compensation for wolf-caused losses of livestock and to pay for 
proactive methods to prevent wolf depredation. As a result, the Fish 
and Wildlife Commission amended the Oregon Plan in December 2005 and 
rather than dropping the proposals, moved them from the body of the 
Plan to an appendix. The Commission remains on record as calling for 
those legislative enhancements; however, implementation of the Oregon 
Plan does not depend upon them.
    Under the Oregon Wolf Management Plan, the gray wolf will remain 
classified as endangered under State law until the conservation 
population objective for eastern Oregon is reached (i.e., four breeding 
pairs for 3 consecutive years). Once the objective is achieved, the 
State delisting process will be initiated. Following delisting from the 
State Endangered Species Act, wolves will retain their classification 
as nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375.
    Compared to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 
containing suitable habitat within Oregon is small. We acknowledge that 
a few packs may become established within the DPS in Oregon; however, 
their role in the overall conservation of the NRM DPS is inherently 
small given the limited number of packs that habitat there is likely to 
support. That said, we encourage State efforts to conserve wildlife 
that is locally rare or endangered and we expect Oregon's wolf 
management approach to be beneficial to the NRM wolf population. We 
determine wolf management in Oregon is adequate to facilitate the 
maintenance of, and in no way threatens, the NRM DPS's recovered 
status.
    Utah--If federally delisted, wolves in Utah's portion of the NRM 
DPS would remain listed as protected wildlife under State law. In Utah, 
wolves fall under three layers of protection--(1) State code, (2) 
Administrative Rule and (3) Species Management Plan. The Utah Code can 
be found at: http://www.le.State.ut.us/~code/TITLE23/TITLE23.htm. The 
relevant administrative rules that restrict wolf take can be found at 
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-003.htm and http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-011.htm. These regulations 
restrict all potential taking of wolves in Utah, including that portion 
in the NRM DPS.
    In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 12, 
which directed the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to draft 
a wolf management plan for the review, modification and adoption by the 
Utah Wildlife Board, through the Regional Advisory Council process. In 
April 2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed UDWR to develop a proposal 
for a wolf working group to assist the agency in this endeavor. The 
UDWR created the

[[Page 15174]]

Wolf Working Group in the summer of 2003. The Wolf Working Group is 
composed of 13 members that represent diverse public interests 
regarding wolves in Utah.
    On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife Board passed the Utah Wolf 
Management Plan (Utah 2005). The goal of the Plan is to manage, study, 
and conserve wolves moving into Utah while avoiding conflicts with the 
elk and deer management objectives of the Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing 
livestock depredation; and protecting wild ungulate populations in Utah 
from excessive wolf predation. The Utah Plan can be viewed at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/. Its purpose is to guide management of 
wolves in Utah during an interim period from Federal delisting until 
2015, or until it is determined that wolves have become established in 
Utah, or the political, social, biological, or legal assumptions of the 
plan change. During this interim period, immigrating wolves will be 
studied to determine where they are most likely to settle without 
conflict.
    Compared to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 
containing suitable habitat within Utah is very small. Wolf management 
in Utah will have no effect on the recovered wolf population. We 
acknowledge that a few packs might become established within the DPS in 
Utah; however, their role in the overall conservation of the NRM DPS is 
inherently small given the limited number of packs that habitat there 
is likely to support. That said, we encourage State efforts to conserve 
wildlife that is locally rare or endangered and we expect Utah's wolf 
management approach to be beneficial to the NRM wolf population. We 
determine wolf management in Utah is adequate to facilitate the 
maintenance of, and in no way threatens, the NRM DPS's recovered 
status.
    Tribal Plans--Approximately 20 Tribes are within the NRM DPS. 
Currently, perhaps only 1 or 2 wolf packs are entirely dependent on 
Tribal lands for their existence in the NRM DPS. In the NRM DPS about 
32,942 km\2\ (12,719 mi\2\) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal land. In 
the NRM wolf occupied habitat, about 4,696 km\2\ (1,813 mi\2\) (2 
percent) is Tribal land (Service 2006; 71 FR 6645, February 8, 2006). 
Therefore, while Tribal lands can contribute some habitat for wolf 
packs in the NRM, they will be relatively unimportant to maintaining a 
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. Many wolf packs live in areas 
of public land where Tribes have various treaty rights, such as 
wildlife harvest. The States agreed to incorporate Tribal harvest into 
their assessment of the potential surplus of wolves available for 
public harvest in each State, each year, to ensure that the wolf 
population is maintained above recovery levels. Utilization of those 
Tribal treaty rights will not significantly impact the wolf population 
or reduce it below recovery levels because a small portion of the wolf 
population could be affected by Tribal harvest or lives in areas 
subject to Tribal harvest rights.
    The overall regulatory framework analyzed in this proposed rule 
depends entirely on State-led management of wolves that are primarily 
on lands where resident wildlife is traditionally managed primarily by 
the State. Any wolves that may establish themselves on Tribal lands 
will be in addition to those managed by the State outside Tribal 
reservations. At this point in time, only the Wind River Tribe (Wind 
River Tribe 2007) has an approved tribal wolf management plan for its 
lands. In addition, Nez Perce Tribe had a Service wolf management plan 
approved in 1995, but that plan only applied to listed wolves. It was 
approved by the Service so the Tribe could take a portion of the 
responsibility for wolf monitoring and management in Idaho under the 
special regulation under section 10(j). While the Blackfeet Tribe has a 
wolf management plan, Blackfeet Tribal lands are not in the 
experimental population area. Therefore, all wolf management on 
Blackfeet Tribal lands has been directed by Service guidelines (Service 
1999). No other Tribe has submitted a wolf management plan.
    In November 2005, the Service requested information from all Tribes 
in the NRM regarding their Tribal regulations and any other relevant 
information regarding Tribal management or concerns about wolves (Bangs 
2004). All responses were reviewed and addressed, including 
incorporation into the rule where appropriate.
    Compared to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 
containing suitable habitat within Tribal lands is small. We 
acknowledge that a few packs may become established within the DPS on 
Tribal lands; however, their role in the overall conservation of the 
NRM DPS is inherently small given the limited number of packs that 
habitat there is likely to support. That said, we encourage State 
efforts to conserve wildlife that is locally rare or endangered and we 
expect Washington's wolf management approach to be beneficial to the 
NRM wolf population. We determine wolf management on Tribal lands is 
adequate to facilitate the maintenance of, and in no way threatens, the 
NRM DPS's recovered status.
    Summary--We have determined that adequate regulatory mechanisms are 
in place in all portions of the NRM DPS except Wyoming. Montana and 
Idaho have committed to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at 
least 150 wolves in mid-winter to ensure the population never falls 
below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in either State. All sources of 
mortality will be carefully managed. State projections indicate that 
the NRM wolf population in Montana and Idaho will be managed for around 
673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 79 breeding pairs. As long as populations 
are maintained well above minimal recovery levels, wolf biology (namely 
the species' reproductive capacity) and the availability of large, 
secure blocks of suitable habitat will maintain strong source 
populations capable of withstanding all other foreseeable threats.
    Wyoming's regulatory framework does not provide the adequate 
regulatory mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM 
wolf population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were 
removed. We determine that revision of Wyoming's wolf management law is 
necessary (Gould 2009). This revision will then provide the foundation 
for Wyoming's larger regulatory framework, including the State's wolf 
management plan and implementing regulations so that it assures 
conservation of the gray wolf rather than focus on aggressive control. 
Until Wyoming revises their statutes, management plan, and associated 
regulations, and is again Service approved, wolves in Wyoming continue 
to require the protections of the Act.
    Compared to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 
containing suitable habitat within Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Tribal 
lands is small. We acknowledge that a few packs may become established 
within these portions of the DPS; however, their role in the overall 
conservation of the NRM DPS is inherently small given the limited 
number of packs that habitat there is likely to support. That said, we 
encourage State and Tribal efforts to conserve wildlife that is locally 
rare or endangered and we expect wolf management in these areas to be 
beneficial to the NRM wolf population. Any wolf breeding pairs that do 
become established in these areas would be in addition to those 
necessary to maintain the wolf population above recovery levels. The 
adjacent States of Utah, Oregon, and Washington all have in

[[Page 15175]]

place laws protecting wolves that would remain in effect after 
delisting. Utah, Oregon, and the Wind River Tribe have adopted 
beneficial wolf management plans and Washington is currently finalizing 
one. We determine wolf management in these areas is adequate to 
facilitate the maintenance of, and in no way threatens, the NRM DPS's 
recovered status.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf--Human attitudes toward 
wolves is the main reason the wolf was listed under the Act. These 
attitudes are largely based on the real and perceived conflicts between 
human activities and values and wolves, such as depredation on 
livestock and pets, competition for surplus wild ungulates between 
hunters and wolves, concerns for human safety, wolves' symbolic 
representation of wildness and ecosystem health, the economic costs and 
benefits, killing of wolves by people, and the wolf-related traditions 
of Native American Tribes or local culture.
    Public hostility toward wolves led to the excessive human-caused 
mortality that extirpated the species from the NRM DPS in the 1930s. 
Such attitudes toward wolves are deeply ingrained in some individuals 
and continue to affect human tolerance of wolves. The predatory animal 
designation in Wyoming underscores this point. Wyoming's 2003 State law 
and wolf management plan essentially confined wolves to Wyoming's 
National Parks and wilderness areas. In 2007, Wyoming mandated wolves 
be classified as predatory animals in at least 88 percent of the State 
and allowed this area to be expanded if the WGFC ``determines the 
diminution does not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will 
facilitate Wyoming's management of wolves.'' Such a management strategy 
is not required to manage wolf density and distribution and was not 
used by other States.
    Because of the impact that public attitudes can have on wolf 
recovery, we are requiring adequate regulatory mechanisms to be in 
place that will balance negative attitudes towards wolves in the places 
necessary for recovery. As discussed extensively in Factor D, we find 
that the management plans in Idaho and Montana adequately protect 
wolves from this threat. However, the regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming 
are currently insufficient to protect the wolves in that State from 
some of the outcomes that occur when the public has negative 
perceptions regarding wolf presence.
    Outside of Wyoming, all the other States in the NRM DPS appear to 
have reached an acceptable compromise balancing the needs of the 
species and the diverse opinions of their citizens. Montana and Idaho 
have passed laws and regulations that implement a balanced and socially 
acceptable program that meets the legal requirements of the Act, 
promotes occupancy of suitable habitat in a manner that minimizes 
damage to private property, allows for continuation of traditional 
western land-uses such as grazing and hunting, and allows for direct 
citizen participation in and funding for State wolf management (State 
defense of property and hunting regulations). With the continued help 
of private conservation organizations, Montana, Idaho, and the Tribes 
will continue to foster public support to maintain recovered wolf 
populations in the NRM DPS. Post-delisting management by Montana and 
Idaho will further enhance local public support for wolf recovery 
(Bangs 2008). State management provides a larger and more effective 
local organization and a more familiar means for dealing with these 
conflicts (Mech 1995, pp. 275-276; Williams et al. 2002, p. 582; Bangs 
et al. 2004, p. 102; Bangs et al. in press, Bangs 2008). State wildlife 
organizations have specific departments and staff dedicated to 
providing accurate and science-based public education, information, and 
outreach (Idaho 2007, p. 23-24, Appendix A; Montana 2003, p. 90-91). 
The comprehensive approach to wolf management in Montana and Idaho 
ensures human attitudes toward wolves should not again threaten each 
state's contribution to a recovered wolf population. The neighboring 
States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah, as well as many of the Tribes, 
have also developed regulatory mechanisms that balance the needs of the 
species and the diverse opinions of their citizens in order to 
facilitate the maintenance of, and in no way threaten, the NRM DPS's 
recovered status.
    Genetic Considerations--Currently, genetic diversity throughout the 
NRM DPS is very high (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 
1997, p. 226; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2008). 
Contemporary statistics for genetic diversity from 2002-2004 for 
central Idaho, northwestern Montana, and the GYA, respectively are; n = 
85, 104, 210; allelic diversity = 9.5, 9.1, 10.3; observed 
heterozygosity = 0.723, 0.650, 0.708; expected heterozygosity = 0.767, 
0.728, 0.738. (vonHoldt et al. 2008). These levels have not diminished 
since 1995. The high allelic diversity (a measure of the richness of 
genetic material available for natural selection to act on) and the 
high heterozygosity (a measure of how gene forms are packaged in an 
individual, with high heterozygosity tending to lead to higher fitness) 
demonstrate all subpopulations within the NRM wolf populations have 
high standing levels of genetic variability. In short, wolves in 
northwestern Montana and both the reintroduced populations are as 
genetically diverse as their vast, secure, healthy, contiguous, and 
connected populations in Canada; thus, inadequate genetic diversity is 
not a wolf conservation issue in the NRM at this time (Forbes and Boyd 
1997, p. 1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2008). This 
genetic health is the result of deliberate management actions by the 
Service and its cooperators since 1995 (Bradley et al. 2005).
    Genetic exchange at one effective migrant (i.e., a breeding migrant 
that passes on its genes) per generation is enough to ensure that 
genetic diversity will remain high (Mills 2007, p. 193). Wolves have an 
unusual ability to rapidly disperse long distances across virtually any 
habitat and select mates to maximize genetic diversity. Thus, wolves 
are among the least likely species to be affected by inbreeding when 
compared to nearly any other species of land mammal (Fuller et al. 
2003, 189-190; Paquet et al. 2006, p. 3; Liberg 2008, p. 1). The 
northwestern Montana and central Idaho core recovery areas are well 
connected to each other, and to large wolf populations in Canada, 
through regular dispersals (Boyd et al. 1995; Boyd and Pletscher 1999; 
Jimenez et al. 2008d; vonHoldt et al. 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2008).
    While the GYA is the most isolated core recovery area within the 
NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19), 
radio telemetry data demonstrate that the GYA is not isolated as wolves 
regularly disperse into the area from the other recovery areas. For 
example, in 2002, a collared wolf from Idaho dispersed into Wyoming and 
became the breeding male of the Greybull pack near Meeteetse. In 2009, 
a male disperser from central Idaho (whose father dispersed from YNP to 
central Idaho) likely bred with a female in the GYA and is establishing 
a new pack east of YNP. He also associated with the newly formed Evert 
pack in YNP in 2008 (Smith 2008). Since only about 30 percent of the 
NRM wolf population has been radio-collared, other unmarked wolves from 
Idaho or

[[Page 15176]]

northwestern Montana have undoubtedly made the journey to the GYA and 
successfully bred. While vonHoldt et al. (2007) found no evidence of 
gene flow into YNP, an expanded analysis by vonHoldt et al. (2008) has 
demonstrated gene flow by naturally dispersing wolves form other 
recovery areas into the GYA.
    Overall, data from radio-collared wolves indicates that at least 
one wolf naturally disperses into the GYA each year and at least 4 
radio-collared non-GYA wolves have bred and produced offspring in the 
GYA in the past 12 years (1996-2008). Undoubtedly, other uncollared 
wolves have also naturally dispersed into and bred in the GYA (Wayne 
2009, pers. comm.). Since a wolf generation is approximately 4 years, 
there has been over one effective migrant per generation in the GYA 
wolf population. This amount of migration exceeds the widely accepted 
effective migrant per generation rule. This rule, widely accepted by 
conservation biology and genetic literature, holds that one breeding 
immigrant per generation should allow for local evolutionary adaptation 
while minimizing negative effects of genetic drift and inbreeding 
depression (Mills 2008).
    State and Federal management post-delisting will continue to ensure 
potential for natural genetic exchange. Wolves will be managed at high 
levels and human caused mortality will be purposely limited during peak 
periods of dispersal. Management practices, committed to in State 
management plans, will increase the potential to naturally incorporate 
effective migrants include: Reducing the rate of population turnover 
and fostering persistent wolf packs in all or select core recovery 
segments or all or select areas of suitable habitat (Oakleaf et al. 
2005; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007); periodically creating localized 
disruptions of wolf pack structure or modified wolf density in select 
areas of suitable habitat to create social vacancies or space for 
dispersing wolves to fill; maintaining higher rather than lower overall 
wolf numbers in all or select recovery areas; maintaining more 
contiguous and broader wolf distribution instead of disjunction and 
limited breeding pair distribution; minimizing mortality between and 
around core recovery segments during critical wolf dispersal and 
breeding periods (December through April); and reducing the rates of 
mortality in core recovery segments during denning and pup rearing 
periods (April through September).
    Montana and Idaho have already incorporated most of these types of 
management practices into their wolf management frameworks. 
Furthermore, Montana and Idaho have designed their management 
practices, especially hunting seasons, to maintain relatively high wolf 
numbers and distribution throughout suitable habitat and to protect 
dispersing wolves from harvest during peak dispersal, breeding and pup 
rearing periods. In addition, problem wolf control is restricted to 
recent depredation events which are uncommon during peak dispersal 
periods. These measures should ensure dispersal toward the GYA from 
northwest Montana and central Idaho continues.
    Additionally, connectivity across the NRM will remain a high 
priority issue for the Service and our partner wildlife agencies. A 
process to identify, maintain and improve wildlife movement areas 
between the large blocks of public land in the NRM is ongoing (Servheen 
et al. 2003, p. 3). This interagency effort involves 13 State and 
Federal agencies working on linkage facilitation across private lands, 
public lands, and highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 2001, 
pp. 1-2; Brown 2006, p. 1-3). To date, this effort has included--(1) 
development of a written protocol and guidance document on how to 
implement linkage zone management on public lands (Public Land Linkage 
Taskforce 2004, pp. 3-5); (2) production of several private land 
linkage management documents (Service 1997; Parker and Parker 2002, p. 
2); (3) analyses of linkage zone management in relation to highways 
(Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller and Servheen 2005, p. 998); 
and (4) a workshop in the spring of 2006 on implementing management 
actions for wildlife linkage (the proceedings of which are available 
online at: http://www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage). The objective of this work 
is to maintain and enhance movement opportunities for all wildlife 
species across the NRM. Although this linkage work is not directly 
associated with the wolf population, it should benefit wolves even 
after delisting.
    Successful natural migration into the GYA is also dependant upon 
Wyoming. Specifically, wolves must not only be able to get to Wyoming 
but they must be able to traverse large portions of it for extended 
periods of time, to survive long enough to find a mate in suitable 
habitat and reproduce. Wyoming's current regulatory framework for 
delisted wolves minimizes the likelihood of successful migration into 
the GYA. Under current State law, wolves are classified as predatory 
animals in at least 88 percent of the State. Wolves are unlikely to 
survive long in portions of Wyoming where they are regulated as 
predatory animals. As most wolves tend to disperse in winter, 
dispersing wolves tend to travel through valleys where snow depths are 
lowest and wild prey is concentrated. Likely wolf dispersal patterns 
indicate that dispersing wolves moving into the GYA from Idaho or 
Montana tend to move through the predatory area (Oakleaf et al. 2005, 
p. 559). Physical barriers (such as high-elevation mountain ranges that 
are difficult to traverse in winter) appear to discourage dispersal 
through the National Parks' northern and western boundaries. Limited 
social openings in the National Parks' wolf packs also direct wolves 
dispersing from Idaho and Montana around the National Parks and toward 
the predatory area portions of Wyoming. Furthermore, Wyoming's 
maintains 22 winter elk feeding grounds that support thousands of 
wintering elk. These areas attract and could potentially hold 
dispersing wolves in the predatory area. Many dispersing wolves in 
Wyoming, and even some established breeding pairs, temporarily leave 
their primary territory to visit the elk feed grounds in winter. Twelve 
of the 22 elk feed grounds are currently in Wyoming's predatory animal 
area. Potential expansion of the predatory animal area, as allowed by 
Wyoming's current statute, could further limit breeding pair occupancy 
in Wyoming and would reduce opportunities for successful dispersal and 
genetic exchange.
    We believe Wyoming must institute additional protections to 
facilitate natural genetic exchange in order to constitute an adequate 
regulatory mechanism. Specifically, the State's regulatory framework 
should minimize take in all suitable habitat and across all of 
Wyoming's potential migration routes among NRM subpopulations. This 
management is particularly important during peak dispersal, breeding, 
and pup rearing periods. In addition to requiring that Wyoming manage 
for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter in 
their State, Wyoming must also manage for at least 7 breeding pairs and 
at least 70 wolves in Wyoming outside the National Parks. Such 
requirements are necessary to preserve connectivity and allow for a 
buffer to ensure that the population will not drop down below the 
minimum number of wolves necessary for recovery. This secondary goal 
will provide dispersing wolves more social openings and protection from 
excessive human-caused mortality. This strategy will also maintain a 
sufficiently large number of wolves in the GYA; larger

[[Page 15177]]

population size is a proven remedy to genetic inbreeding.
    Implementation of the recently completed MOU (Groen et al. 2008) 
makes it even more unlikely that agency-managed genetic exchange would 
be necessary in the foreseeable future. This MOU recognizes that 
genetic diversity is currently very high throughout the NRM DPS and 
commits to establish and maintain a monitoring protocol to ensure that 
necessary levels of gene flow occur so that the population retains high 
levels of genetic diversity and its recovered status (Groen et al. 
2008).
    Population levels across the NRM DPS could also impact gene flow. 
The delisted NRM DPS wolf population is likely to be reduced from its 
current levels of around 1,639 wolves by State management. However, 
wolf populations in the three States containing most of the occupied 
and most of the suitable habitat in the NRM DPS will be managed for at 
least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves so that the population 
never goes below recovery levels. State projections indicate they will 
manage the population at least two to three times this minimal recovery 
level and likely over 1,000 wolves.
    Natural wolf dispersal between all recovery areas has occurred when 
the wolf population was far below 1,000 wolves (the first wolf to 
disperse from northwestern Montana to the GYA occurred in 1992 when 
there were only 41 wolves and 4 breeding pairs in the NRM, and in 2002 
a radio-collared wolf from central Idaho dispersed into the GYA to form 
the Greybull pack when there were only 663 wolves in 49 breeding 
pairs). Therefore, we believe state management of a population below 
1,000 wolves is unlikely to significantly reduce the overall rate of 
dispersal in the NRM. If the population is managed for over a thousand 
wolves, as expected, we believe the impact on dispersal and 
connectivity will be negligible. If the population is managed to the 
minimum recovery target of 150 wolves per State, we expect dispersal to 
noticeably decrease. Nevertheless, dispersal events still occurred even 
when wolf populations were low, and when mortality averaged 26 percent 
of the population annually. We expect adequate levels of dispersal will 
continue given the State's commitment to manage well above minimal 
recovery goals. Yearling and other young wolves must disperse to find 
unrelated mates (wolves strongly seek nonrelated wolves as mates). This 
social event is a basic function of wolf populations and occurs 
regardless of the numbers, density, or presence of other wolves (Mech 
and Boitani 2003, p. 11-180).
    Wolf biology also provides some assurance that levels of gene flow 
will be sufficient to avoid the threat of loss of genetic diversity. 
Natural wolf mate selection shows that future dispersers into a system 
experiencing some level of inbreeding would be much more likely to be 
selected for breeding and have their genes incorporated into the inbred 
population (Bensch et al. 2006, p. 72; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 1). 
Thus, introduction of just one or two new genetic lines can 
substantially benefit, although not completely remedy, conservation 
issues related to low genetic diversity (Vila et al. 2003, p. 9; Liberg 
et al. 2004; Liberg 2005, pp. 5-6; Mills 2007, pp. 195-196; Fredrickson 
et al. 2007, p. 2365; Vila 2008).
    We recognize additional research on the appropriate level of gene 
flow relative to the population size is ongoing. Post-delisting, we 
expect the GYA population will be managed for more than 300 wolves 
across portions of the GYA in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (63,700 km\2\ 
(24,600 mi\2\)). Maintenance at such levels, combined with expected 
levels of gene flow, indicates genetic diversity will not threaten this 
wolf population. The other recovery areas face even lower threat levels 
related to future genetic diversity. The recently completed memorandum 
of understanding ensures this issue will be appropriately managed into 
the foreseeable future by the NRM DPS's State and Federal partners as 
new information comes to light (Groen et al. 2008).
    As with all models, theoretical predictions concerning viability 
rely upon the quality and accuracy of the data being inputted. In most 
cases, available theoretical predictions of genetic factors impacting 
wolf population viability have proven poor predictors of actual status 
of very small wolf populations (Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Boitani 2003; 
Fuller et al. 2003, 189-190). Review of the scientific literature shows 
that, throughout the world, truly isolated wolf populations that are 
far smaller and far less genetically diverse than the GYA population 
have persisted for many decades and even centuries (Fritts and Carbyn 
1995, p. 33; Boitani 2003, pp. 322-23, 330-335; Fuller et al. 2003, p. 
189-190; Liberg 2005, pp. 5-6; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008). Even 
the Mexican wolf with its extremely limited genetic diversity (only 7 
founders) is not threatened by reduced genetic diversity where the 
addition of a single new genetic line reversed inbreeding depression 
(Fredrickson et al. 2007). A wolf population on Isle Royale National 
Park that started from 2 or 3 founders in 1949 and remained very small 
(<50 wolves, long term effective population size 3.8) has persisted 
until the present time (Boitani 2003, p. 330). While this population's 
key demographic properties (Fuller et al. 2003) are comparable to 
outbred populations of wolves, being founded from such a small number 
of individuals and maintenance at such extremely low levels for such a 
long time has resulted in a congenital malformation in the vertebrae 
column and might eventually effect its population dynamics (Raikkonen 
et al. in review). This extreme case will not occur anywhere in the NRM 
DPS.
    A more relevant example is the Kenai Peninsula wolf population. 
This area is somewhat developed and connected to the mainland by 16 km 
(10 mi) of glacier and rugged mountains. Wolves were extirpated there 
by 1919. A few wolves naturally recolonized it in the 1960's and bred 
in the mid- 1960's. The wolf population grew rapidly and within 10 
years it occupied all suitable wolf habitat (roughly 15,500 km\2\ 
(6,000 mi\2\)). It has remained relatively stable for the past 35 years 
despite being isolated, small (<200 wolves), liberally hunted and 
trapped, and exposed to typical wolf diseases and parasites. The 
population is not threatened (Peterson et al. 1994, p. 1) and remains 
genetically fit (Talbot and Scribner 1997, p. 20-21). Because the NRM 
wolf population will be managed well above this level, we are confident 
that the theoretical predictions of inbreeding are highly unlikely to 
occur. We find that actual data concerning genetic diversity in wolves 
and wolf population persistence is a better predictor of future 
outcomes than theoretical models.
    In all but the most extreme cases, small wolf populations are 
unlikely to be threatened solely by the loss of genetic diversity 
(Boitani 2003, p. 330). In fact, none of the highly inbred recovering 
populations from around the world have ever gone extinct or failed to 
recover because of low genetic diversity (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 189-
190). It is our current professional judgment that even in the highly 
unlikely event that no new genes enter YNP or the GYA in the next 100 
years, that wolf population's currently high genetic diversity would be 
slightly reduced, but not to the point the GYA wolf population would be 
threatened. Even the totally isolate, highly inbred, and very small 
(never more than 50 wolves) Isle Royale wolf population has persisted 
for over 60 years and has still maintained similar demographics

[[Page 15178]]

compared to other non-inbred wolf populations. The NRM wolf population 
does not currently have and will not have such severe issues. 
Furthermore, from a purely biological perspective, the NRM DPS is a 
400-mile southwestern extension of a North American wolf population 
consisting of many tens of thousands of individuals, and its recovery 
is not even remotely comparable to other situations where concerns 
about genetic diversity have been raised.
    VonHoldt et al. (2007) concluded ``if the YNP wolf population 
remains relatively constant at 170 individuals (estimated to be YNP 
carrying capacity), the population will demonstrate substantial 
inbreeding effects within 60 years,'' resulting in an ``increase in 
juvenile mortality from an average of 23 to 40%, an effect equivalent 
to losing an additional pup in each litter.'' The vonHoldt et al. 
(2007) prediction of eventual inbreeding in YNP relies upon several 
unrealistic assumptions. One such assumption limited the wolf 
population analysis to YNP's (8,987 km\2\ (3,472 mi\2\)) carrying 
capacity of 170 wolves, instead of the 449 that currently occupy the 
GYA and the more than 300 wolves to be managed for in the entire GYA 
(63,700 km\2\ (24,600 mi\2\)) by Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. YNP is 
only 14 percent of the area in the GYA and only contains about a third 
of the wolves in the GYA wolf population. Wolf pack territories in YNP 
are contiguous with those outside YNP in the GYA. The vonHoldt et al. 
(2007) predictive model also capped the population at the YNP 
population's winter low point, rather than at higher springtime levels 
when pups are born. Springtime levels are sometimes double the winter 
low.
    As explained in the recovery section above, wolf recovery in the 
NRM never depended solely on natural dispersal. Should genetic issues 
ever materialize, an outcome we believe is extremely unlikely, the MOU 
provides a failsafe in that it ensures States will implement techniques 
to facilitate agency-managed genetic exchange (moving individual wolves 
or their genes into the affected population segment) (Groen et al. 
2008). Human intervention in maintaining recovered populations is 
necessary for many conservation-reliant species and a well-accepted 
practice in dealing with population concerns (Scott et al. 2005). The 
1994 wolf reintroduction EIS indicated that intensive genetic 
management might become necessary if any of the sub-populations 
developed genetic demographic problems (Service 1994, p. 6-74). The 
1994 EIS stated that other wildlife management programs rely upon such 
agency-managed genetic exchange and that the approach should not be 
viewed negatively (Service 1994, p. 6-75). Human-assisted genetic 
exchange is a proven technique that has created effective migrants in 
the NRM DPS. An example of successful managed genetic exchange in the 
NRM population was the release of 10 wolf pups and yearlings 
translocated from northwestern Montana to YNP in the spring of 1997. 
Two of those wolves become breeders and their genetic signature is 
common throughout YNP and the GYA (vonHoldt 2008). Wolves could easily 
be moved again in the highly unlikely event that inbreeding or other 
problems ever threaten any segment of the NRM wolf population. Other 
future agency-managed genetic exchange could include other means of 
introducing novel wolves or their genes into a recovery area if it were 
ever to be needed. At this time, such approaches remain unnecessary and 
are highly likely to remain unneeded in the future.
    Given the NRM populations' current high genetic diversity, proven 
connectivity, the strong tendency of wolves to outbreed (choose mates 
not related to themselves), large area and distribution of core 
refugia, the vast amounts of suitable habitat, and future management 
options, including agency-managed genetic exchange, the NRM wolf 
population will not be threatened by lower genetic diversity in the 
foreseeable future.
    Climate Change--While there is much debate about the rates at which 
carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean temperatures 
will rise, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a 
group of leading climate scientists commissioned by the United Nations, 
concluded there is a general consensus among the world's best 
scientists that climate change is occurring (IPCC 2001, pp. 2-3; IPCC 
2007, p. 4). The twentieth century was the warmest in the last 1,000 
years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2-3) with global mean surface 
temperature increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (0.7 to 1.4 
degrees Fahrenheit). These increases in temperature were more 
pronounced over land masses as evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees 
Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in North America since 
the 1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p.96; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411). 
According to the IPCC, warmer temperatures will increase 1.1 to 6.4 
degrees Celsius (2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 10-11). The magnitude of warming in the NRM has been greater, as 
indicated by an 8-day advance in the appearance of spring phenological 
indicators in Edmonton, Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 
400). The hydrologic regime in the NRM also has changed with global 
climate change, and is projected to change further (Bartlein et al. 
1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-
224). Under global climate change scenarios, the NRM may eventually 
experience milder, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers (Bartlein 
et al. 1997, p. 786). Additionally, the pattern of snowmelt runoff also 
may change, with a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 
411) and an earlier peak (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224), so that a 
lower proportion of the annual discharge will occur during spring and 
summer.
    Even with these changes, climate change should not threaten the NRM 
wolf population. Wolves are habitat generalists and next to humans are 
the most widely distributed land mammal on earth. Wolves live in every 
habitat type in the Northern Hemisphere that contains ungulates, and 
once ranged from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean in North America. 
The NRM DPS is roughly in the middle of historic wolf distribution in 
North America. Because historic evidence suggests gray wolves and their 
prey survived in hotter, drier environments, including some near desert 
conditions, we expect wolves could easily adapt to the slightly warmer 
and drier conditions that are predicted with climate change, including 
any northward expansion of diseases, parasites, new prey, or 
competitors or reductions in species currently at or near the southern 
extent of their range.
    Changing climate conditions have the potential to impact wolf prey. 
There is new evidence that declining moose populations in the southern 
GYA are likely a result of global warming (Service 2008), a conclusion 
that has been reached in other parts of the southern range of moose in 
North America. However, the extent and rate to which most ungulate 
populations will be impacted is difficult to foresee with any level of 
confidence. One logical consequence of climate change could be a 
reduction in the number of elk, deer, moose, and bison dying over 
winter, thus maintaining a higher overall prey base for wolves (Wilmers 
and Getz 2005, p. 574; Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). Furthermore, 
increased over-winter survival would likely result in overall increases 
and more resiliency in ungulate populations, thereby providing more 
prey for wolves.
    Catastrophic Events--The habitat model/PVA by Carroll et al. (2003, 
p.

[[Page 15179]]

543) analyzed environmental stochasticity and predicted it was unlikely 
to threaten wolf persistence in the GYA. We also considered 
catastrophic and stochastic events that might reasonably occur in the 
NRM DPS within the foreseeable future (for example we did not consider 
tidal waves) to the extent possible. None of these factors are thought 
to pose a significant risk to wolf recovery in the foreseeable future. 
With regard to wildfires, which humans often view as catastrophic 
events, large mobile species such as wolves and their ungulate prey 
usually are not adversely impacted. Wildfires in the NRM often lead to 
an increase in ungulate food supplies and an increase in ungulate 
numbers, which in turn supports increased wolf numbers. Wolves are an 
exceptionally resilient species.
    Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure--When human-caused mortality 
rates are low, packs contain older individuals. Such ``natural'' pack 
structures are limited to National Parks and large, remote wilderness 
areas. These ``natural'' social structures will continue unaltered in 
those areas after wolves are delisted.
    However, wolves in much of the NRM DPS constantly interact with 
livestock and people. These areas experience higher rates of mortality 
which alters pack structure. We have removed 988 problem wolves in the 
NRM since 1987 and have monitored the effect of removing breeders or 
other pack members on wolf packs structure and subsequent breeding. 
Those effects were minor and would certainly not affect wolf population 
recovery in the NRM (Brainerd et al. 2007). Although defense of 
property laws in Montana and Idaho are similar to current nonessential 
experimental regulations, such mortality may increase slightly after 
delisting in those States. In addition, regulated hunting will be 
allowed by the States which will increase wolf mortality rates.
    Wolf packs frequently have high rates of natural turnover (Mech 
2007, p. 1482) and quickly adapt to changes in pack social structure 
(Brainerd et al. 2007). Higher rates of human-caused mortality also may 
simply compensate for some forms of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 
2003, p. 185-186). Thus, the potential effects caused by natural wolf 
pack dynamics in much of the NRM DPS will be moderated by varying 
degrees by conflicts with humans and rates of human-caused mortality 
(Campbell et al. 2006, p. 363; Garrott et al. 2005; p. 7-9). Higher 
rates of human-caused mortality outside protected areas will result in 
different wolf pack size and structure than that in protected areas, 
but wolves in many parts of the world, including most of North America, 
experience various levels of human-caused mortality and the associated 
disruption in natural processes and wolf social structure without ever 
threatening the population (Boitani 2003). Therefore, while human 
caused mortality may alter pack structure, we have no evidence that 
indicates this in anyway threatens the NRM DPS.
    Summary of Factor E--No other manmade and natural factors threaten 
wolf population recovery now or in the foreseeable future throughout 
the majority of the NRM DPS. Public attitudes toward wolves have 
improved greatly over the past 30 years. We expect that, given adequate 
continued management of conflicts, those attitudes will continue to 
support wolf restoration. As stated previously, the regulatory 
mechanisms in Wyoming are currently insufficient to protect the wolves 
in that State from some of the outcomes that occur when the public has 
negative perceptions regarding wolf presence. We find this threat to be 
closely tied with all mortality management as we discussed extensively 
in Factor D.
    The State wildlife agencies have professional education, 
information, and outreach components and will continue to present 
balanced science-based information to the public that will continue to 
foster general public support for wolf restoration and the necessity of 
conflict resolution to maintain public tolerance of wolves.
    We also have determined that wolf genetic viability, interbreeding 
coefficients, genetic drift, or changes in wolf pack social structure 
are unlikely to threaten the wolf population in the NRM DPS in the 
foreseeable future. But in the highly unlikely event that the GYA 
population segment was threatened by a loss of genetic diversity, that 
threat could be easily resolved by reintroduction or other deliberate 
management actions, as promised by Montana and Idaho, if it ever became 
necessary.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

    Is the Species Threatened or Endangered throughout ``All'' of its 
Range--As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat 
factors to assess whether the gray wolf in the NRM DPS is threatened or 
endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. When 
considering the listing status of the species, the first step in the 
analysis is to determine whether the species is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range. If this is the case, then the species is 
listed in its entirety.
    Human-caused mortality is the most significant issue to the long-
term conservation status of the NRM DPS. Therefore, managing this 
source of mortality (i.e., overutilization of wolves for commercial, 
recreational, scientific and educational purposes and human predation) 
remains the primary challenge to maintaining a recovered wolf 
population into the foreseeable future. We have concluded that Montana 
and Idaho will maintain their share and distribution of the NRM wolf 
population above recovery levels for the foreseeable future. Both 
States have wolf management laws, plans, and regulations that 
adequately regulate human-caused mortality. Both States have committed 
to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in 
mid-winter to ensure the population never falls below 10 breeding pairs 
and 100 wolves in either State. State projections indicate that the NRM 
wolf population in Montana and Idaho will likely be managed for around 
673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 79 breeding pairs.
    As described in more detail in Factor D and below, Wyoming's 
regulatory framework does not provide the adequate regulatory 
mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf 
population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were 
removed. In order to constitute adequate regulatory mechanisms, 
Wyoming's regulatory framework needs to: Designate and manage wolves as 
a trophy game species statewide; manage for at least 15 breeding pairs 
and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter in their State and at least 7 
breeding pairs and at least 70 wolves in mid-winter outside the 
National Parks; authorize defense of property take in a manner that is 
similar to the current regulatory scheme; consider all sources of 
mortality, including all hunting and defense of property mortality, in 
its total statewide allowable mortality levels; and manage the 
population to maintain high levels of genetic diversity and to continue 
ongoing genetic exchange. Until Wyoming revises their statutes, 
management plan, and associated regulations, and is again Service 
approved, wolves in Wyoming continue to require the protections of the 
Act.
    Regulatory mechanisms in all surrounding States are adequate to 
facilitate the maintenance of, and in no way threaten, the NRM DPS's 
recovered status. All wolves in these surrounding areas will be 
regulated by the States as at least a game species (some provide 
greater protections). Violation of State

[[Page 15180]]

regulations will be subject to prosecution.
    As long as populations are maintained well above minimal recovery 
levels, wolf biology (namely the species' reproductive capacity) and 
the availability of large, secure blocks of suitable habitat will 
maintain strong source populations capable of withstanding all other 
foreseeable threats. In terms of habitat, the amount and distribution 
of suitable habitat in public ownership provides, and will continue to 
provide, large core areas that contain high-quality habitat of 
sufficient size to anchor a recovered wolf population. Our analysis of 
land-use practice shows these areas will maintain their suitability 
well into the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. Connectivity 
among the central-Idaho and northwest Montana recovery areas and with 
wolves in Canada will provide further long-term stability to the NRM 
DPS. Populations in all of the NRM DPS, except Wyoming, will also be 
managed for continued genetic exchange with the GYA (Groen et al. 
2008). If genetic problems ever materialize in any portion of the NRM 
DPS, which we believe is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, 
they will be resolved by agency-managed genetic exchange. While disease 
and parasites can temporarily impact population stability, as long as 
populations are managed above recovery levels, these factors are not 
likely to threaten the wolf population at any point in the foreseeable 
future. Natural predation is also likely to remain an insignificant 
factor in population dynamics into the foreseeable future. Finally, we 
believe that other natural or manmade factors are unlikely to threaten 
the wolf population within the foreseeable future in all portions of 
the range with adequate regulatory mechanisms.
    A lack of substantial threats to the NRM gray wolf population, 
except in Wyoming, indicates that this DPS is neither in danger of 
extinction, nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future in any of its range, except in Wyoming. Thus, the NRM DPS does 
not merit continued listing as threatened or endangered throughout 
``all'' of its range. Retention of the Act's protections in any 
significant portions of the range that where the gray wolf is 
threatened or endangered ensures all significant portions of the range 
maintain adequate protection.
    Is the Species Threatened or Endangered in a Significant Portion of 
its Range--Having determined that the NRM DPS of gray wolf does not 
meet the definition of threatened or endangered in ``all'' of its 
range, we must next consider whether there are any significant portions 
of its range that are in danger of extinction or are likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, a formal 
opinion was issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, 
``The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a 
Significant Portion of Its Range''' (U.S. DOI 2007). We have summarized 
our interpretation of that opinion and the underlying statutory 
language below. A portion of a species' range is significant if it is 
part of the current range of the species and is important to the 
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the 
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The 
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a 
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
    The first step in determining whether a species is threatened or 
endangered in a significant portion of its range is to identify any 
portions of the range of the species that warrant further 
consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into 
portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be 
significant and either threatened or endangered. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information indicating that (i) the portions may be 
significant and (ii) the species may be in danger of extinction there 
or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a 
key part of this analysis is whether the threats are geographically 
concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species are essentially 
uniform throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only 
to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of 
the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration.
    If we identify any portions that warrant further consideration, we 
then determine whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered 
in any significant portion of its range. Depending on the biology of 
the species, its range, and the threats it faces, it may be more 
efficient for the Service to address the significance question first, 
or the status question first. Thus, if the Service determines that a 
portion of the range is not significant, the Service need not determine 
whether the species is threatened or endangered there; if the Service 
determines that the species is not threatened or endangered in a 
portion of its range, the Service need not determine if that portion is 
significant.
    The terms ``resiliency,'' ``redundancy,'' and ``representation'' 
are intended to be indicators of the conservation value of portions of 
the range (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Resiliency of a species allows the 
species to recover from periodic disturbance. A species will likely be 
more resilient if large populations exist in high-quality habitat that 
is distributed throughout the range of the species in such a way as to 
capture the environmental variability found within the range of the 
species. It is likely that the larger size of a population will help 
contribute to the viability of the species overall. Thus, a portion of 
the range of a species may make a meaningful contribution to the 
resiliency of the species if the area is relatively large and contains 
particularly high-quality habitat or if its location or characteristics 
make it less susceptible to certain threats than other portions of the 
range. When evaluating whether or how a portion of the range 
contributes to resiliency of the species, it may help to evaluate the 
historical value of the portion and how frequently the portion is used 
by the species. In addition, the portion may contribute to resiliency 
for other reasons--for instance, it may contain an important 
concentration of certain types of habitat that are necessary for the 
species to carry out its life-history functions, such as breeding, 
feeding, migration, dispersal, or wintering.
    Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of 
safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. This does not 
mean that any portion that provides redundancy is a significant portion 
of the range of a species. The idea is to conserve enough areas of the 
range such that random perturbations in the system act on only a few 
populations. Therefore, each area must be examined based on whether 
that area provides an increment of redundancy that is important to the 
conservation of the species.
    Adequate representation insures that the species' adaptive 
capabilities are conserved. Specifically, the portion should be 
evaluated to see how it contributes to the genetic diversity of the 
species. The loss of genetically based diversity may substantially 
reduce the ability of the species to respond and adapt to future 
environmental changes. A peripheral population may contribute 
meaningfully to representation if there is evidence that it provides 
genetic diversity due to

[[Page 15181]]

its location on the margin of the species' habitat requirements.
    To determine if a portion of the species' range contributes 
substantially to the resiliency of the species, the Service considered 
in this instance: (1) To what extent does this portion of the range 
contribute to the total of large blocks of high-quality habitat; (2) To 
what extent do the population size and characteristics within this 
portion of the range contribute to the ability of the species to 
recover from periodic disturbances; (3) To what extent does this 
portion of the range act as a refugium of the species; and (4) To what 
extent does this portion contain an important concentration of habitats 
necessary for certain life history functions?
    To determine if a portion of the species' range contributes 
substantially to the redundancy of the species, the Service considered 
in this instance: (5) To what extent does this portion of the range 
contribute to the total [gross area] range of the species; (6) To what 
extent does this portion of the range contribute to the total 
population of the species; (7) To what extent does this portion of the 
range contribute to the total suitable habitat; and (8) To what extent 
does this portion of the range contribute to the geographical 
distribution of the species?
    To determine if a portion of the species' range contributes 
substantially to the representation of the species, the Service 
considered in this instance: (9) To what extent does this portion of 
the range contribute to the genetic diversity of the species; (10) To 
what extent does this portion of the range contribute to the 
morphological/physiological diversity of the species; (11) To what 
extent does this portion of the range contribute to the behavioral 
diversity of the species; and (12) To what extent does this portion of 
the range contribute to the diversity of ecological settings in which 
the species is found?
    These questions provide for a relative ranking of the level of the 
portion's contribution to the listable entity's (species, subspecies or 
DPSs) representation, resiliency, or redundancy. The above questions 
are tools to identify those factors that are important in considering a 
portion's contribution to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, 
and whether it is significant. The Service then reviews the results and 
the justifications to decide whether the portion contributes 
substantially to the representation, redundancy and resiliency of the 
listable entity (species, subspecies or DPS). In general, if the 
contribution to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of all or 
nearly all the questions is low, the portion likely does not contribute 
substantially to representation, resiliency, or redundancy; if the 
contribution to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of most 
or multiple questions are high, the portion likely contributes 
substantially to representation, resiliency, or redundancy.
    To determine whether the NRM DPS is threatened in any significant 
portion of its range, we first considered how the concepts of 
resiliency, representation, and redundancy apply to the conservation of 
this particular DPS. A number of available documents provide insight 
into this discussion including: The originally listed entity (39 FR 
1171, January 4, 1974; 50 CFR 17.11 in 1975, 1976, 1977), the recovery 
plans (Service 1980; Service 1987), the 1994 reintroduction EIS 
(Service 1994), our designation of non-essential, experimental 
population areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 
22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)), our 2001/2002 review of the recovery 
goals (Bangs 2002), Interagency Annual Reports (Service et al. 1989-
2008), and numerous professional publications (see Service et al. 2007, 
pp. 213-230; Soule et al. 2003, p. 1238; Scott et al. 2005, p. 383; 
Vucetich et al. 2006, p. 1383; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 369-371; Waples 
et al. 2007, p. 964).
    Based on our 5-factor threats analysis above, we readily identified 
two areas within the NRM DPS as warranting further consideration to 
determine if they are significant portions of the range that may be 
threatened or endangered. These areas include: (1) All portions of 
Wyoming; and (2) unoccupied portions of Montana and Idaho as well as 
the portions of Utah, Washington and Oregon within the NRM DPS. For 
each of these areas we evaluate whether they are significant per the 
above definition and, if significant, we weigh whether they are 
threatened or endangered. If any of these areas constitute a 
significant portion of the range that is threatened or endangered, we 
then determine the appropriate boundaries where the protections of the 
Act should remain in place.
    Wyoming--We have long considered Wyoming to be critical to the 
establishment and maintenance of NRM wolf population (39 FR 1171, 
January 4, 1974; 50 CFR 17.11 in 1975, 1976, 1977; Service 1980; 
Service 1987; Service et al. 1989-2008; Service 1994; 59 FR 60252, 
November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & 
(n); Bangs 2002; Williams 2004; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; Hall 
2007). The following analysis considers all of Wyoming with a focus on 
northwest Wyoming which contains the vast majority of the State's 
suitable wolf habitat. While our proposed rule indicated we would 
consider excluding National Parks from the Wyoming significant portion 
of the range (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we no longer believe this 
is warranted as it would excessively subdivide the Yellowstone recovery 
area into units so small as to meaningfully reduce their contribution 
to the representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the NRM DPS.
    Northwest Wyoming meaningfully affects resiliency in that it 
contains a high percentage of the NRM DPS' large blocks of high quality 
habitat thereby contributing to the NRM DPS' long-term viability. 
Similarly, northwest Wyoming contains a population that is essential to 
the conservation of the NRM population. We view this portion of the NRM 
population as sufficiently robust to make a high contribution to the 
ability of the NRM DPS to recovery from periodic disturbance. Northwest 
Wyoming's National Parks also serve as a refugium protected from 
certain population events (such as human caused mortality). Northwest 
Wyoming also contains suitable habitat areas which provide all of the 
species' life history functions. Collectively, this information 
indicates that northwest Wyoming would allow the NRM DPS to recover 
from periodic disturbance and, thus, meaningfully contributes to the 
resiliency of the NRM DPS.
    In terms of redundancy, we considered several factors. First, 
Wyoming includes approximately 25 percent of the total gross area of 
the NRM DPS. Second, northwest Wyoming includes approximately 25 
percent of the NRM DPS' current population and a third of the minimum 
population recovery goal. Northwest Wyoming also includes approximately 
17 percent of the NRM DPS' total suitable habitat. Finally, northwest 
Wyoming contains the majority and the core of the Yellowstone recovery 
area, one of three subpopulations in the NRM DPS. Collectively, this 
information indicates that northwest Wyoming provides a margin of 
safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events and, thus, 
meaningfully contributes to the redundancy of the NRM DPS.
    In terms of representation, suitable habitat within northwest 
Wyoming's National Parks and some surrounding areas contain ecological 
settings that differ from the ecological setting of most of the rest of 
NRM DPS. This ecological setting results in some unique or unusual 
behavior. For example, the

[[Page 15182]]

presence of bison in these areas result in the unique, learned, group 
hunting behavior not required for other prey types. Other studies found 
that similar local adaptations to specific prey type resulted in 
genetic differences (Leonard et al. 2005). Collectively, this 
information indicates that northwest Wyoming's National Parks and some 
surrounding areas could play a role in conserving the species' adaptive 
capabilities and, thus, contributes to the representation of the NRM 
DPS.
    We have determined that northwest Wyoming meaningfully contributes 
to NRM DPS' resiliency, redundancy, and representation at a level such 
that its loss would result in a decrease in the ability to conserve the 
NRM DPS. Thus, this portion of the range constitutes a significant 
portion of the NRM DPS' range as described in the Act.
    If we identify any portion as significant, we then determine 
whether in fact the species is threatened or endangered in this 
significant portion of its range. Within this portion of the range, 
managing human-caused mortality remains the primary challenge to 
maintaining a recovered wolf population in the foreseeable future. If 
Wyoming's wolf population is managed above recovery levels, the 
species' biology (specifically its reproductive capacity) and the 
availability of a large, secure block of suitable habitat will maintain 
a strong source population capable of withstanding all other 
foreseeable threats. Unfortunately, Wyoming's current regulatory 
framework does not provide the adequate regulatory mechanisms to assure 
that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved if the protections of the Act were removed.
    In 2004, we determined that problems with the 2003 Wyoming 
legislation and plan, and inconsistencies between the law and 
management plan did not allow us to approve Wyoming's approach to wolf 
management (Williams 2004). On August 1, 2006, we published a 12-month 
finding describing the reasons why the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf 
management plan did not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to 
assure maintenance of Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a 
recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR 43410). In 2007, the Wyoming 
legislature amended State law to address our concerns. Following the 
change in State law, the WGFC approved a revised wolf management plan 
(Cleveland 2007). This plan was then approved by the Service as 
providing adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion 
of a recovered NRM DPS into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007). 
Following the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court for the District of 
Montana's preliminary injunction order, we reconsidered this approval.
    In its preliminary injunction order, the U.S. District Court stated 
that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf population that lacked 
evidence of genetic exchange between subpopulations. We believe 
Wyoming's current regulatory framework for delisted wolves would 
further reduce the likelihood of natural genetic connectivity as wolves 
are unlikely to successfully traverse the 88 percent of Wyoming where 
wolves are considered predatory animals.
    The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and capriciously 
when we approved Wyoming's 2007 statute which allows the WGFC to 
diminish the trophy game area (which State law restricts to no more 
than 12 percent of Wyoming) if it ``determines the diminution does not 
impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's 
management of wolves.'' Because wolves are unlikely to survive where 
they are classified as predatory animals, potential expansion of the 
predatory animal area would further limit occupancy in Wyoming and 
opportunities for natural connectivity.
    Furthermore, the court stated that we acted arbitrarily and 
capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 statute and wolf 
management plan because it determined that the State failed to commit 
to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs. Specifically, the court 
stated that Wyoming State law intends to rely on the National Park 
Services' ability to maintain 8 breeding pairs of wolves to satisfy 
Wyoming's obligation to preserve at least 15 breeding pairs as its 
share of the required wolf population. We have long maintained that 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho must each manage for at least 15 breeding 
pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter to ensure the population 
never falls below the minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 
100 wolves per State.
    Finally, the court raised concerns with Wyoming's depredation 
control law that it viewed as significantly more expansive than 
existing nonessential, experimental regulations (59 FR 60252, November 
22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 
73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)).
    As outlined in detail in Factor D above, we have determined 
Wyoming's existing regulatory framework does not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM 
wolf population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were 
removed. Revision of Wyoming's wolf management law, plan, and 
regulation are necessary to ensure the long-term conservation of 
Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population (Gould 2009). These 
revisions need to provide the foundation for necessary changes to the 
Wyoming gray wolf management plan and associated regulations. Until 
Wyoming revises their statutes, management plan, and associated 
regulations, and obtains Service approval, wolves in Wyoming shall 
remain protected by Act.
    We may consider many factors in determining the boundaries of the 
significant portion of its range where the DPS remains listed including 
whether there is a biological basis for boundaries (e.g., population 
groupings, genetic differences, or differences in ecological setting) 
or if differences in threat management result in biological differences 
in status (e.g., International or State boundaries where the threats 
might be different on either side of the boundary). Significant portion 
of range boundaries may consist of geographical features, constructed 
features (e.g., roads), or administrative boundaries.
    The boundaries used to legally define the extent of a significant 
portion of range are identified following these general principles: (1) 
Boundaries enclose and define the area where threats are sufficient to 
result in a determination that a portion of a DPS' range is 
significant, and is endangered or threatened; (2) Boundaries clearly 
define the portion of the range that is specified as threatened or 
endangered, and may consist of geographical or administrative features 
or a combination of both; and (3) Boundaries do not circumscribe the 
current distribution of the species so tightly that opportunities for 
recovery are foreclosed.
    The scale of the boundaries is determined case-by-case to be 
appropriate to the size of the portion of the listed entities' range, 
and the availability of unambiguous geographic or administrative 
boundaries. The scale at which one defines the range of a particular 
species is fact and context dependant. In other words, whether one 
defines the range at a relatively course or fine scale depends on the 
life history of the species at issue, the data available, and the 
purpose for which one is considering range.
    Our proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007) indicated that we 
found the only ``significant'' portion of

[[Page 15183]]

Wyoming was the 12 percent of the State in northwestern Wyoming managed 
as a trophy game area (W.S. 11-6-302 et seq. and 23-1-101, et seq. in 
House Bill 0213). In its July 18, 2008, preliminary injunction order, 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana referred to this 
area ``small'' and questioned why we had reversed our position that 
Wyoming should designate wolves as trophy game statewide. Furthermore, 
the court expressed concern over the lack of genetic connectivity 
between wolves in Wyoming and wolves in the rest of the NRM DPS.
    Our position on both Wyoming's 2003 and 2007 regulatory framework 
was based on the ability of the regulatory mechanisms to maintain the 
State's share of a recovered wolf population. In 2004, we recommended 
changes to Wyoming's 2003 State law and wolf management plan because 
the trophy game area (limited to northwest Wyoming's National Parks and 
wilderness areas) was not sufficient to assure the Service that the 
wolf population would remain above recovery levels. In our 2004 letter, 
we recommended statewide trophy game status. In 2007, Wyoming 
substantially expanded their trophy game area. While far short of our 
stated desire for a statewide trophy game area, we concluded the 
expanded area, which included 70 percent of the State's suitable wolf 
habitat, was large enough to support Wyoming's share of the minimum 
number of breeding pairs necessary for recovered wolf population.
    Following the release of the July 18, 2008, Montana District Court 
preliminary injunction order, we reevaluated the adequacy of Wyoming's 
regulatory framework including the size of the trophy game area. We now 
believe all of Wyoming should be managed as a trophy game area. The 
record demonstrates that wolves are unlikely to survive where they are 
classified as predatory animals. Thus, the current regulatory framework 
is problematic for the reasons outlined below.
    First, the current regulatory framework limits natural genetic 
connectivity. The GYA is the most isolated core recovery area within 
the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). 
Wolf dispersal patterns indicate that dispersing wolves moving into the 
GYA from Idaho or Montana are likely to move through the predatory area 
(Boyd et al. 1995). Physical barriers (such as high-elevation mountain 
ranges that are difficult to traverse in winter) appear to discourage 
dispersal through the National Parks' northern and western boundaries. 
Limited social openings in the National Parks' wolf packs also direct 
dispersing wolves from Idaho and Montana toward the predatory area 
portions of Wyoming. Finally, Wyoming's winter elk feeding grounds 
attract and could potentially hold dispersing wolves in the predatory 
area. Thus, we believe dispersal is more likely to lead to genetic 
exchange if dispersers have safe passage through the predatory area. 
While natural connectivity is not and has never been required to 
achieve our recovery goal, we believe it should be encouraged so as to 
minimize the need for agency-managed genetic exchange. Because exact 
migratory corridors are not known, WGFD should be given regulatory 
authority over the entire State to adaptively manage this issue as new 
information comes to light over time.
    A statewide trophy game area is also advisable given the dispersal 
capabilities of wolves. Wolves have large home ranges (518 to 1,295 
km\2\ (200 to 500 mi\2\)) with average long-distance dispersal events 
of 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1997, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; 
Thiessen 2007, p. 33), unusually long-distance dispersal events of 290 
km (180 mi) (Jimenez et al. 2008d, Figures 2 and 3), and dispersal 
potential of over 1,092 km (680 mi). Some of these wolves may disperse 
and return to the core of suitable habitat. A statewide trophy game 
status will allow for routine and unusual dispersal events without near 
certain mortality (although pack establishment in areas of unsuitable 
habitat is extremely unlikely).
    Furthermore, statewide trophy game status will allow more 
flexibility to devise a management strategy, including regulated 
harvest that provides for self-sustaining populations above recovery 
goals. For example, having management authority over the entire State 
could allow for strategic use of all suitable habitat if necessary 
during years of disease outbreak. Such an approach could also allow 
managers to strategically shift wolf distribution and densities in 
response to localized impacts to native ungulate herds and livestock.
    Additionally, we believe statewide trophy game status prevents a 
patchwork of different management statuses; will be easier for the 
public to understand and, thus, will be easier to regulate; is similar 
to State management of other resources like mountain lions and 
blackbears; and is consistent with the current regulatory scheme in 
that the entire State is currently nonessential, experimental. Finally, 
maintenance of the Act's protections Statewide will assist Service Law 
Enforcement efforts that might otherwise be difficult if predatory 
animal status was allowed in portions of Wyoming.
    We believe the entire State of Wyoming should be managed as a 
trophy game area. Continuation of the current regulatory framework in 
Wyoming would meaningfully affect the DPS's resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation, and decrease the ability to conserve the species. For 
the purposes of this rule, the entire State shall be considered a 
significant portion of the range with the understanding that different 
portions of the range contribute different biological benefits. This 
boundary: Encompasses the area where threats are sufficient to result 
in a determination that a portion of a DPS' range is significant, and 
is endangered or threatened; clearly defines the portion of the range 
that is specified as threatened or endangered; and does not 
circumscribe the current distribution of the species so tightly that 
opportunities to maintain recovery are foreclosed. Retaining the Act's 
protections Statewide also is inclusive of the area where a lack of 
threat management results in biological differences in status (i.e., it 
covers the State's entire predatory animal area). By identifying the 
entire State as a significant portion of the range we are not 
suggesting wolves could or should reoccupy or establish packs in 
unsuitable habitat.
    Unoccupied portions of Montana and Idaho as well as the portions of 
Utah, Washington and Oregon within the NRM DPS--Finally, we decided to 
analyze the remaining portions of the NRM DPS in our significant 
portion of range analysis out of an abundance of caution and based on 
the controversy concerning the status of the wolf in this area. 
Specifically, we considered: The portion of Montana east of I-15 and 
north of I-90; the portion of Idaho south of I-84; and the portions of 
Oregon, Washington, and Utah within the NRM DPS. These boundaries are 
based largely upon our understanding of suitable habitat and the 
location of easily identifiable and understandable manmade markers and 
boundaries. The following provides our analysis of whether these 
portions of the range are significant.
    This portion of the range does not meaningfully contribute to the 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the NRM DPS. In terms of 
resiliency, the area: Does not contain any large blocks of high-quality 
habitat; does not contain, nor is it capable of containing, a 
population

[[Page 15184]]

substantial enough to contribute to the ability of the NRM DPS to 
recover from periodic disturbance; does not act, nor is it capable of 
acting, as a refugium for the NRM DPS; and does not contain an 
important concentration of habitats necessary to carry out life-history 
functions (a possible exception is the ability to traverse these areas 
which may play a role in the conservation of the species). In terms of 
redundancy, the area: Makes a moderate contribution to the total range 
of the NRM DPS; does not contribute, nor is it capable of contributing, 
meaningfully to the total population of the NRM DPS; contains only 
about 8 percent of theoretical suitable wolf habitat (as described by 
Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 561); and is not capable of contributing 
largely to the geographic representation of the species. In terms of 
representation, the area: Is unlikely to have wolves that are 
genetically, morphologically or physiologically unique; is unlikely to 
have wolves that exhibit behavior indicative of local adaptations that 
contributes to the overall diversity of the NRM DPS; and does not 
represent a unique ecological setting. With only a minor contribution 
the resiliency, redundancy, and representation of the NRM DPS, we 
determine these areas are not a significant portion of range in the NRM 
DPS.
    Most of these areas have been so modified by humans that they are 
no longer able to support viable wolf populations or persistent 
breeding pairs. To the extant that any of these areas contain suitable 
habitat, they are small, fragmented areas where wolf packs are unlikely 
to persist. Only a few wolves have established themselves in these 
areas. Most of these have eventually become problem wolves requiring 
control. This lack of suitability is why wolf recovery was never 
envisioned for these areas (Service 1987; Service 1994).
    To the extant that the ability to traverse these areas may play a 
role in the conservation of the species, all wolves in these areas will 
be regulated by the States as a game species. Violation of game rules 
will be subject to prosecution. We believe this is an appropriate level 
of protection for these largely unsuitable habitats and the same level 
of protection recommended for southern and eastern Wyoming.
    We have determined that these areas are insignificant to 
maintaining the NRM wolf population's viability as they make only minor 
contributions to the species' representation, resiliency, or 
redundancy. These contributions are not at a level that meaningfully 
impacts the ability to conserve the species. To the extant that the 
ability to traverse these areas may play a role in the conservation of 
the species, they will be appropriately regulated.
    In conclusion, based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we recognize a DPS of the gray wolf (C. lupus) in the NRM. 
The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington 
and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming. Recent estimates indicate the NRM DPS contains 
approximately 5 times more wolves than the minimum population recovery 
goal requires and about 3 times more wolves than the breeding pair 
recovery goal requires. The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive 
year the population has exceeded our numeric and distributional 
recovery goals. The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State 
laws, management plans, and regulations that meet the requirements of 
the Act and will conserve a recovered wolf population into the 
foreseeable future. However, wolf populations in Wyoming continue to 
face high magnitude of threats that would materialize imminently in the 
absence of the Act's protections because of a lack of effective 
regulatory mechanisms in the State. We determine that the best 
scientific and commercial data available demonstrates that (1) the NRM 
DPS is not threatened or endangered throughout ``all'' of its range 
(i.e., not threatened or endangered throughout all of the DPS); and (2) 
the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of 
range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, this final rule removes the 
Act's protections throughout the NRM DPS except for Wyoming. Wolves in 
Wyoming will continue to be regulated as a non-essential, experimental 
population per 50 CFR 17.84 (i) and (n).

Effects of the Rule

    Promulgation of this final rule will affect the protections 
afforded to the NRM gray wolf population under the Act, except for the 
significant portion of the range (SPR) in Wyoming. Taking, interstate 
commerce, import, and export of these wolves are no longer prohibited 
under the Act, except for the SPR in Wyoming. Other State and Federal 
laws will still regulate take. In addition, with the removal of the 
Act's protection in most of the NRM DPS, Federal agencies are no longer 
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that 
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to 
jeopardize the species' continued existence, except for the SPR in 
Wyoming. No critical habitat has been designated for the NRM DPS: Thus, 
50 CFR 17.95 is not modified by this regulation. Removing the Act's 
protections in most of the NRM DPS is expected to have positive effects 
in terms of management flexibility to the State, Tribal, and local 
governments.
    Because the SPR in Wyoming shall remain protected under the Act, 
this regulation leaves in place the nonessential experimental 
regulations in Wyoming designed to reduce the regulatory burden. Until 
Wyoming revises their statute, regulations, and management plan, and it 
is again Service approved, most wolves in Wyoming will continue be 
regulated by the 1994 experimental rule (59 FR 60252, November 22, 
1994; 50 CFR 17.84(i)). Wolves on Wind River Tribal lands will be 
regulated by the 2005 and 2008 experimental rule (70 FR 1286, January 
6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)) because the 
Tribe has a Service approved post-delisting wolf management plan.
    Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, we also identify the Western 
Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed the gray wolves in that DPS from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. As the Service is taking 
these regulatory actions with respect to the NRM DPS and WGL DPS at the 
same time, this final rule includes regulatory revisions under Sec.  
17.11(h) that reflect the removal of the protections of the Act for 
both the WGL DPS and most of the NRM DPS, and reflect that gray wolves 
in Wyoming, an SPR of the NRM DPS range, continue to be listed as an 
experimental population. However, only that portion of the revised gray 
wolf listing in Sec.  17.11(h) that pertains to the NRM DPS is 
attributable to this final rule.
    The separate experimental population listing in portions of 
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas continues unchanged.
    Once this rule goes into effect, if a NRM wolf goes beyond the NRM 
DPS boundary, it attains the listing status of the area it has entered.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in the 1988 reauthorization, 
requires us to implement a system, in cooperation with the States, to 
monitor for not less than 5 years, the status of all species that have 
recovered and been removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this post-
delisting monitoring is to verify that a recovered species remains 
secure

[[Page 15185]]

from risk of extinction after it no longer has the protections of the 
Act. Should relisting be required, we may make use of the emergency 
listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent a 
significant risk to the well-being of any recovered species.
    Monitoring Techniques--The NRM area was intensively monitored for 
wolves even before wolves were documented in Montana in the mid-1980s 
(Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 1982, p. 379-381; Kaminski and Hansen 
1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, 
universities, and special interest groups assisted in those various 
efforts. Since 1979, wolves have been monitored using standard 
techniques including collecting, evaluating, and following-up on 
suspected observations of wolves or wolf signs by natural resource 
agencies or the public; howling or snow tracking surveys conducted by 
the Service, our university and agency cooperators, volunteers, or 
interested special interest groups; and by capturing, radio-collaring, 
and monitoring wolves. We only consider wolves and wolf packs as 
confirmed when Federal, State, or Tribal agency verification is made by 
field staff that can reliably identify wolves and wolf signs.
    The wolf monitoring system works in a hierarchical nature. 
Typically we receive a report (either directly or passed along by 
another agency) that wolves or their signs were observed. We make no 
judgment whether the report seems credible or not and normally just 
note the general location of that observation. Unless breeding results, 
reports of single animals are not important unless tied to other 
reports or unusual observations that elicit concern (e.g., a wolf 
reported feeding on a livestock carcass). Lone wolves can wander long 
distances over a short period of time (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 14-
15) and may be almost impossible to find again or confirm. However, the 
patterns and clusters of those individual reports are very informative 
and critical to subsequent agency decisions about where to focus agency 
searches for wolf pack activity.
    When we receive multiple reports of multiple individuals that 
indicate possible territoriality and pair bonding (the early stage of 
pack formation), or a report of multiple wolves that seems highly 
credible (usually made by a biologist or experienced outdoors-person), 
we typically notify the nearest Federal, State, or Tribal natural 
resource/land management agency and ask them to be on the alert for 
possible wolf activity during the normal course of their field 
activities. Once they locate areas of suspected wolf activity, we may 
ask experienced field biologists to search the area for wolf signs 
(tracks, howling, scats, ungulate kills). Depending on the type of 
activity confirmed, field crews may decide to capture and radio-collar 
the wolves. Radio-collared wolves are then relocated from the air 1 to 
4 times per month dependent on a host of factors including funding, 
personnel, aircraft availability, weather, and other priorities. At the 
end of the year, we compile agency-confirmed wolf observations to 
estimate the number and location of adult wolves and pups that were 
likely alive on December 31 of that year. These data are then 
summarized by packs to indicate overall population size, composition, 
and distribution. This level of wildlife monitoring is intensive and 
the results are relatively accurate estimates of wolf population 
distribution and structure (Service et al. 2009, Table 1-4, Figure 1-
4). This monitoring strategy has been used to estimate the NRM wolf 
population for over 20 years.
    Montana and Idaho, as well as Washington, Oregon and Utah, 
committed to continue monitoring wolf populations, according to their 
State wolf management plans (See State plans in Factor D) or in other 
cooperative agreements, using similar techniques as the Service and its 
cooperators (which has included the States, Tribes, and USDA-WS--the 
same agencies that will be managing and monitoring wolves post-
delisting) have used. Montana and Idaho have committed to continue to 
conduct wolf population monitoring through the post-delisting 
monitoring period (Montana 2003, p. 63, 78; Idaho 2002, p. 35). Montana 
and Idaho also have committed to publish the results of their 
monitoring efforts in annual wolf reports as has been done since 1989 
by the Service and its cooperators (Service et al. 1989-2009). The 
Service and the National Park Service will continue to monitor wolves 
in Wyoming. Other States and Tribes within the DPS adjacent to Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming also have participated in this interagency 
cooperative wolf monitoring system for at least the past decade, and 
their plans commit them to continue to report wolf activity in their 
State and coordinate those observations with other States. The annual 
reports also have documented all aspects of the wolf management program 
including staffing and funding, legal issues, population monitoring, 
control to reduce livestock and pet damage, research (predator-prey 
interactions, livestock/wolf conflict prevention, disease and health 
monitoring, publications, etc.) and public outreach.
    Service Review of the Post-Delisting Status of the Wolf 
Population--To ascertain wolf population distribution and structure and 
to analyze if the wolf population might require a Service-led status 
review (to determine whether it should again be listed under the Act), 
we intend to review the State and any Tribal annual wolf reports for at 
least 5 years after delisting. The status of the NRM wolf population 
will be estimated by estimating the numbers of packs, breeding pairs, 
and total numbers of wolves in mid-winter by State and by recovery area 
throughout the post-delisting monitoring period (Service et al. 2009, 
Table 4, Figure 1). By evaluating the techniques used and the results 
of those wolf monitoring efforts, the Service can decide whether 
further action, including relisting is warranted. In addition, the 
States and Tribes are investigating other, perhaps more accurate and 
less expensive, ways to help estimate and describe wolf pack 
distribution and abundance (Service et al. 2009, Figure 1, Table 4; 
Kunkel et al. 2005; Mitchell et al. 2008).
    Other survey methods and data can become the `biological 
equivalents' of the breeding pair definition currently used to measure 
recovery (Mitchell et al. 2008). Those State and Tribal investigations 
also include alternative ways to estimate the status of the wolf 
population and the numbers of breeding pairs that are as accurate, but 
less expensive, than those that are currently used (Mitchell et al. 
2008). Although not compelled by the Act, the State will likely 
continue to publish their annual wolf population estimates, in 
cooperation with National Parks and Tribes, after the mandatory wolf 
population monitoring required by the Act is over because of mandatory 
reporting requirements in Federal funding and grant programs and the 
high local and national public and scientific interest in NRM wolves.
    We fully recognize and anticipate that State and Tribal laws 
regarding wolves and State and Tribal management will change through 
time as new knowledge becomes available as the State and Tribes gain 
additional experience at wolf management and conservation. We will base 
any analysis of whether a status review and relisting are warranted 
upon the best scientific and commercial data available regarding wolf 
distribution, abundance, and threats in the NRM DPS. For the post-
delisting monitoring period, the best source of that information will 
be the State's annual or other wolf reports and publications. We intend 
to post those

[[Page 15186]]

annual State wolf reports and our annual review and comment on the 
status of the wolf population in the NRM DPS on our website (http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by approximately April 1 of each following 
year. During our annual analysis of the State's annual reports (which 
will continue for at least 5 years), we also intend to comment on any 
threats that may have increased during the previous year, such as 
significant changes in a State regulatory framework, habitat, diseases, 
decreases in prey abundance, increases in wolf-livestock conflict, or 
other natural and man-caused factors.
    Our analysis and response for post-delisting monitoring is to track 
changes in wolf abundance, distribution, and threats to the population. 
Three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis 
of threats to determine if relisting was warranted including: (1) If 
the wolf population falls below the minimum NRM wolf population 
recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either 
Montana or Idaho at the end of the year; (2) if the wolf population 
segment in Montana or Idaho falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves 
at the end of the year in any one of those States for 3 consecutive 
years; or (3) if a change in State law or management objectives would 
significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. All such 
reviews would be made available for public review and comment, 
including peer review by select species experts. Additionally, if any 
of these scenarios occurred during the mandatory 5-year post-delisting 
monitoring period, the post-delisting monitoring period would be 
extended 5 additional years from that point in that State.

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its determination upon the 
following four criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual 
effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an 
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of 
the government; (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with 
other Federal agencies' actions; (c) Whether the rule will materially 
affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights 
and obligations of their recipients; (d) Whether the rule raises novel 
legal or policy issues.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320 implement provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 
1320.3(c) define a collection of information as the obtaining of 
information by or for an agency by means of identical questions posed 
to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements 
imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) 
specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the persons to whom a 
collection of information is addressed by the agency within any 12-
month period. For purposes of this definition, employees of the Federal 
government are not included. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, 
and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    This rule does not contain any collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. As proposed 
under the Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, populations will be 
monitored by the States and Tribes in accordance with their Wolf 
Management Plans. We do not anticipate a need to request data or other 
information from 10 or more persons during any 12-month period to 
satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to 
collect information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or 
organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection 
approval from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and EIS, 
as defined under the authority of the NEPA, need not be prepared in 
connection with actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A 
notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was 
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule is 
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or 
use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
coordinated the proposed rule and this final rule with the affected 
Tribes. Throughout several years of development of earlier related 
rules and the proposed rule, we have endeavored to consult with Native 
American tribes and Native American organizations in order to both (1) 
provide them with a complete understanding of the proposed changes, and 
(2) to understand their concerns with those changes. We have fully 
considered their comments during the development of this final rule. If 
requested, we will conduct additional consultations with Native 
American tribes and multi-tribal organizations subsequent to this final 
rule in order to facilitate the transition to State and tribal 
management of gray wolves within the NRM DPS.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document is 
available upon request from the Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator 
(see ADDRESSES above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), the entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under MAMMALS in the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 15187]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Species                                              Vertebrate population
------------------------------------------------------   Historic range      where endangered or        Status         When       Critical     Special
           Common name              Scientific name                               threatened                          listed      habitat       rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Wolf, gray......................  Canis lupus........  Holarctic.........  U.S.A., conterminous     E                1, 6, 13,          N/A          N/A
                                                                            (lower 48) States,                          15, 35
                                                                            except: (1) Where
                                                                            listed as an
                                                                            experimental
                                                                            population below; (2)
                                                                            Minnesota, Wisconsin,
                                                                            Michigan, eastern
                                                                            North Dakota (that
                                                                            portion north and east
                                                                            of the Missouri River
                                                                            upstream to Lake
                                                                            Sakakawea and east of
                                                                            the centerline of
                                                                            Highway 83 from Lake
                                                                            Sakakawea to the
                                                                            Canadian border),
                                                                            eastern South Dakota
                                                                            (that portion north
                                                                            and east of the
                                                                            Missouri River),
                                                                            northern Iowa,
                                                                            northern Illinois, and
                                                                            northern Indiana
                                                                            (those portions of IA,
                                                                            IL, and IN north of
                                                                            the centerline of
                                                                            Interstate Highway
                                                                            80), and northwestern
                                                                            Ohio (that portion
                                                                            north of the
                                                                            centerline of
                                                                            Interstate Highway 80
                                                                            and west of the Maumee
                                                                            River at Toledo); (3)
                                                                            MT, ID, WY (however,
                                                                            see experimental
                                                                            population designation
                                                                            below), eastern WA
                                                                            (that portion of WA
                                                                            east of the centerline
                                                                            of Highway 97 and
                                                                            Highway 17 north of
                                                                            Mesa and that portion
                                                                            of WA east of the
                                                                            centerline of Highway
                                                                            395 south of Mesa),
                                                                            eastern OR (portion of
                                                                            OR east of the
                                                                            centerline of Highway
                                                                            395 and Highway 78
                                                                            north of Burns
                                                                            Junction and that
                                                                            portion of OR east of
                                                                            the centerline of
                                                                            Highway 95 south of
                                                                            Burns Junction), and
                                                                            north central UT (that
                                                                            portion of UT east of
                                                                            the centerline of
                                                                            Highway 84 and north
                                                                            of Highway 80). Mexico.
......do........................  ......do...........  ......do..........  U.S.A. (portions of AZ,  XN                     631          N/A     17.84(k)
                                                                            NM, and TX--see Sec.
                                                                            17.84(k)).
Wolf, gray [Northern Rocky        Canis lupus........  U.S.A. (MT, ID,     U.S.A. (WY--see Sec.     XN                561, 562          N/A    17.84(i).
 Mountain DPS].                                         WY, eastern WA,     17.84(i) and Sec.                                                  17.84(n).
                                                        eastern OR, and     17.84(n)).
                                                        north central UT).
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.84 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (i)(7)(i) and (ii) and removing paragraph 
(i)(7)(iii);
0
b. Revising the first sentence of paragraph (n)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (n)(9)(i) and (ii) and removing paragraph 
(n)(9)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) The nonessential experimental population area includes all of 
Wyoming.
    (ii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this 
paragraph (i)(7) will be considered nonessential experimental animals. 
In the conterminous United States, a wolf that is outside an 
experimental area (as defined in paragraph (i)(7) of this section) 
would take on the status for wolves in the area in which it is found 
unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an experimental animal; 
such a wolf may be captured for examination and genetic testing by the 
Service or Service-designated agency. Disposition of the captured 
animal may take any of the following courses:
    (A) If the animal was not involved in conflicts with humans and is 
determined likely to be an experimental wolf, it may be returned to the 
reintroduction area.

[[Page 15188]]

    (B) If the animal is determined likely to be an experimental wolf 
and was involved in conflicts with humans as identified in the 
management plan for the closest experimental area, it may be relocated, 
placed in captivity, or killed.
    (C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental 
animal, it will be managed according to any Service-approved plans for 
that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.
    (D) If the animal is determined not to be a wild gray wolf or if 
the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the animal 
shows physical or behavioral evidence of hybridization with other 
canids, such as domestic dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal raised 
in captivity, it may be returned to captivity or killed.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) The gray wolves (wolf) identified in paragraph (n)(9)(i) of 
this section are a nonessential experimental population. * * *
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (i) The nonessential experimental population area includes all of 
Wyoming.
    (ii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this 
experimental area are considered nonessential experimental animals.
* * * * *

    Dated: March 10, 2009.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-5991 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P