[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69778-69895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24171]



[[Page 69777]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 213

November 3, 2020

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf 
(Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 213 / Tuesday, November 3, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 69778]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212]
RIN 1018-BD60


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray 
Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule and notification of petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), 
have evaluated the classification status of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) 
entities currently listed in the lower 48 United States and Mexico 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on 
our evaluation, we are removing the gray wolf entities in the lower 48 
United States and Mexico, except for the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi), 
that are currently on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 
We are taking this action because the best available scientific and 
commercial data available establish that the gray wolf entities in the 
lower 48 United States do not meet the definitions of a threatened 
species or an endangered species under the Act. The effect of this 
rulemaking action is that C. lupus is not classified as a threatened or 
endangered species under the Act. This rule does not have any effect on 
the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies (Canis lupus 
baileyi) as endangered under the Act. In addition, we announce a 90-day 
finding on a petition to maintain protections for the gray wolf in the 
lower 48 United States as endangered or threatened distinct population 
segments. Based on our review, we find that the petition does not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not 
initiating status reviews of the petitioned entities in response to the 
petition.

DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and the 
summary of the basis for the petition finding contained in this 
document are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 or https://ecos.fws.gov. Comments 
and materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we 
used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at 
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Fahey, Chief, Division of 
Classification and Conservation, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, MS: ES, 5275, Leesburg Pike, 
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone (703) 358-2163. Persons who use 
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act and our regulations, 
if we determine that a species is no longer threatened or endangered 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we must remove 
the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 
17.12). The Act requires us to issue a rule to remove a species from 
the List (``delist'' it) (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)).
    What this document does. This rule removes from the List gray 
wolves that are currently listed as threatened or endangered species in 
the lower 48 United States and Mexico. This rule does not have any 
effect on the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies as 
endangered under the Act (80 FR 2487, January 16, 2015).
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine whether a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more 
of five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1(A)). We have 
determined that the gray wolf entities currently listed in the lower 48 
United States and Mexico (not including the Mexican wolf subspecies) do 
not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species 
under the Act.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments on the proposed 
delisting rule from independent specialists to ensure that this rule is 
based on reasonable assumptions and scientifically sound data and 
analyses. We also considered all comments and information we received 
during the proposed delisting rule's comment period.

Table of Contents

Previous Federal Actions
General Background
    The 1978 Reclassification
    National Wolf Strategy
The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory 
Definition of a ``Species''
Approach for This Rule
    The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule
    Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities
    The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately
    The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination
    The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination
    How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing
    How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule
    Definition and Treatment of Range
    Summary of Our Approach
Species Information
    Biology and Ecology
    Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America
    Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification
    Historical Range
    Historical Abundance
    Historical Trends in Range and Abundance
    Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978 
Reclassification
    Current Distribution and Abundance
Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation
    Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States
    Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States
    Recovery Criteria for the NRM
    Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS
Historical Context of Our Analysis
Regulatory Framework
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Human-Caused Mortality
    Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities
    Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS
    Regulated Harvest in Idaho
    Depredation Control in Idaho
    Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Idaho Summary
    Regulated Harvest in Montana
    Depredation Control in Montana
    Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Montana Summary
    Regulated Harvest in Wyoming
    Depredation Control in Wyoming
    Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Wyoming Summary
    Regulated Harvest in Oregon
    Depredation Control in Oregon
    Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Oregon Summary
    Regulated Harvest in Washington
    Depredation Control in Washington
    Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Washington Summary

[[Page 69779]]

    Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Dynamics
    The Role of Public Attitudes
    Human-Caused Mortality Summary
    Habitat and Prey Availability
    Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
    Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
    NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat
    NRM DPS: Prey Availability
    West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
    West Coast States: Prey Availability
    Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat
    Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability
    Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
    Disease and Parasites
    Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding
    Effects of Climate Change
    Cumulative Effects
Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and Federal Wolf 
Management
    Ongoing Management in the Delisted NRM DPS
    State Management
    Idaho
    Montana
    Wyoming
    Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
    Wind River Indian Reservation
    Blackfeet Indian Reservation
    Flathead Indian Reservation
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
    Management on Federal Lands
    Summary of Management in the NRM DPS
    Post-Delisting Management Where Wolves are Currently Listed
    State Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
    The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Minnesota
    Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota
    Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota
    The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Wisconsin
    Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin
    Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin
    The Michigan Wolf Management Plan
    Depredation Control in Michigan
    Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Michigan
    Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan
    State Management in the West Coast States
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan
    The Washington Wolf Management Plan
    The California Wolf Management Plan
    State Management in the Central Rocky Mountains
    Post-Delisting Management in Colorado
    Post-Delisting Management in Utah
    Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
    Management on Federal Lands
    Great Lakes Area
    West Coast States
    Central Rocky Mountains
    Summary of Post-Delisting Management
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
    Peer Reviewer Comments
    Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Human-Caused Mortality
    Habitat and Prey Availability
    Disease and Parasites
    Post-Delisting Management
    General
    Biological Report
    Policy
    State and Federal Agency Comments
    Recovery and Delisting
    Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Taxonomy
    Human-Caused Mortality
    Effects of Climate Change
    Genetics
    Post-Delisting Management
    Policy
    Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments
    Public Comments
    Recovery and Delisting
    Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Taxonomy
    Human-Caused Mortality
    Habitat and Prey Availability
    Disease and Parasites
    Effects of Climate Change
    Genetics
    Additional Threats
    Post-Delisting Management
    Post-Delisting Monitoring
    General
    Policy
Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the Listings for the Gray Wolf 
Under the Act
    Background
    Species and Range
    Petition History
    Findings
    Alternatives 1 and 2
    Alternative 3
Determination of Species Status
    Currently Listed Entities
    Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
    Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant 
Portion of Its Range
    Minnesota: Final Determination
    44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its 
Range
    44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a 
Significant Portion of Its Range
    44-State Entity: Final Determination
    Combined Listed Entity
    Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All 
of Its Range
    Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a 
Significant Portion of Its Range
    Combined Listed Entity: Final Determination
    Lower 48 United States Entity
    Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status 
Throughout All of Its Range
    Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status 
Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
    Lower 48 United States Entity: Final Determination
    Determination of Species Status: Conclusion
Effects of This Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Required Determinations
    National Environmental Policy Act
    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

Previous Federal Actions

    Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional 
populations \1\ of subspecies in the lower 48 United States and Mexico. 
Early listings were under legislative predecessors of the Act--the 
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act of 1969. Later listings were under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973. The Federal Register citations for all the 
rulemaking actions described in the following paragraphs are provided 
in table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon below the 
subspecific level, in common spatial arrangement that interbreed 
when mature (50 CFR 17.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf throughout 
the lower 48 United States and Mexico, subsuming the earlier listings 
of subspecies or regional populations of subspecies. In that rule, we 
classified gray wolves in Minnesota as a threatened species and gray 
wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 United States and Mexico as an 
endangered species (table 1). At that time, we considered the gray 
wolves in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the Act, and we 
considered the gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico, 
other than Minnesota, to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 
9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). The earlier subspecies listings 
thus were subsumed into two listed entities: The gray wolf in 
Minnesota; and the gray wolf in the rest of the lower 48 United States 
and Mexico.
    The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes in our 
understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect all gray wolves in the 
lower 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). In 
addition, we also clarified that the gray wolf was only listed south of 
the Canadian border.
    The 1978 reclassification rule stipulated that ``biological 
subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate 
entities'' (43 FR 9609), and offered ``the firmest assurance that [the 
Service] will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for 
purposes of its research and conservation programs'' (43 FR 9610). 
Accordingly, we implemented three gray wolf recovery programs in three 
regions of the country--the

[[Page 69780]]

northern Rocky Mountains, the Southwestern United States, and the 
Eastern United States (including the Great Lakes States). The recovery 
programs were pursued to establish and prioritize recovery criteria and 
actions appropriate to the unique local circumstances of the gray wolf 
(table 1). Recovery in one of these regions (Southwestern United 
States) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental 
population (table 1). Recovery in a second region (northern Rocky 
Mountains) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental 
population (table 1) and natural recolonization. Recovery in the third 
region (Eastern United States) relied on natural recolonization and 
population growth.
    Between 2003 and 2015, we published several rules revising the 1978 
listed entities to acknowledge new information regarding taxonomy, 
comport with current policy and practices, and recognize the biological 
recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) and 
Eastern United States. Previous rules were challenged and subsequently 
invalidated or vacated by various courts based, in part, on their 
determinations that our distinct population segment (DPS) designations 
were legally flawed (table 1).
    Of particular relevance to this rule is our 2011 final rule 
addressing wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes (WGL) area of the 
Eastern United States (76 FR 81666, Dec. 28, 2011). In that rule, we 
recognized the expansion of the Minnesota wolf population by revising 
the previously listed Minnesota entity to include all or portions of 
six surrounding States, classified the expanded population as the WGL 
DPS, and determined that the WGL DPS did not meet the definition of a 
threatened or an endangered species due to recovery. Also in 2011, we 
published a final rule that implemented section 1713 of Public Law 112-
10, reinstating our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS and, with the 
exception of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in that DPS from the List. In 
2012, we finalized a rule removing gray wolves in Wyoming from the 
List. That rule was later vacated by the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia. In 2013, we published a proposed rule to: (1) 
Delist C. lupus in the remaining listed portions of the United States 
and Mexico outside of the delisted NRM and WGL DPSs; and (2) keep 
Mexican wolf (C. l baileyi; occurring in the Southwestern United States 
and Mexico) listed as an endangered subspecies (table 1).
    In 2014, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia 
vacated the December 28, 2011, final rule identifying the WGL DPS and 
removing it from the List (table 1). The district court's decision was 
based, in part, on its conclusion that the Act does not allow the 
Service to use its authority to identify a DPS solely for the purpose 
of delisting it (Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 
112-13 (D.D.C. 2014)). The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling in 
2017 that the Service had the authority to designate a DPS from a 
larger listed entity and delist it in the same rule (table 1). That 
court nonetheless upheld the district court's vacatur of the rule, 
concluding that the Service failed to analyze or consider two 
significant aspects of the rule: The impacts of delisting the DPS on 
the rest of the listed entity and the impacts of the loss of historical 
range (Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 602-03, 605-
07).
    In 2015, we finalized the portion of the 2013 proposed rule listing 
the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies (table 1). In 2017, the 
D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's decision and reinstated the 
delisting of gray wolves in Wyoming (Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 
849 F.3d 1077 (DC Cir. 2017)). Thus, wolves are currently delisted in 
the entire northern Rocky Mountains DPS (figure 1).
    As a result of the above actions, the C. lupus listed entities in 
50 CFR 17.11 currently include: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota listed as 
threatened, and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and 
Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). In the United States, this 
includes: All of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West 
Virginia, and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Utah, and Washington (figure 1).
    On March 15, 2019, we published a proposed rule to delist the two 
currently listed C. lupus entities in the Federal Register (84 FR 
9648). The publication of the proposed delisting rule opened a 60-day 
public comment period, which was scheduled to close on May 14, 2019. 
Based on several requests from the public to extend the comment period, 
we published a document on May 14, 2019, extending the comment period 
60 days, to July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We announced a public 
information open house and public hearing on our proposed rule and the 
availability of the final peer review report in the Federal Register on 
June 6, 2019 (84 FR 26393). The public events were held in Brainerd, 
Minnesota, on June 25, 2019.
    For additional information on these Federal actions and their 
associated litigation history, refer to the relevant associated rules 
or the Previous Federal Actions sections of our recent gray wolf 
actions (see table 1).

 Table 1--Key Federal Regulatory Actions Under the Act and Predecessor Legislation \1\ Pertaining to Gray Wolf and, Where Applicable, Outcomes of Court
                                                              Challenges to These Actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Entity                        Year of action               Type of action          Federal Register  citation       Litigation history
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. lupus lycaon....................  1967 \1\.....................  List......................  32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967...  .........................
C. lupus irremotus.................  1973 \1\.....................  List......................  38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973....  .........................
C. l. lycaon.......................  1974.........................  List......................  39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974..  .........................
C. l. irremotus....................  1974.........................  List......................  39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974..  .........................
C. l. baileyi......................  1976.........................  List (E)..................  41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976..  .........................
C. lupus monstrabilis 2............  1976.........................  List (E)..................  41 FR 24064, June 14, 1976...  .........................
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except    1978.........................  Reclassify (E)............  43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 \3\  .........................
 Minnesota) & Mexico.

[[Page 69781]]

 
C. lupus in Minnesota..............  1978.........................  Reclassify (T)............  43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 \3\  .........................
C. lupus...........................  1978 (revised 1992)..........  Recovery Plan for Eastern   n.a.                           .........................
                                                                     Timber Wolf (eastern gray
                                                                     wolf).
C. lupus...........................  1980 (revised 1987)..........  Recovery Plan for NRM Gray  n.a.                           .........................
                                                                     Wolf.
C. lupus...........................  1982 (revised 2017)..........  Recovery Plan for Mexican   n.a.                           .........................
                                                                     Gray Wolf (C. l. baileyi).
C. lupus...........................  1994.........................  Establish experimental      59 FR 60266, November 22,      .........................
                                                                     population (southeastern    1994.
                                                                     Idaho, southern Montana,
                                                                     and Wyoming).
C. lupus...........................  1994.........................  Establish experimental      59 FR 60252, November 22,      Upholding reintroduction
                                                                     population (central Idaho   1994.                          in the NRM region
                                                                     & southwest Montana).                                      (Wyoming Farm Bureau v.
                                                                                                                                Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224
                                                                                                                                (10th Cir. 2000)).
C. lupus...........................  1998.........................  Establish experimental      63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998.  .........................
                                                                     population (Arizona & New
                                                                     Mexico).
C. lupus DPSs:.....................  2003.........................  Designate DPS & classify/   68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003...  Rule vacated (Defenders
--Eastern DPS......................                                  reclassify as:.                                            of Wildlife v. Norton,
--Western DPS......................                                 --Eastern DPS (T).........                                  354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D.
--Southwestern U.S. & Mexico DPS...                                 --Western DPS (T).........                                  Or. 2005); National
                                                                    --Southwestern U.S. &                                       Wildlife Federation v.
                                                                     Mexico DPS (E).                                            Norton, 386 F. Supp. 2d
                                                                    --Delist in unoccupied non-                                 553 (D. Vt. 2005)).
                                                                     historical range.
C. lupus WGL DPS...................  2007.........................  Designate DPS & delist....  72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007.  Rule vacated (Humane
                                                                                                                                Society of the United
                                                                                                                                States v. Kempthorne,
                                                                                                                                579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.
                                                                                                                                D.C. 2008)).
C. lupus NRM DPS...................  2008.........................  Designate DPS & delist....  73 FR 10514, February 27,      Rule enjoined (Defenders
                                                                                                 2008.                          of Wildlife v. Hall, 565
                                                                                                                                F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D.
                                                                                                                                Mont. 2008)), and
                                                                                                                                subsequently vacated and
                                                                                                                                remanded.
C. lupus DPSs:.....................  2008.........................  Reinstatement of            73 FR 75356, December 11,      .........................
--WGL DPS..........................                                  protections--NRM & WGL      2008.
--NRM DPS..........................                                  DPSs.
C. lupus WGL DPS...................  2009.........................  Designate DPS & delist....  74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009...  Rule vacated (Humane
                                                                                                                                Society of the United
                                                                                                                                States v. Salazar, 1:09-
                                                                                                                                CV-1092-PLF (D.D.C.
                                                                                                                                2009)).
C. lupus NRM DPS (except Wyoming)..  2009.........................  Designate DPS & delist      74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009...  Rule vacated (Defenders
                                                                     (except in Wyoming).                                       of Wildlife v. Salazar,
                                                                                                                                729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D.
                                                                                                                                Mont. 2010)).
C. lupus WGL DPS...................  2009.........................  Reinstatement of            74 FR 47483, September 16,     .........................
                                                                     protections--WGL.           2009.
C. lupus NRM DPS...................  2010.........................  Reinstatement of            75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010  .........................
                                                                     protections--NRM DPS.
C. lupus NRM DPS...................  2011.........................  Reissuance of 2009 NRM DPS  76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011.....  Upholding Section 1713
                                                                     delisting rule (as                                         (Alliance for the Wild
                                                                     required by Public Law                                     Rockies v. Salazar, 672
                                                                     112-10--The Department of                                  F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.
                                                                     Defense and Full-Year                                      2012)).
                                                                     Continuing Appropriations
                                                                     Act, 2011).
C. lupus WGL DPS...................  2011.........................  Revise 1978 listing,        76 FR 81666, December 28,      Rule vacated (Humane
                                                                     designate DPS & delist.     2011.                          Society of the U.S. v.
                                                                                                                                Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d
                                                                                                                                69, 110 (D.D.C. 2014)) .
                                                                                                                               Vacatur upheld on appeal
                                                                                                                                (Humane Society of the
                                                                                                                                U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d
                                                                                                                                585 (D.C. Cir. 2017)).
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. and        2012.........................  5-Year Review.............  n.a.                           .........................
 Mexico, as revised.
C. lupus in Wyoming................  2012.........................  Delist in Wyoming.........  77 FR 55530, September 10,     Rule vacated (Defenders
                                                                                                 2012.                          of Wildlife v. Jewell,
                                                                                                                                68 F. Supp. 3d 193
                                                                                                                                (D.D.C. 2014)
                                                                                                                               Vacatur reversed on
                                                                                                                                appeal (Defenders of
                                                                                                                                Wildlife v. Zinke, 849
                                                                                                                                F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.
                                                                                                                                2017)).
C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except    2013.........................  Propose delist in lower 48  78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013...  .........................
 NRM & WGL DPSs) and Mexico.                                         U.S. & list C. l. baileyi
                                                                     (E); status review of
                                                                     wolves in Pacific
                                                                     Northwest.
C. l. baileyi......................  2015.........................  List E....................  80 FR 2488, January 16, 2015.  .........................
C. l. baileyi......................  2015.........................  Revised 1998 C. lupus       80 FR 2512, January 16, 2015.  .........................
                                                                     experimental population
                                                                     and associated it with C.
                                                                     l. baileyi listing.
C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus in     2015.........................  Reinstatement of            80 FR 9218, February 20, 2015  .........................
 Wyoming.                                                            protections--WGL DPS &
                                                                     Wyoming.
C. lupus in Wyoming................  2017.........................  Reinstatement of 2012       82 FR 20284, May 1, 2017.....  .........................
                                                                     delisting--Wyoming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 E = endangered species, T = threatened species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes.
\1\ Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of 1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act
  of 1969).
\2\ Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes.

[[Page 69782]]

 
\3\ In this rule we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for
  operating a wolf-management program in Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).

  [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.016
  
General Background

The 1978 Reclassification

    When the gray wolf (C. lupus) was reclassified in March 1978 
(replacing multiple subspecies entities with two C. lupus population 
entities as described further in Previous Federal Actions), it had been 
extirpated from much of its historical range in the lower 48 United 
States. Although the 1978 reclassification listed two gray wolf 
entities (a threatened population in Minnesota and an endangered 
population throughout the rest of the lower 48 United States and 
Mexico), these entities were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis, 
because the reclassification predated the November 1978 amendments to 
the Act, which revised the definition of ``species'' to include DPSs of 
vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy.
    As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, the 1978 reclassification 
was undertaken to address changes in our understanding of gray wolf 
taxonomy and to ensure the gray wolf was protected wherever it was 
found (as described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) in the lower 48 
United States and Mexico, rather than an indication of where gray 
wolves actually existed or where recovery efforts were considered 
necessary. Thus, the 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of 
large areas of the lower 48 United States where gray wolves were 
extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States, 
areas where long-held differences of opinion regarding the precise 
boundary of the species' historical range remain (Young and Goldman 
1944, pp. 413-416, 478; Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395, Fig. 20; 
Nowak 2009, p. 242; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 251, Fig. 9.7). While 
this generalized approach to the gray wolf listing facilitated recovery 
of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, it 
also erroneously included areas outside the species' historical range 
and was misread by some members of the public as an expression of a 
more expansive gray wolf recovery effort not required by the Act and 
never intended by the Service. In fact, our longstanding approach to 
recovery has focused on reestablishing wolf populations in three 
specific regions of the country: The Eastern United States (including 
the Great Lakes States), the northern Rocky Mountains, and the 
Southwestern United States. We have consistently focused our recovery 
efforts on reestablishing wolf populations in these specific regions 
(see table 1 and Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation).

National Wolf Strategy

    Although not required by the Act, in 2011 we described our national 
wolf strategy in our proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf 
in the Eastern United States (76 FR 26089-26090, May 5, 2011). This 
strategy was intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and coherent approach 
to addressing wolf conservation needs, including protection and 
management, in accordance with the Act's statutory framework; (2) 
ensure that actions taken for one wolf population do not cause 
unintended consequences for other populations; and (3) be explicit 
about the role of historical range in the conservation of extant wolf 
populations.

[[Page 69783]]

    Our strategy focused on the continued conservation of three extant 
gray wolf entities (the Great Lakes population, the northern Rocky 
Mountains population, and the southwestern population of Mexican 
wolves) and consideration of conservation of a fourth, wolves in the 
Pacific Northwest. In 2013 we completed a status review for gray wolves 
in the Pacific Northwest (western Washington, western Oregon, and 
northern California) (table 1) and determined that, under our DPS 
policy, these wolves are not discrete from wolves in the recovered NRM 
DPS (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and 
north-central Utah) (see 78 FR 35707-35713). Therefore, since that 
time, our strategy has been consistent with a focus on the western 
Great Lakes, the northern Rocky Mountains, and the southwestern 
population of Mexican wolves (see Previous Federal Actions).

The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory 
Definition of a ``Species''

    The gray wolf entities that are currently on the List do not meet 
the Act's definition of a ``species'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The 
original listing of certain gray wolf subspecies predated the Act. In 
1967, under a precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. lycaon (Eastern 
timber wolf) in the Great Lakes region (table 1). In 1973, under the 
same precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. irremotus (Northern Rocky 
Mountain wolf) (table 1). In 1974, these subspecies were listed under 
the Act (table 1). In 2015, we subsequently listed C. l. baileyi 
(Mexican wolf) as endangered in the Southwestern United States and 
Mexico (table 1). Finally, on June 14, 1976, we listed a fourth gray 
wolf subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis (table 1), which was later subsumed 
within C. l. baileyi.
    In 1978, we concluded that ``this listing arrangement has not been 
satisfactory because the taxonomy of wolves is out of date, wolves may 
wander outside of recognized subspecific boundaries, and some wolves 
from unlisted subspecies may occur in certain parts of the lower 48 
states'' (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We wanted to clarify that C. 
lupus was listed as threatened or endangered south of the Canadian 
border, and we determined that the ``most convenient'' way to do so was 
to list the entity at the species level rather than by subspecies (43 
FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The separate subspecies listings were subsumed 
into two entities that were defined geographically: (1) Threatened in 
Minnesota; and (2) endangered throughout the rest of the lower 48 
United States and Mexico (43 FR 9612, March 9, 1978). The 1978 rule 
treated these entities as distinct ``species'' under the statutory 
definition of the term that was in effect at that time (43 FR 9610, 
March 9, 1978).
    When the Act was adopted in 1973, the term ``species'' was defined 
to include species, subspecies or ``any other group of fish or wildlife 
of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that 
interbreed when mature'' (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 886 (1973)). In 
November 1978, the Act was amended to introduce the concept of DPSs (16 
U.S.C. 1532(16)). Unlike species and subspecies, DPS is not a taxonomic 
term. Rather, it refers to certain populations of vertebrates (i.e., 
less than the entire range of a taxonomic vertebrate species or 
subspecies). We issued a policy in 1996, in conjunction with the 
National Marine Fisheries Service, to explain how we would apply this 
statutory term (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996).
    Since the concept of DPSs was introduced, we have attempted to 
revise the lower 48 United States and Mexico listings to account for 
the biological recovery of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) 
and Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). We published rules identifying 
recovered DPSs, but some of those actions did not survive legal 
challenges. For example, our 2007 and 2011 rules designating and 
delisting a WGL DPS were vacated by the reviewing courts. Thus, wolves 
in the WGL are part of the currently listed gray wolf entities. By 
contrast, although our rules designating and delisting the NRM DPS were 
also challenged in court, after several rounds of litigation and 
congressional action the NRM DPS was delisted and remains so today (see 
Previous Federal Actions).
    The two currently listed entities are: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota 
(listed as threatened); and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. 
States and Mexico (listed as endangered). Neither of the entities 
encompasses an entire species, or a subspecies, of gray wolf. Thus, the 
currently listed entities would only constitute listable entities 
(i.e., meet the statutory definition of ``species'') if they qualified 
as DPSs.
    To constitute a DPS, a vertebrate population must be both discrete 
from and significant to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., taxonomic 
species or subspecies) (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). We consider 
first whether the population is discrete and, if so, then we evaluate 
its biological and ecological significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, 
1996). A population segment may be considered discrete if it ``is 
markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors'' (61 FR 4725). For the reasons set forth below, the gray wolf 
entities currently on the List do not meet this standard.
    The two entities are not markedly separated from other populations 
of the same taxon. The threatened Minnesota listed entity is not 
discrete from the endangered listed entity where they abut in the Great 
Lakes area because gray wolves in Minnesota are not discrete from gray 
wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1978, gray wolves were largely 
confined to northern Minnesota, with some wolves occupying Isle Royale 
and possibly other individuals scattered in Wisconsin and Michigan (43 
FR 9608). Wolves in northern Minnesota subsequently dispersed and 
recolonized Wisconsin and Michigan, resulting in a metapopulation \2\ 
in the Great Lakes area (Mech 2010, p. 130). There are no significant 
physical barriers separating Minnesota wolves from those in Wisconsin 
and Michigan, as evidenced by frequent movement of wolves among the 
three States (Treves et al. 2009, entire). In addition, genetic 
analyses demonstrate that Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are mostly of 
the same genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves and there is effective 
interbreeding among wolves in the three States (Wheeldon et al. 2010, 
p. 4438; Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 104; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758; 
see also Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America). Thus, gray wolves 
in the Minnesota entity are not ``markedly separated'' from wolves in 
the Great Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A metapopulation is a population that exists as partially 
isolated sets of subpopulations that ``interact'' when individuals 
move from one subpopulation to another. A metapopulation is widely 
recognized as being more secure over the long term than are several 
isolated populations that contain the same total number of 
individuals. A metapopulation is more secure because adverse effects 
experienced by one of its subpopulations resulting from genetic 
drift, demographic shifts, and local environmental fluctuations can 
be countered by occasional influxes of individuals and their genetic 
diversity from the other components of the metapopulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the endangered listed entity is not discrete from other 
populations of gray wolves. As noted above, gray wolves in the Great 
Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity are connected to gray 
wolves in Minnesota. And gray wolves in the West Coast States that are 
part of the endangered listed entity are not discrete from the 
recovered NRM population (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013,

[[Page 69784]]

pp. 35707-35713; see also Current Distribution and Abundance). We 
removed most of the NRM DPS from the List, most recently, in 2011 (ID, 
MT, the eastern one-third of OR and WA, and a small portion of north-
central UT) and the remainder, most recently, in 2017 (WY) (table 1). 
As we explained in our 2019 proposed rule, the NRM population has 
continued to expand and wolves from that population have now dispersed 
and become established in parts of the West Coast States (84 FR 9656, 
March 15, 2019). Genetic analysis shows that all gray wolves currently 
occupying Oregon descended from NRM wolves and those wolves expanded 
into California (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142-143; California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020, entire). Wolves in Washington in 
both the endangered listed entity and the NRM include individuals 
descended from NRM wolves as well as wolves from Canada (Hendricks et 
al. 2018, pp. 142-143). Thus, listed wolves in the West Coast States 
are not genetically distinct from the NRM wolves. Nor is there marked 
separation resulting from physical factors. Wolf habitat models show 
that there is little separation between occupied wolf habitat in the 
NRM DPS and suitable habitat in western Washington, western Oregon, and 
northern California (see 78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013). Any gaps in 
suitable habitat are unlikely to preclude dispersal because gray wolves 
are capable of traveling long distances through a variety of habitats 
(78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013; ODFW 2016, p. 10; Jimenez et al. 2017, 
entire). In sum, listed wolves in the West Coast States are not 
discrete from wolves in the delisted NRM DPS portion of the gray wolf 
taxon.
    Because the two currently listed entities are not discrete, we need 
not evaluate their significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). Neither 
of the listed entities is a DPS, and thus neither entity is a 
``species'' as that term is defined under the Act.
    As we noted in our proposed rule, the currently listed gray wolf 
entities could be removed from the List because they do not meet the 
statutory definition of a ``species'' (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019). 
This independent basis for delisting, which is based on the plain 
language of the Act, was explained in our 2019 revisions to the Act's 
implementing regulations. We distinguish between a ``listed entity'' 
and a ``species,'' and reiterate that an entity that is not a 
``species'' as defined under the Act should be removed from the List. 
See 50 CFR 424.11(e)(3) (providing that the Secretary shall remove an 
entity from the List if, among other things, ``[t]he listed entity does 
not meet the statutory definition of a species''). In the preamble to 
the rule we explained that this is not a new interpretation, but 
``merely reflects the text and intent of the Act, i.e., only `species,' 
as defined in section 3 of the Act, may be listed under the Act'' (84 
FR 45037, August 27, 2020).
    However, before proceeding with delisting, we may consider whether 
any populations of gray wolves covered by the listed entities meet the 
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species. Thus, 
instead of removing the listed entities solely because they do not meet 
the statutory definition of a ``species,'' in this rule, we consider 
the status of gray wolves in several configurations, as explained 
below, to eliminate the possibility of removing protections for any 
gray wolves that might meet the Act's definition of a ``species'' and 
might be endangered or threatened.

Approach for This Rule

The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule

    As described above, two gray wolf entities are currently listed: C. 
lupus in Minnesota, listed as threatened; and C. lupus in all or 
portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). 
We refer to these entities simply as ``Minnesota'' and the ``44-State 
entity'' throughout this rule.
    While our past status reviews have focused on gray wolf DPSs and 
taxonomic units that align with our national wolf strategy (see table 
1), we have revised our approach in this rule to take into account the 
unique listing history of the gray wolf, as well as multiple court 
opinions regarding our prior actions to designate and delist gray wolf 
DPSs (see table 1). The two currently listed gray wolf entities are 
largely vestiges of a 42-year-old action (the 1978 reclassification 
(see General Background)) that occurred prior to formulation and 
implementation of our DPS policy. As explained above, the gray wolf 
entities that are currently on the List are not species, subspecies, or 
distinct population segments (DPSs) (see The Currently Listed C. lupus 
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a ``Species''), and as 
such should be delisted. However, in recognition of the unique listing 
history of the gray wolf, our many prior actions to designate and 
delist DPSs (table 1), and related court opinions, we have adopted a 
conservative approach to delisting in this rule. Rather than focus on 
gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units, we focus on the currently listed 
entities. We do so by evaluating the conservation status of the 
currently listed entities under three different configurations, as 
explained below.
    In our proposed rule, we focused on the status of listed gray 
wolves by assessing the two listed entities in combination. In response 
to peer review and public comments, we have expanded our analysis to 
consider the conservation status of gray wolves in three different 
configurations. Specifically, we assess: (1) Each of the two currently 
listed gray wolf entities separately; (2) the two currently listed 
entities combined into a single entity (the approach in our proposed 
rule); and (3) a single gray wolf entity that includes all gray wolves 
in the lower 48 state and Mexico except for the Mexican wolf. We 
explain our reasoning for analyzing these specific configurations 
below.

Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities

    We consider the status of gray wolves in each of the following 
configurations to determine whether wolves should be included on the 
List in their current status, be reclassified from their current status 
(e.g., upgraded to endangered or downgraded to threatened), or be 
removed from the List. For a summary of these configurations, see table 
2.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately
    In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves 
occurring within the geographic area outlined by each of the two 
currently listed C. lupus entities separately, as they are listed. We 
do so because they are the entities that are currently on the List. 
Evaluating the entities as they are listed is consistent with section 
4(c) of the Act, which authorizes the Secretary to review species 
included on the List and determine on the basis of the review whether 
changes to the listing status are warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). We 
do not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the 44-State 
entity under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered 
and no longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS, 
as appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and 
conclusions about the status of wolves comprising the 44-State entity.
The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination
    In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves 
occurring within the geographic area outlined by the two

[[Page 69785]]

currently listed C. lupus entities combined into a single entity. We do 
so because: (1) These are the entities that are currently on the List 
and it is clear that neither listed entity would qualify as a DPS under 
our 1996 DPS policy due to their lack of discreteness from each other 
(see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory 
Definition of a ``Species''), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to 
combine them for analysis in light of their lack of discreteness. We do 
not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the listed entity 
under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered and no 
longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS, as 
appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and 
conclusions about the status of wolves comprising this combined entity.
    We assessed the two listed entities in combination in our proposed 
rule. In that rule, we referred to the resulting entity as the ``gray 
wolf entity.'' For clarity, in this final rule, we refer to the 
resulting entity as the ``combined listed entity'' (table 2).
The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination
    In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves 
occurring within the geographic area of the lower 48 United States and 
Mexico (excluding the Mexican gray wolf; see How We Address the C. l. 
baileyi Listing below), a single entity that includes the two currently 
listed entities and the delisted NRM DPS combined. We do so because: 
(1) It includes the two entities that are currently on the List and 
neither listed entity qualifies as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy 
because the two listed entities are not discrete from each other and 
the 44-State entity is not discrete from the NRM DPS (see The Currently 
Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a 
``Species''), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to combine the two 
currently listed entities and the NRM DPS for analysis in light of 
their lack of discreteness. We refer to this entity as the ``lower 48 
United States entity.'' Although we include the NRM wolves in this 
configuration due to their connection to currently listed wolves, we 
reiterate that wolves in the NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not 
reexamining or revisiting our 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 
15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). For additional 
information regarding our rationale for analyzing the lower 48 United 
States entity, see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule.

                                    Table 2--Summary of Analyses in This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Description of entity     Name given to the
           Configuration                    assessed           entity in this rule     Why we assess the entity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The separate listed entities....  State of Minnesota....  Minnesota.............  It is a currently listed
                                                                                      entity.
                                     Lower 48 States and     44-State entity.......  It is a currently listed
                                      Mexico \1\ outside of                           entity.
                                      the NRM DPS and
                                      Minnesota.
2. The combined listed entities....  Lower 48 States and     combined listed entity  Includes the two currently
                                      Mexico \1\ outside of                           listed entities, but these
                                      the NRM DPS.                                    two entities are not
                                                                                      discrete from one another;
                                                                                      it makes sense,
                                                                                      biologically, to combine
                                                                                      them in light of their
                                                                                      lack of discreteness. We
                                                                                      do not include the NRM
                                                                                      wolves because they are
                                                                                      delisted.
3. The combined listed entities and  Lower 48 States and     lower 48 United States  Includes the two currently
 the NRM DPS.                         Mexico \1\.             entity.                 listed entities, but these
                                                                                      two entities are not
                                                                                      discrete from one another,
                                                                                      and one (the 44-State
                                                                                      entity) is not discrete
                                                                                      from the delisted NRM DPS;
                                                                                      it makes sense,
                                                                                      biologically, to combine
                                                                                      them in light of their
                                                                                      lack of discreteness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ But see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing.

How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing

    As indicated above (see Previous Federal Actions), in 2015 we 
revised the listing for the gray wolf by reclassifying the subspecies 
C. l. baileyi as a separately listed entity with the status of 
endangered, wherever found. Although the rulemaking does not include 
language expressly excluding C. l. baileyi from the previously listed 
C. lupus entity, we indicated in our 2015 final rule listing the 
subspecies that the effect of the regulation was to revise the List by 
making a separate entry for the Mexican wolf (80 FR 2511, January 16, 
2015). Therefore, because we already assessed the status of, and 
listed, the Mexican wolf separately, we do not assess individuals or 
populations of the Mexican wolf in this rule. In other words, we do not 
consider individuals or populations of Mexican wolves to be among the 
wolves under analysis in this rule. Further, the Mexican wolf is the 
only subspecies of C. lupus known to currently occupy the Mexican wolf 
experimental population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New 
Mexico) and Mexico. Therefore, based on the best available information, 
the experimental population area and Mexico are unoccupied by and, 
consequently, outside the range of, the gray wolves under analysis in 
this rule (see Definition and Treatment of Range).

How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule

    The taxonomy and evolutionary history of wolves in North America 
are complex and controversial, particularly with respect to the 
taxonomic assignment of wolves historically present in the Northeastern 
United States and those that occur in portions of the Great Lakes 
region (eastern wolves; see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America). 
Available information indicates ongoing scientific debate and a lack of 
resolution on the taxonomy of eastern wolves. (see Taxonomy of Gray 
Wolves in North America). Further, none of these viewpoints is more 
supported by the scientific evidence or more widely accepted by the 
scientific community than others. In other words, there is no standard 
taxonomy indicating that eastern wolves are a distinct species, and no 
agreement among the scientific community regarding the taxonomic 
assignment of eastern wolves.
    We originally listed the gray wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the 
eastern timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to recognize this 
subspecies--and the Northeastern United States as part of its 
historical range--for years, as evidenced by both our original (1978) 
and revised

[[Page 69786]]

(1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed 
recognizing the species C. lycaon, occurring in southeastern Canada 
and, historically, the Northeastern United States, in our proposed rule 
to delist C. lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered (table 1). 
However, all peer reviewers of that proposed rule considered the 
scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon as a species to be 
insufficient. They noted that this is an area of active scientific 
research with new studies published yearly, and stated that the 
proposed recognition of these wolves as a species was premature 
(National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 2014, 
unpaginated). New information published on the topic since publication 
of our 2013 rule indicates the taxonomy and evolutionary history of 
eastern wolves remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-5). The 
uncertainty of the existence of a separate species is reflected in the 
fact that C. lycaon is not recognized by authoritative taxonomic 
organizations such as the American Society of Mammalogists or the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore, based 
on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, in this rule we continue to recognize wolves in the 
Northeastern United States as members of the species C. lupus.
    Because we recognize wolves in the Northeastern United States as 
members of the species C. lupus in our assessment of the status of gray 
wolf entities in this rule, we include eastern wolves and eastern wolf 
range that occurs within the geographical boundaries of the gray wolf 
entities we assess. This approach ensures our analysis takes into 
account the possibility that gray wolves historically occurred 
throughout most of the lower 48 United States. In other words, because 
we also consider eastern wolf historical range, our analysis assumes a 
larger historical range for the gray wolf species in the lower 48 
United States and, as a result, a greater loss of such range (see 
Historical Range).
    Scientists also disagree on the taxonomic assignment of wolves in 
the southeastern United States generally recognized as ``red wolves.'' 
However, a recent consensus study by the National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that available evidence 
supports species (C. rufus) status for the extant red wolf (National 
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2019, pp. 51-
72). We recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus (USFWS 2018, pp. 
15-17) and note that it is listed as endangered where found (32 FR 
4001, March 11, 1967). We do not consider red wolves further in this 
rule and the red wolf listing is not affected by this rule.

Definition and Treatment of Range

    We interpret the term ``range'' as used in the Act's definitions of 
``threatened species'' and ``endangered species'' to refer to the area 
occupied by the species at the time we make a status determination 
under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In this rule, 
we consider the latest wolf distribution maps (inclusive of wolf packs, 
breeding pairs, and areas of persistent activity by multiple wolves) 
and other information obtained from State agencies as the best 
available information on wolf occupancy and, therefore, wolf range. 
Gray wolf range based on this information is shown in figure 2. Because 
we do not consider Mexican wolves to be among the wolves under analysis 
in this rule, we do not include the Mexican wolf experimental 
population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New Mexico) or 
Mexico within current gray wolf range (See How We Address the C. l. 
baileyi Listing).
    Wolves occur periodically in the lower 48 United States as lone 
dispersers in places that otherwise lack evidence of persistent wolf 
presence or suitable habitat for supporting a resident wolf population 
(see Current Distribution and Abundance). While dispersal plays an 
important role in recolonization of suitable habitat, individual 
dispersers that do not settle in an area, survive, and reproduce do not 
substantively contribute to the wolf's viability (i.e., the ability of 
a species to sustain populations in the wild over time). Therefore, we 
did not include the areas in which only these lone dispersers are 
occasionally found in our definition of current range.

Summary of Our Approach

    In this rule, we assess the status of gray wolves in three 
different configurations. We do not include in our assessment 
individuals or populations of the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) (wolves 
that occur in Mexico and the nonessential experimental population area 
in the Southwestern United States). Also, for the purposes of this 
rule, we consider any eastern wolves within the geographic boundaries 
of the entities we evaluated to be members of the species C. lupus. 
Further, we consider the range of the gray wolf to be the current 
distribution of gray wolves (as shown in figure 2) within the 
geographic boundaries of the entities we evaluated.

Species Information

    We provide detailed background information on gray wolves in the 
lower 48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report (see 
USFWS 2020, entire). This document can be found along with this rule at 
http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 (see 
Supplemental Documents). We summarize relevant information from this 
report below. For additional information, including sources of the 
information presented below, see USFWS (2020, entire) and references 
therein.

Biology and Ecology

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the canid (dog) family 
and have a broad circumpolar range. Adults range in weight from 18 to 
80 kilograms (40 to 175 pounds), depending on sex and geographic 
locale. Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals that live 
and hunt in packs. They are well adapted to traveling fast and far in 
search of food, and to catching and eating large mammals. In North 
America, they are primarily predators of medium to large mammals, 
including deer, elk, and other species, and are efficient at shifting 
their diet to take advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020, 
p. 6).
    Gray wolves are a highly adaptable species. They can successfully 
occupy a wide range of habitats provided adequate prey exists and 
human-caused mortality is sufficiently regulated. Scientific models 
generally depict high-quality suitable habitat as areas with sufficient 
prey where human-caused mortality is relatively low due to limited 
human access, or high amounts of escape cover, or relatively low risk 
of wolf-livestock conflicts (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9).
    Established gray wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long 
as their food supply is adequate and human-caused mortality is not too 
high. Where human-caused mortality is low or nonexistent, gray wolf 
populations are regulated by the distribution and abundance of prey on 
the landscape, though considerable evidence indicates density-
dependent, intrinsic mechanisms (e.g., social strife, territoriality, 
disease) may limit populations when ungulate densities are high. High 
levels of reproduction and immigration in gray wolf populations can 
compensate for high mortality rates in established populations (USFWS 
2020, pp. 7-8). Pack social structure is very adaptable--in many 
instances, breeding members can be quickly replaced from within or 
outside the

[[Page 69787]]

pack, and pups can be reared by other pack members should their parents 
die. Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe 
disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease; and 
they can increase rapidly after severe declines if the source of 
mortality is reduced. The species' dispersal capabilities allow wolf 
populations to quickly expand and recolonize vacant habitats as long as 
rates of human-caused mortality are not excessive; although, the rate 
of recolonization can be affected by the extent of intervening 
unoccupied habitat between the source population and newly recolonized 
area (USFWS 2020, p. 7).

Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America

    The gray wolf is a member of the canid family (Canidae) in a genus 
(Canis) that includes domestic dogs (C. familiaris), coyotes (C. 
latrans), and several other species (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Taxonomic 
relationships among Canis species found in North America have been 
studied extensively, though with a notable lack of consensus on various 
phylogenetic issues (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Consequently, wolf taxonomy and 
evolutionary history in North America are complex and controversial 
(USFWS 2020, p. 5).
    In North America, scientists generally recognize a ``red wolf'' 
phenotype (morphological form), and an ``eastern wolf'' phenotype that 
is distinct from wolves further west (``western gray wolves''), but 
disagree on the correct taxonomic assignment of these two entities or 
on their evolutionary origin (USFWS 2020, p. 1). As indicated above 
(see How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in this Rule), we continue 
to recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus and do not discuss 
the taxonomy of the species further in this rule (for more information, 
see our 2018 Red Wolf Species Status Assessment). We discuss the 
eastern wolf further, below.
    The eastern wolf has been the source of perhaps the most 
significant disagreement on North American canid taxonomy among 
scientists. The eastern wolf has been variously described as a species, 
a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of gray wolf, the product of 
introgressive hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes, the same 
species as the red wolf, or the product of introgressive hybridization 
between red wolves and gray wolves (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Morphologically, 
eastern wolves have long been considered distinct from gray wolves and 
coyotes. Many scientists have generally found the eastern wolf to be 
consistently intermediate between the gray wolf and the coyote, both 
morphologically and genetically (USFWS 2020, p. 2).
    Regardless of viewpoint on the correct taxonomic status of the 
eastern wolf, hybridization and introgression is widely recognized to 
have played, and continue to play, an important role among eastern 
wolves. However, there is scientific disagreement on the role of 
hybridization between eastern wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves and 
gray wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes. Minnesota appears to be the 
western edge of a hybrid zone between gray wolves in the west and 
eastern wolves--wolves in western Minnesota appear to be western gray 
wolves based on morphological and genetic analysis while wolves in 
eastern Minnesota and much of the Great Lakes area appear to be eastern 
wolf, introgressed with western gray wolf to varying degrees. 
Scientists who support the eastern wolf as a distinct species report 
that the only area in which eastern wolves are not currently 
experiencing admixture with either gray wolves or coyotes is in 
Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3). 
Even among those who hypothesize a hybrid origin of eastern wolves, 
meaning they are the result of ancient or more recent hybridization 
between gray wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves are viewed as 
genetically distinct (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3).
    Despite the ongoing debate about taxonomy and evolutionary history, 
there is general agreement that wolves currently found in the Great 
Lakes area and neighboring provinces in Canada are genetically distinct 
to some degree from wolves further west in the Rocky Mountains or the 
Pacific northwest (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-2). Although there is some debate 
about the degree of genetic difference between the wolves that occupy 
the Great Lakes area versus the Western United States, wolves in the 
Great Lakes area are generally smaller, occupy habitat dominated by 
mixed deciduous-coniferous forests with relatively little elevation 
change, and their primary prey is white-tailed deer; whereas wolves in 
the Western United States are larger and occupy montane forests that 
also contain larger prey such as elk and moose (USFWS 2020, pp. 28-29).
    All wolves in the Western United States are widely recognized as 
gray wolves (C. lupus) (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-4). However, the science 
pertaining to gray wolf subspecies designations, unique evolutionary 
lineages, ecotypes, and admixture of formerly isolated populations 
continues to develop (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5)--except for the Mexican 
wolf, where there is strong scientific evidence supporting its 
subspecies status. For example, coastal and inland wolves in western 
Canada and Alaska have been identified as genetically and 
morphologically distinct, and display distinct habitat and prey 
preferences, despite relatively close proximity. There have been 
attempts to assess whether any wolves recolonizing western States 
possess genetic markers indicative of coastal wolf ancestry. Genetic 
analysis of wolves recolonizing Washington revealed the presence of 
individuals primarily from the northern Rocky Mountains. However, two 
individuals were an admixture of wolves with inland wolf ancestry 
(wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains or inland western Canada) and 
coastal wolf ancestry (wolves from coastal British Columbia and coastal 
Alaska), although it is not clear whether the admixture of coastal and 
inland wolves happened in Washington, or whether already admixed 
individuals dispersed there. All wolves recolonizing Oregon and 
California appear to be descended from inland wolves dispersing from 
the northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5).

Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification

Historical Range
    We view the historical range to be the range of gray wolves within 
the lower 48 United States at the time of European settlement. We 
determined that this timeframe is appropriate because it precedes the 
major changes in range in response to excessive human-caused mortality 
(USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13).
    At the time of the 1978 reclassification, the historical range of 
the gray wolf was generally believed to include most of North America 
and, consequently, most of the lower 48 United States. We acknowledge 
that the historical range of the gray wolf is uncertain and the topic 
of continued debate among scientists. However, based on our review of 
the best available information, we view the historical range of the 
gray wolf within the lower 48 United States to be consistent with that 
presented in Nowak (1995, p. 395, fig. 20) and depicted in figure 2. 
This includes all areas within the lower 48 United States except 
western California, a small portion of southwestern Arizona, and the 
southeastern United States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13). 
While some authorities question the absence of gray wolves in parts of 
California, limited preserved

[[Page 69788]]

physical evidence of wolves in California exists (USFWS 2020, p. 11). 
Therefore, we rely on early reports of wolves in the State that 
describe the species as occurring in the northern and Sierra Nevada 
Mountain regions of California. Further, while recognizing that the 
extent of overlap of red wolf and gray wolf ranges is uncertain (USFWS 
2020, pp. 9-10), we chose Nowak (1995) as the historical range boundary 
in the East to encompass the largest reasonable historical distribution 
in the northeast and, consequently, the lower 48 United States. Also, 
although included in the 44-state listing, because the southeastern 
United States are generally recognized as within the range of the red 
wolf (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-10), we consider it to be generally outside the 
range of the gray wolf.
Historical Abundance
    Historical abundance of gray wolves within the lower 48 United 
States is largely unknown. Based on the reports of European settlers, 
gray wolves were common in much of the West. While historical (at the 
time of European settlement) estimates are notoriously difficult to 
verify, one study estimates that hundreds of thousands of wolves 
occurred in the Western United States and Mexico (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-
11). In the East, in the Great Lakes area, there may have been 4,000 to 
8,000 wolves in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in Wisconsin, and fewer than 
6,000 in Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 12). No estimates are available for 
historical wolf abundance in the Northeast (USFWS 2020, p. 13).
Historical Trends in Range and Abundance
    Gray wolf range and numbers throughout the lower 48 United States 
declined significantly during the 19th and 20th centuries as a result 
of humans killing wolves through poisoning, unregulated trapping and 
shooting, and government-funded wolf-extermination efforts (USFWS 2020, 
pp. 9-14). By the time subspecies were first listed under the Act in 
1974 (table 1), the gray wolf had been eliminated from most of its 
historical range within the lower 48 United States. Aside from a few 
scattered individuals, wolves occurred in only two places within the 
lower 48 United States. A population persisted in northeastern 
Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 wolves occurred on 
Isle Royale, Michigan. The Minnesota wolf population was the only major 
U.S. population in existence outside Alaska at this time and numbered 
about 1,000 individuals (USFWS 2020, pp. 12-14).

Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978 Reclassification

    By 1978, when several gray wolf subspecies were consolidated into 
two listed entities, a lower 48 United States and Mexico entity and a 
separate Minnesota entity, the gray wolf population in Minnesota had 
increased to an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138 packs (in the winter of 
1978-79) and had an estimated range of 14,038 square miles (mi\2\) 
(36,500 square kilometers (km\2\)) (USFWS 2020, p. 20) (figure 2). 
Although, prior to this time, wolves were occasionally reported in 
Wisconsin, it was not until 1978 that wolf reproduction was documented 
in the State (USFWS 2020, p. 21). In the West, occasional sightings 
were documented, but there was no indication that reproducing wolf 
packs occurred in the West at the time (USFWS 2020, p. 14; 59 FR 60266, 
November 22, 1994; USFWS 1987, pp. 3-6).

Current Distribution and Abundance

    During the years since the species was reclassified in 1978, gray 
wolves within the lower 48 United States increased in number (figure 3) 
and expanded in distribution (figure 2). Gray wolves within the lower 
48 United States now exist primarily in two large, stable or growing 
metapopulations in two geographic areas in the lower 48 United States--
the Western United States and the Great Lakes area in the Eastern 
United States (USFWS 2020, p. 27). Gray wolf populations within each of 
these areas are connected as evidenced by movements between States and 
genetic data (USFWS 2020, p. 27). The Great Lakes metapopulation 
consists of more than 4,200 individuals broadly distributed across the 
northern portions of three States in the Great Lakes area (USFWS 2020, 
p. 27). This metapopulation is also connected, via documented 
dispersals, to the large and expansive population of about 12,000-
14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a result, gray wolves in the Great 
Lakes area do not function as an isolated metapopulation of 4,200 
individuals in three States, but rather as part of a much larger 
``Great Lakes and eastern Canada'' metapopulation that spans across 
those three States and two Canadian Provinces (USFWS 2020, pp. 27-28).
    Gray wolves in the Western United States are distributed across the 
NRM DPS and into western Oregon, western Washington, northern 
California, and most recently in northwest Colorado (USFWS 2020, p. 
28). The Western United States metapopulation consisted of more than 
1,900 gray wolves in 2015 (at least 1,880 in the NRM DPS and at least 
26 outside the NRM DPS boundary), the final year of a combined northern 
Rocky Mountain wolf annual report (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix 2). At 
the end of 2015, the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho 
and Montana. After the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho 
and Montana, these States transitioned away from using minimum counts 
to document wolf numbers and developed other techniques to estimate 
population size or evaluate population trends (or both) which are not 
directly comparable to minimum counts (USFWS 2020, pp. 15-16). Based on 
the most current estimates, approximately 1,000 gray wolves occur in 
Idaho and 819 wolves were estimated in Montana (USFWS 2020, Appendix 
2). In addition, the most recent year-end minimum counts indicate at 
least 311 gray wolves occur in Wyoming and 310 in the States of Oregon, 
Washington, and California (256 in the delisted NRM DPS and 54 in the 
endangered listed entity) (USFWS 2020, p. 16, Appendix 2). While the 
current estimates for Idaho and Montana are not directly comparable to 
year-end minimum counts, indications from mortality data are that the 
number of individuals in these States remains similar to the number of 
individuals that were in these States in 2015, when all of the States 
were reporting year-end minimum counts (see table 3). In addition, in 
January of 2020, Colorado Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed the 
presence of a group of at least six wolves in extreme northwest 
Colorado (USFWS 2020, pp. 19, 28).
    Similar to the metapopulation in the Great Lakes area, the gray 
wolf metapopulation in the Western United States is connected to a 
large and expansive population of about 15,000 wolves in western Canada 
(USFWS 2020, p. 28). As a result, gray wolves in the Western United 
States function as part of a larger ``western United States and western 
Canada'' metapopulation that spans several States of the United States 
and two Provinces of Canada. Further, effective dispersal has been 
documented between West Coast States where gray wolves are federally 
protected (California, western Oregon, and western Washington), as well 
as between these areas, the NRM DPS where wolves are delisted (Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central 
Utah), and Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17-18, 28). Thus, wolves outside 
the NRM DPS boundary in western Washington, western Oregon, and 
northern California are an extension of

[[Page 69789]]

the metapopulation of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and 
western Canada. Although their specific place of origin remains unknown 
at this time, the group of wolves in Colorado are assumed to be related 
to NRM wolves based on proximity and the fact that dispersing wolves of 
known origin documented in Colorado since the early 2000s all 
originated from the NRM, including the lone individual that dispersed 
from Wyoming to Colorado and has resided in North Park, Colorado, since 
at least July 2019 (USFWS 2020, p. 19). Little information is currently 
available regarding the movements or territory use of the group in 
northwest Colorado but, to date, all confirmed reports have been in 
Colorado.
    Finally, a number of lone long-distance dispersing wolves have been 
documented outside core populations \3\ of the Great Lakes area and 
Western United States. For example, over the years, dispersing wolves 
have been detected in all States within historical gray wolf range west 
of the Mississippi River except Oklahoma and Texas (USFWS 2020, pp. 26, 
28-29). Since the early 2000s, confirmed records of individual gray 
wolves have been reported from Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, 
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The total number 
of confirmed records in each of these States, since the early 2000s, 
ranges from 1 to at least 27, the latter occurring in North Dakota, 
which also has an additional 45 probable but unverified reports (USFWS 
2020, pp. 25-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A population that inhabits a larger, more continuous, higher 
quality habitat patch within a species' distribution and, 
consequently, is larger in size and more genetically diverse (due to 
higher gene flow), and has greater evolutionary potential and 
resilience to stochastic events than a population that inhabits 
smaller, more isolated, lower quality habitat patches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, gray wolves in the lower 48 United States today exist 
primarily as two large metapopulations: One spread across northern 
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the other consisting of the 
recovered and delisted NRM DPS wolf population that is biologically 
connected to a small number of colonizing wolves in western Washington, 
western Oregon, northern California, and, most likely, Colorado (USFWS 
2020, pp. 27-29) (figure 2). In addition, a number of lone dispersers 
have been documented outside of core populations in several States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.017


[[Page 69790]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.018

Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation

    Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement 
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species 
and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not 
promote the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1)). 
Recovery plans are non-regulatory documents that identify management 
actions that may be necessary to achieve conservation and survival of 
the species. They also identify objective, measurable criteria 
(recovery criteria) which, when met, may result in a determination that 
the species should be removed from the List. Methods for monitoring 
recovery progress may also be included in recovery plans.
    Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods 
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as 
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards 
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they 
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to 
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species 
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless 
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
    There are many paths to recover a species, and recovery may be 
achieved without all recovery criteria being fully met. For example, 
one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet 
be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats 
are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that 
it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery 
opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking 
to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information 
about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new 
information may change the extent to which existing criteria are 
appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a 
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or 
may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The Act does not describe recovery in terms of the proportion of 
historical range that must be occupied by a species, nor does it imply 
that restoration throughout the entire historical range is required to 
achieve conservation. In fact, the Act does not contain the phrase 
``historical range.'' Thus, the Act does not require us to restore the 
gray wolf (or any other species) to its entire historical range, or any 
specific percentage of currently suitable habitat. For some species, 
expansion of their distribution or abundance may be necessary to 
achieve recovery. The amount of expansion necessary is driven by the 
biological needs of the species for viability (ability

[[Page 69791]]

to sustain populations in the wild over time) and sustainability. Thus, 
there is no specific percentage of historical range or currently 
suitable habitat that must be occupied by the species to achieve 
recovery. Many other species may be recovered in portions of their 
historical range or currently suitable habitat by removing or 
addressing the threats to their continued existence. And some species 
may be recovered by a combination of range expansion and threat 
reduction.
    As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, following our 1978 
reclassification, we drafted recovery plans and implemented recovery 
programs for gray wolves in three regions of the lower 48 United States 
(table 1). Wolves in one of these regions--C. l. baileyi, in the 
Southwestern United States and Mexico--are listed separately as an 
endangered subspecies and are not assessed in this rule (see Approach 
for this Rule). Below, we discuss recovery of wolves in the other two 
regions--the Eastern United States and the northern Rocky Mountains.

Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States

    The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan) and the 1992 
Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (hereafter Revised 
Recovery Plan) were developed to guide recovery of the eastern timber 
wolf subspecies in the Eastern United States. Those recovery plans 
contain the same two recovery criteria, which are meant to indicate 
when recovery of the eastern timber wolf throughout its historical 
range in the Eastern United States has been achieved. These criteria 
are: (1) The survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and (2) at 
least one viable population of eastern timber wolves outside Minnesota 
and Isle Royale in the lower 48 States is reestablished.
    The first recovery criterion, assuring the survival of the wolf in 
Minnesota, addresses a need for reasonable assurances that future 
State, Tribal, and Federal wolf management and protection will maintain 
a viable recovered population of wolves within the borders of Minnesota 
for the foreseeable future. Although the recovery criteria predate 
identification of the conservation biology principles of representation 
(conserving the adaptive diversity of a taxon), resiliency (ability to 
withstand demographic and environmental variation), and redundancy 
(sufficient populations to provide a margin of safety), the recovery 
criteria for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States are consistent 
with those principles. The Recovery Team concluded that the remnant 
Minnesota wolf population must be maintained and protected to achieve 
wolf recovery in the Eastern United States. Maintenance of the 
Minnesota wolf population is important in terms of representation 
because these wolves include both western gray wolves and wolves that 
are admixtures of western gray wolves and eastern wolves (see Taxonomy 
of Gray Wolves in North America) and are comparable to wolf populations 
that were present in the area historically. The successful growth of 
the remnant Minnesota population has maintained and maximized the 
representation of that genetic diversity among wolves in the Great 
Lakes area.
    Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is also important in 
terms of resiliency. Although the Revised Recovery Plan did not 
establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf 
population, it did identify, for planning purposes, a population goal 
of 1,251-1,400 animals for the Minnesota population (USFWS 1992, p. 
28). A population of this size not only increases the likelihood of 
maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term, but also reduces 
the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental 
events. Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan recommends a wolf 
population that is spread across about 40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 
through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the 
resiliency of the Minnesota wolf population.
    The second recovery criterion states that at least one viable wolf 
population should be reestablished within the historical range of the 
eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan 
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26). The reestablished population enhances both the 
resiliency and redundancy of the Great Lakes metapopulation.
    The Revised Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing 
this second population. If it is an isolated population, that is, 
located more than 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (km)) from the 
Minnesota wolf population, the second population should consist of at 
least 200 wolves for at least 5 years, based upon late-winter 
population estimates, to be considered viable. Late-winter estimates 
are made at a time when most winter mortality has already occurred and 
before the birth of pups; thus, the count is made at the annual low 
point of the population. Alternatively, if the second population is 
located within 100 mi (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population 
(for example, the Minnesota wolf population), it should be maintained 
at a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years, based on late-winter 
population estimates, to be considered viable. A nearby second 
population would be considered viable at a smaller size because it 
would be closely tied with the Minnesota population, and by occasional 
immigration of Minnesota wolves, would retain sufficient genetic 
diversity to cope with environmental fluctuations.
    The original Recovery Plan did not specify where in the Eastern 
United States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, 
the second population could have been established anywhere within the 
triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan 
and the Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or 
within Minnesota. The Revised Recovery Plan identified potential gray 
wolf reestablishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula 
of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New York, a small area 
in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent 
northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992, pp. 56-58). Neither the 1978 nor 
the 1992 recovery criteria indicate that the establishment of gray 
wolves throughout all or most of what was thought to be its historical 
range in the Eastern United States, or within all of the identified 
potential reestablishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under 
the Act.

Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States

    Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly exceed the recovery criteria 
(USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26) for (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota, 
and (2) a second population outside Minnesota and Isle Royale 
consisting of 100 wolves within 100 mi (160 km) of Minnesota for 5 
successive years. Based on the surveys conducted since 1998, the wolf 
population in Minnesota has exceeded 2,000 individuals over the past 20 
years, and populations in Michigan and Wisconsin, which are less than 
100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota population, have exceeded 100 
individuals every year since 1994 (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1). Based on 
the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in 1992 and 
reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, Peterson in litt. 
1998, Peterson in litt. 1999a, Peterson in litt. 1999b), this region 
contains sufficient wolf numbers and distribution to ensure the long-
term survival of gray wolves in the Eastern United States.

[[Page 69792]]

    The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population has 
allowed for the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained in 
the Great Lakes area when its wolves were first protected in 1974. The 
Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population far exceeds the numerical recovery 
criterion, even for a completely isolated second population. Therefore, 
even in the unlikely event that this two-State population were to 
become totally isolated and wolf immigration from Minnesota and Ontario 
completely ceased, it would still remain a viable wolf population for 
the foreseeable future, as defined by the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 
1992, pp. 25-26). Finally, each of the wolf populations in Wisconsin 
and Michigan has exceeded 200 animals for about 20 years, so if either 
were somehow to become isolated, they would remain viable. Furthermore, 
each State has committed to manage its wolf population above viable 
population levels (see Post-delisting Management). The wolf's numeric 
and distributional recovery criteria for the Eastern United States have 
been met.

Recovery Criteria for the NRM

    The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 (USFWS 1980, p. i) 
and revised in 1987 (USFWS 1987, p. i). The wolf recovery goal for the 
NRM was reevaluated and, when necessary, modified as new scientific 
information warranted (USFWS 1987, p. 12; USFWS 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; 
Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, February 
27, 2008; 74 FR 15130-15135, April 2, 2009). The Service's resulting 
recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population was: 30 or more breeding 
pairs comprising at least 300 wolves equitably distributed among 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 consecutive years, with genetic 
exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency managed) between 
subpopulations. To provide a buffer above these minimum recovery 
levels, each State was to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 
wolves in mid-winter (77 FR 55538-55539, September 10, 2012; 74 FR 
15132, April 2, 2009). Further, the post-delisting monitoring plan 
stipulated that three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status 
review and analysis of threats to determine if relisting was warranted: 
(1) If the wolf population in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming fell below the 
minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and 100 
wolves at the end of any one 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. For additional information on NRM wolf recovery goals and 
their evolution over time, see 74 FR 15130-15135 and references 
therein.

Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS

    As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, wolves in the NRM DPS 
have recovered and were delisted (table 1). The NRM wolf population 
achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 
2000 (USFWS 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 (USFWS et al. 
2008, table 4). In 2009, we concluded that wolves in the NRM DPS far 
exceeded recovery goals. We also concluded that ``The NRM wolf 
population: (1) Has at least [45] reproductively successful packs and 
[450] individual wolves each winter (near the low point in the annual 
cycle of a wolf population); (2) is equitably distributed within the 
100,000 mi\2\ (250,000 km\2\) area containing 3 areas of large core 
refugia (National Parks, wilderness areas, large blocks of remote 
secure public land) and at least 65,725 mi\2\ (170,228 km\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'' 
(74 FR 15133, April 2, 2009). Post-delisting and subsequent monitoring, 
and the expansion of the NRM population into western Washington, 
western Oregon, northern California, and, likely, Colorado (USFWS 2020, 
pp. 15-19, 28; see also Current Distribution and Abundance), indicate 
that the wolf population in the NRM DPS remains well above minimum 
recovery levels (see Current Distribution and Abundance).

Historical Context of Our Analysis

    When reviewing the current status of a species, it is important to 
understand and evaluate the effects of lost historical range on the 
viability of the species. In fact, when we consider the status of a 
species, we are considering whether the species is currently (i.e., 
without the species' occupying parts of its historical range) an 
endangered species or threatened species. Range reduction may result 
in: Reduced numbers of individuals and populations; changes in 
available resources (such as food) and, consequently, carrying 
capacity; changes in demographic characteristics (survival, 
reproductive rate); changes in population distribution and structure; 
and changes in genetic diversity and gene flow. These, in turn, can 
increase a species' vulnerability to a wide variety of threats, such as 
habitat loss, restricted gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, or 
having all or most of its populations affected by a catastrophic event. 
In other words, past range reduction can reduce the redundancy, 
resiliency, and representation of a species in its current range, such 
that a species may meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species'' under the Act. Thus, loss of historical range is 
not necessarily determinative of a species' status; rather, it must be 
considered in the context of other factors affecting a species. In 
addition to considering the effects that loss of historical range has 
had on the current and future viability of the species, we must also 
consider the causes of that loss of historical range. If the causes of 
the loss are ongoing, then that loss is also relevant as evidence of 
the effects of an ongoing threat.
    As indicated above, gray wolves historically occupied a large 
portion of the lower 48 United States (see figure 2). The range of the 
gray wolf began receding after the arrival of Europeans as a result of 
deliberate killing of wolves by humans and government-funded bounty 
programs aimed at eradication (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). Further, many 
historical habitats were converted into agricultural land (Paquet and 
Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food sources such as deer and elk 
were reduced, eliminated, or replaced with domestic livestock, which 
can become anthropogenic food sources for gray wolves (Young 1944 in 
Fritts et al. 1997, p. 8). The resulting reductions in range and 
population were dramatic--by the 1970s, gray wolves occupied only a 
small fraction of their historical range (figure 2). Although the range 
of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States has significantly 
expanded since 1978, its size and distribution remain below historical 
levels. The alterations to gray wolf historical range in the lower 48 
United States increased the vulnerability of gray wolves in the lower 
48 United States to a wide variety of threats that would not be at 
issue without such range reduction. We analyze these potential threats 
to gray wolves in the lower 48 United States below (see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species).

[[Page 69793]]

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species is an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened 
species.'' The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range,'' and a threatened species as a species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) disease or predation;
    (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
    (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response, and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Since 
publication of our proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019), the 
Service codified its understanding of foreseeable future at 50 CFR 
424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those regulations, we explain the term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the 
Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the 
species' responses to those threats are likely. The Service will 
describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best 
available data and taking into account considerations such as the 
species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, 
and environmental variability. The Service need not identify the 
foreseeable future in terms of a specific time period. These 
regulations did not significantly modify the Service's interpretation; 
rather they codified a framework that sets forth how the Service will 
determine what constitutes the foreseeable future based on our 
longstanding practice. Accordingly, though these regulations do not 
apply to the determinations for the entities assessed in this final 
rule because it was proposed prior to their effective date, they do not 
change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future for the entities 
assessed in our proposed rule and in this determination.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future 
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future 
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should 
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the 
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history 
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the 
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as 
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    For the purposes of this rule, and consistent with our proposed 
rule, we define the ``foreseeable future'' to be the extent to which, 
given the amount and substance of available data, we can anticipate 
events or effects, or reliably extrapolate threat trends that relate to 
the status of wolves within the lower 48 United States. The Great Lakes 
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have an established 
history of cooperating with and assisting in wolf recovery and have 
made a commitment, through legislative actions, to continue these 
activities. Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Utah are also 
committed to wolf conservation, as demonstrated by development of 
management plans and/or codification of laws and regulations protecting 
wolves (see Post-delisting Management). The best available information 
indicates that the Great Lakes States, West Coast States, and central 
Rocky Mountain States (Colorado and Utah) are committed to gray wolf 
conservation, and, therefore, we conclude that this commitment is 
likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Further, the NRM States 
have, for years, demonstrated their commitment to managing their wolf 
populations at or above recovery levels and the best available 
information indicates that this commitment will continue into the 
foreseeable future.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Wolves within the lower 48 United States are currently listed as 
endangered under the Act, except wolves in Minnesota, which are listed 
as threatened, and wolves in the NRM DPS, which were delisted due to 
recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 
2012). In this analysis we evaluate threat factors currently affecting 
wolves within the lower 48 United States and those that are reasonably 
likely to have a negative effect on the viability of wolves within the 
lower 48 United States if the protections of the Act are removed. As 
explained in our significant portion of the range (SPR) final policy 
(79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), we take into account the effect lost 
historical range may have on the current and future viability of a 
species in the range it currently occupies and also evaluate whether 
the causes of that loss are evidence of ongoing or future threats to 
the species. We do this through our analysis of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species' current condition 
reflects the effects of historical range loss, and, because threat

[[Page 69794]]

factors are evaluated in the context of the species' current condition, 
historical range contraction may affect the outcome of our analysis.
    Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we have identified several factors that could be 
significant threats to wolves within the lower 48 United States. We 
summarize our analysis of these factors, and factors identified at the 
time of listing, below. Due to recent information confirming the 
presence of a group of six wolves in extreme northwest Colorado, and 
their proximity to and potential use of habitats within Utah, we 
included these States in our analysis.

Human-Caused Mortality

    At the time of listing, human-caused mortality was identified as 
the main factor responsible for the decline of gray wolves (43 FR 9611, 
March 9, 1978). An active eradication program is the sole reason that 
wolves were extirpated from much of their historical range in the 
United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). European settlers attempted to 
eliminate the wolf entirely, primarily due to the real or perceived 
threats to livestock, and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf bounty that 
covered the Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves 
subsequently became the norm for States across the species' range 
(Hampton 1997, pp. 107-108; Beyer et al. 2009, p. 66; Erb and DonCarlos 
2009, p. 50; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 88; USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). For 
example, in Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed 
by the First Michigan Legislature.
    After the gray wolf was listed under the Act, its protections, 
along with State endangered-species statutes, prohibited the 
intentional killing of wolves except under very limited circumstances. 
Such circumstances included defense of human life, scientific or 
conservation purposes, and special regulations intended to reduce wolf 
depredations of livestock or other domestic animals. Aside from the 
reintroduction of wolves into portions of the northern Rocky Mountains, 
the regulation of human-caused wolf mortality is the primary reason 
wolf numbers have significantly increased and their range has expanded 
since the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. 2010, entire; O'Neil et al. 
2017, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, entire).
    The regulation of human-caused mortality has long been recognized 
as the most significant factor affecting the long-term conservation of 
wolves. Human-caused mortality includes both controllable and 
uncontrollable sources of mortality. Controllable sources of mortality 
are discretionary, can be limited by the managing agency, and include 
permitted take, sport hunting, and direct agency control. Sources of 
mortality that will be difficult to limit, or may be uncontrollable, 
occur regardless of population size and include things such as natural 
mortalities, illegal take, and accidental deaths (e.g., vehicle 
collisions, capture-related mortalities). However, if population levels 
and controllable sources of mortality are adequately regulated, the 
life-history characteristics of wolf populations provide natural 
resiliency to high levels of human-caused mortality.
    Two Minnesota studies provide some limited insight into the extent 
of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species' listing. 
Examining bounty data from a period that predated wolf protection under 
the Act by 20 years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an annual human-
caused mortality rate of 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23-24) evaluated 
data from a north-central Minnesota study area and found an annual 
human-caused mortality rate of 29 percent from 1980 through 1986, which 
includes 2 percent mortality from legal depredation-control actions. 
However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from comparisons of these 
two studies because of differences in habitat quality, exposure to 
humans, prey density, time periods, and study design. Nonetheless, 
these figures indicate that human-caused mortality decreased 
significantly once the wolf became protected under the Act.
    Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In locations where 
people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are killed to 
resolve conflicts with livestock and pets (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 
Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-347). Occasionally, wolves are 
killed accidentally by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, caught 
in traps set for other animals, or subject to accidental capture-
related mortality during conservation or research efforts (Bangs et al. 
2005, p. 346). A few wolves have been killed by people who believed 
their physical safety was being threatened. Many wolf killings, 
however, are intentional, illegal, and never reported to authorities.
    Although survival can be highly variable across populations (Fuller 
et al. 2003, pp. 176-181), recent estimated annual mortality rates for 
wolves greater than 1 year of age are relatively consistent among some 
U.S. populations and range between 20 to 25 percent (Adams et al. 2008, 
pp. 11-12; Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; Cubaynes et al. 2014, p. 5; 
O'Neil et al. 2017, p. 9523; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). Outside of 
very remote areas and large protected areas such as Yellowstone and 
Isle Royale National Parks, anthropogenic causes are the greatest 
source of mortality for most wolves in the lower 48 United States. Such 
causes are estimated to account for 60-70 percent of all mortalities in 
the NRM wolf population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2518), Michigan (O'Neil 
2017, p. 214) and Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2017a, p. 27; Stenglein et 
al. 2018, p. 108) and nearly 80 percent in Minnesota (Fuller 1989, p. 
24). The risk of human-caused mortality is not uniform, however, and 
tends to be highest for dispersing animals (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-
631) and for wolves that occupy less suitable habitats generally found 
on the peripheries of occupied wolf range (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-
631; O'Neil et al. 2017, pp. 9524-9528; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 109).
    In the absence of high levels of human-caused mortality, for 
example in Yellowstone and Isle Royale National Parks, wolf populations 
tend to be regulated by density-dependent, intrinsic mechanisms (Fuller 
et al. 2003, pp. 187-188; Cubaynes et al. 2014, pp. 9-11). Outside of 
such areas, where anthropogenic influences are greater, the influence 
of human-caused mortality on wolf populations may be considered either 
additive (mortality in excess of the number of deaths that would have 
occurred naturally) or compensatory (mortality that replaces deaths 
that would have occurred naturally). Some studies have concluded that 
anthropogenic mortality may be super-additive (increased additive 
mortality beyond the effect of direct killing itself) due to the 
effects increased take may have on the reproductive dynamics of wolves 
and packs (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3). Another study implied super-
additive mortality occurred through increased legal take, which 
prompted a concurrent increase in illegal take that reduced 
reproductive output and population growth rates (Chapron and Treves 
2016, p. 5); however, the claims of that study have been questioned 
(Olson et al. 2017, entire; Pepin et al. 2017, entire; Stein 2017, 
entire). Another study documented that harvest mortality was largely 
additive to natural mortality and that evidence for super-additive 
mortality was weak in Idaho (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 40-41). Murray et 
al. (2010, pp. 2522-2523) noted anthropogenic mortality was partially 
compensatory in the NRM wolf population; however, as population density 
increased, human-caused

[[Page 69795]]

mortality became increasingly additive (Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2522-
2523), a trend that was also observed in Michigan (O'Neil 2017, pp. 
201-229). In Wisconsin, Stenglein et al. (2018, pp. 106-108) noted a 
different trend in which mortality was largely additive prior to 2004, 
whereas it became partially compensatory after 2004 as wolves began to 
occupy most of the available suitable habitat in the State. Borg et al. 
(2014, pp. 7-9) documented that strong compensatory mechanisms buffered 
against long-term population-level impacts of breeder loss and pack 
dissolution in Denali National Park. Fuller et al. (2003, p. 186) 
concluded that human-caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of 
natural mortality in wolf populations. Increased levels of human-caused 
mortality in wolf populations can be compensated for by a reduction in 
natural mortality (O'Neil 2017, pp. 201-229), dispersal to fill social 
openings (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 20-21; 
Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-633; Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 585-586), or 
reproduction (Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113-114; Schmidt et al. 2017, p. 
25). Similarities in survival rates among wolf populations subject to 
different levels of human-caused and other forms of mortality (see 
above for discussion about survival/mortality rates) indicates a 
moderate level of compensation in mortality occurs in wolf populations. 
It further indicates that moderate increases in human-caused mortality 
may not have a large effect on annual wolf survival (O'Neil 2017, p. 
220).
    Increased human-caused mortality may either increase or decrease 
wolf dispersal rates depending on various factors. For example, if wolf 
harvest is significant, it can reduce wolf densities leading to an 
overall decline in dispersal events due to a reduction in the number of 
individuals available to disperse, reduced competition for resources 
within the pack, or through direct removal of dispersing animals 
(Packard and Mech 1980, p. 144; Gese and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Adams et 
al. 2008, pp. 16-18). Trapping, in particular, may remove the age 
classes most likely to disperse because younger, less experienced 
wolves are often more vulnerable to this form of harvest. In a heavily 
harvested population with a significant portion of the harvest from 
trapping, long open seasons, and no bag limits, dispersal rates were 
observed to be up to 50 percent less than in unexploited populations 
(Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). However, there appears to be 
considerable variability in dispersal rates from harvested populations 
that likely depends on a number of factors, including prey 
availability, pack size, harvest rates, and whether or not harvest was 
biased toward certain age-classes (Hayes and Harestad 2000, pp. 43-44; 
Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). Jimenez et al. (2017, p. 588) found 
that increased human-caused mortality (illegal take and agency lethal 
control) removed individual wolves and entire packs, and thereby 
provided a constant source of social openings or vacant habitat for 
wolves to recolonize. However, long-distance dispersals still occurred 
at low wolf density even when vacant habitat was nearby. Using data 
from 197 GPS-collared wolves from 65 wolf packs in Idaho to construct 
an integrated population model, Horne et al. (2019a, p. 40) found that 
variation in harvest rates did not translate to changes in the 
propensity for wolves to disperse. The authors speculated that harvest 
rates in their study were not high enough to cause widespread breeding 
vacancies and increased dispersal behavior.
    In wolf populations that are not hunted, lethal control of 
depredating wolves (see below for discussion) and illegal take are the 
two primary anthropogenic causes of mortality. In the NRM, Smith et al. 
(2010, p. 625) estimated that illegal take accounted for 24 percent of 
all mortalities (or approximately 6 percent of the population); 
however, 12 percent of the documented mortalities were attributed to 
unknown causes, so it is highly plausible that the number of wolves 
illegally taken may have been higher (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; 
O'Neil 2017, pp. 220-221; Treves et al. 2017b, p. 7). Ausband et al. 
(2017a, p. 7) used radio-collared wolves to estimate that 8.2 percent 
of the Idaho wolf population was illegally killed annually while the 
annual rate of illegal take in Michigan was estimated at approximately 
9 percent (O'Neil 2017, p. 214). In Wisconsin, it was estimated that 9 
percent of wolves were killed illegally (Stenglein et al. 2018; p. 104) 
while Stenglein et al. (2015b, p. 1183) concluded that as many as 400 
wolves were illegally killed but were not detected between 2003 and 
2012. Another study conducted outside of the lower 48 United States 
estimated the percentage of unknown illegal take that occurred and 
estimated that approximately 69 percent of all poaching incidents were 
undocumented (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 912). Similarly, Treves et al. 
(2017b, entire) concluded that illegal take was the primary cause of 
wolf mortality and that the relative risk of poaching was grossly 
underestimated in both the NRM and Wisconsin. We acknowledge the 
challenges of documenting and estimating illegal take, and note that 
illegal take may have slowed wolf population growth in the lower 48 
United States to some extent (Liberg et al. 2012, entire; Stenglein et 
al. 2018, p. 105). However, based on wolf minimum counts and population 
estimates (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1 and 2), illegal take, whether 
documented or not, has not prevented recovery of the species, the 
maintenance of viable wolf populations, or the continued recolonization 
of vacant, suitable habitat.
    Vehicle collisions also contribute to wolf mortality. The total 
number of wolf mortalities associated with vehicle collisions is 
expected to rise with increasing wolf populations as wolves attempt to 
colonize more human-dominated areas that contain a denser network of 
roads and vehicular traffic. However, mortalities associated with 
vehicle collisions are unlikely to increase as a percentage of the 
total wolf population if increases occur concurrently. Regardless, 
mortalities from vehicle collisions will likely continue to constitute 
a small proportion of total wolf mortalities.
    Neither scientific research nor the use of wolves for educational 
purposes are significant sources of human-caused mortality. Each of the 
States in the current range of gray wolves in the lower 48 United 
States conduct scientific research and monitoring of wolf populations. 
Even the most intensive and disruptive of these activities (ground or 
aerial capture for the purpose of radio-collaring) involves a very low 
rate of mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We 
expect that capture-related mortality during wolf monitoring, nonlethal 
control, and research activities will remain low, and will have an 
insignificant impact on population dynamics.
    The best available information does not indicate any wolves have 
been removed from the wild solely for 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. 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 permits for protected 
species, and would not

[[Page 69796]]

substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.
    Some federally listed wolves have been legally removed by private 
citizens in the lower 48 United States through defense of life or 
property statutes. It is a rare occurrence for non-habituated wild 
wolves in North America to pose a threat to humans (McNay 2002, pp. 
836-837); nonetheless, on rare occasions, humans have killed wolves due 
to a real or perceived threat to their safety or the safety of others, 
which is permissible even under the Act's protections. For example, 
since wolves began recolonizing the West Coast States in 2008, a single 
wolf has been killed by a private individual who claimed self-defense 
in the federally listed portion of Washington. Under the rules that 
governed Federal wolf management for nonessential experimental 
populations under section 10(j) of the Act in portions of the NRM DPS 
(59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 
2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), private individuals were lawfully 
allowed to kill a wolf in defense of property provided the incident was 
immediately reported to the Service and an investigation confirmed 
evidence of an attack. To our knowledge, most States within occupied 
wolf range already have rules and regulations related to the taking of 
wildlife when life or property are threatened and the taking of wolves 
under these circumstances will be regulated under the same rules post-
delisting. Although the number of wolves lawfully killed in defense of 
human life and property by private individuals may be slightly higher 
in areas with greater human or livestock density and may increase after 
delisting as authority for this action expands, overall this type of 
mortality is rare and is not expected to have a significant impact on 
gray wolf populations in the lower 48 United States. For information 
related to defense of life or property mortalities, refer to the Post-
delisting Management section of this rule for the Great Lakes area and 
the Human-caused Mortality in the NRM DPS section for the NRM DPS.
    The use of lethal depredation control to mitigate wolf-human 
conflicts or to minimize risk associated with repeated livestock 
depredations will likely increase in the lower 48 United States after 
delisting. Although most wolf conflicts are rare or one-time incidents 
that do not require management action or may be resolved using 
preventative or nonlethal methods, in some instances lethal control by 
wildlife management agencies or private individuals is used to resolve 
imminent threats to human life or property or to minimize the risk of 
recurrent conflicts. The number of wolves killed for this purpose in 
the lower 48 United States is small when compared to the greater 
population (see information in subsequent paragraph). With respect to 
the area of the lower 48 United States currently listed as endangered 
(see figure 1), lethal control of depredating wolves is not currently 
authorized; however, after delisting, State and Tribal wildlife 
agencies may choose to use lethal control as a mitigation response.
Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities
    Lethal control of depredating wolves was authorized in Minnesota 
while wolves were listed under the authority of 50 CFR 17.40(d) 
pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. However, such control was not 
authorized in Michigan or Wisconsin, except (1) as authorized under 
section 4(d) when the population was reclassified to threatened (from 
April 13, 2003, to January 31, 2005), (2) by special permits (from 
April 1, 2005, to September 13, 2005, and from April 24, 2006, to 
August 10, 2006), and (3) when delisted (from March 12, 2007, to 
September 29, 2008, May 4, 2009, to July 1, 2009, and January 27, 2012, 
to December 19, 2014). The depredation control program in Minnesota 
killed between 6 and 216 wolves annually from 1979 to 2006. The 5-year 
annual average of statewide populations for wolves killed ranged from 
26 (2 percent of the estimated population) to 152 (7 percent of the 
estimated population) during that time period (Ruid et al. 2009, p. 
287). During the periods when wolves were managed under the 4(d) rule 
in the State, the Minnesota wolf population continued to grow or remain 
stable. During the times that lethal control of depredating wolves was 
authorized in Wisconsin and Michigan, there was no evidence of 
resulting adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf 
population in those States. In Wisconsin, during the almost 5 years 
(cumulative over three different time periods) that lethal depredation 
control was allowed in the State, a total of 256 wolves were killed for 
this purpose, including 46 legally shot by private landowners. A total 
of 64 wolves were killed in Michigan (half of these (32) were legally 
killed by private landowners) in response to depredation events during 
the same nearly 5-year period (cumulative over three different time 
periods). Following delisting, we anticipate that wolf depredation 
control would occur in Wisconsin and Michigan consistent with their 
State management plans. We anticipate the level of mortality due to 
depredation control would be similar to what was observed during 
previous periods when wolves were delisted. See the Post-delisting 
Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal control of 
problem wolves (primarily for depredation control).
    Regulated public harvest is another form of human-caused mortality 
that has occurred in the Great Lakes area during periods when wolves 
were delisted, and will likely occur in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan if wolves are delisted again. Using an adaptive-management 
approach that adjusts harvest based on population estimates and trends, 
the initial objectives of States may be to reduce or stabilize wolf 
populations and then manage for sustainable populations, similar to how 
States manage all other hunted species. See the Post-delisting 
Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal harvest.
    Regulation of human-caused mortality has significantly reduced the 
number of wolf mortalities caused by humans and, although illegal and 
accidental killing of wolves is likely to continue with or without the 
protections of the Act, at current levels those mortalities have had 
minimal impact on wolf abundance or distribution. We assume that legal 
human-caused mortality will increase when wolves are delisted as State 
managers continue or have the ability to implement lethal control to 
mitigate repeated conflicts with livestock and decide whether to 
incorporate regulated public harvest to assist in achieving wolf 
management objectives in their respective States. However, the high 
reproductive potential of wolves, and their innate behavior to disperse 
and locate social openings or vacant suitable habitats, allows wolf 
populations to withstand relatively high rates of human-caused 
mortality (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9).
    The States of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin have committed to 
continue to regulate human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce 
the wolf population below recovery levels. We conclude that the States 
have adequate laws and regulations to fulfill those commitments and 
ensure that the wolf population in the Great Lakes area remains above 
recovery levels (See Post-delisting Management). Washington, Oregon, 
California, Colorado, and Utah are also committed to conserving wolves 
as demonstrated by the development of management plans and/or 
codification of laws and regulations that protect wolves. Furthermore, 
each post-delisting management entity (State, Tribal, and Federal) has 
experienced

[[Page 69797]]

and professional wildlife staff to ensure those commitments can be 
accomplished.
Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS
    After gray wolves were afforded Federal protections under the Act 
in 1974, an interagency team began recovery planning for wolves in the 
West. The team identified three recovery areas in the NRM that included 
northwest Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area 
(GYA; USFWS 1987, pp. v, 13). These areas were selected because they 
contained large contiguous blocks of Federal public lands, had abundant 
ungulate populations, and relatively low numbers of livestock that were 
seasonally grazed on Federal allotments. It was further recognized that 
control of depredating wolves would be an important aspect of the 
recovery planning process and the eventual management of gray wolves 
(USFWS 1980, pp. 14-15; USFWS 1987, pp. v-vi, 9, 14-15, 33-35; USFWS 
1994, entire; Bangs et al. 2009, p. 97). In 1994, the Service 
designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential 
experimental population areas for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of 
the Act, which facilitated the 1995 and 1996 reintroduction of gray 
wolves into these areas and offered more flexibility to manage 
conflicts than was otherwise allowed for an endangered species (USFWS 
1994; 59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). Wolves in 
northwest Montana retained their classification as endangered because 
natural recolonization from Canada had already begun in the 1980s 
(USFWS 1994; 59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). In 2005 
and again in 2008, section 10(j) rules governing management of the 
nonessential experimental wolf populations were revised to clarify 
terms and allow limited increases in management flexibility to mitigate 
wolf conflicts (for further information see 70 FR 1286, January 6, 
2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008). The information provided below for 
the delisted NRM wolf population includes wolves that inhabit the three 
wolf recovery areas in the NRM States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 
and does not include wolves that have naturally recolonized portions of 
Oregon and Washington within the NRM unless specifically noted.
    After wolf reintroduction, a rapid increase in the number and 
distribution of wolves occurred due to the availability of high-
quality, suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Between 1995 and 2008, wolf 
populations in the NRM increased an average of 24 percent annually 
(USFWS et al. 2016, table 6b) while from 1999 to 2008, total wolf 
mortality (includes all forms of known wolf mortality) averaged 
approximately 16 percent of the minimum known wolf population each year 
(USFWS et al. 2000-2009, entire). Wolf numbers and distribution 
stabilized after 2008 as suitable habitat became increasingly saturated 
(74 FR 15160, April 2, 2009). Between 2009 and 2015, some or all of the 
NRM States (depending upon the Federal status of wolves at that time; 
see table 1) began to manage wolves with the objective of reversing or 
stabilizing population growth while continuing to maintain wolf 
populations well above Federal recovery targets. The primary method 
used to manage wolf populations and achieve management objectives is 
through regulated public harvest. As a result, during those years when 
legal harvest occurred, total wolf mortality in the NRM increased to an 
average of 29 percent of the minimum known population (USFWS et al. 
2010-2016, entire), while population growth declined to an average of 
approximately 1 percent annually (USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire). 
Where high levels of wolf mortality occur, the species' reproductive 
capacity and dispersal capability can compensate for mortality rates of 
17 to 48 percent (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9), this appears to be the case in 
the NRM. As of 2015, the final year of a combined NRM wolf count due to 
the end of federally required post-delisting monitoring in Idaho and 
Montana, wolf populations in the NRM remained well above minimum 
recovery levels with a minimum known population of 1,704 wolves 
distributed across Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. An additional 177 
wolves were documented in the NRM portions of Oregon and Washington at 
the end of 2015.
    Non-human related wolf mortalities may be biased low because a 
relatively small percentage of wolves in the NRM had known fates. 
Nonetheless, an average of 3 percent of known wolf mortalities were due 
to non-human causes (e.g., natural and unknown causes) through 2008 
(USFWS et al. 2000-2009, entire). Although the variability in the range 
of non-human related wolf mortalities declined, the percent of non-
human related wolf mortalities dropped slightly to an average of 2 
percent of the minimum known population annually between 2009 and 2015 
(USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire). Given the low level of non-human 
related wolf mortalities documented in the NRM, even assuming the 
estimate is biased low, we conclude that the effects of this type of 
mortality on wolf populations are not significant.
    Outside of very remote or large protected areas, human-caused 
mortality accounts for the majority of the documented wolf mortalities 
annually, and wolves in the NRM are no exception. Between 1999 and 
2008, when gray wolves were federally listed (with the exception of 
February to July 2008), documented human-caused wolf mortality averaged 
13 percent of the minimum known NRM wolf population annually (USFWS et 
al. 2000-2009, entire) with lethal control of depredating wolves (which 
includes legal take by private individuals) and illegal take (discussed 
previously) being the primary mortality factors. As expected, human-
caused mortality increased after 2008 as NRM States, dependent on the 
Federal status of wolves, began to manage wolf populations. As a 
result, human-caused mortality increased to an average of 27 percent of 
the minimum known NRM wolf population annually between 2009 and 2015 
(USFWS et al. 2010-2016, entire). Since 2009, regulated public harvest 
and lethal control of depredating wolves have been the two primary 
mortality factors removing an average of 17 percent and 9 percent of 
the minimum known NRM wolf population annually, respectively (USFWS et 
al. 2010-2016, entire). As part of post-delisting monitoring in the 
NRM, the Service conducted annual assessments of the NRM wolf 
population and noted that it remained well above Federal recovery 
levels with no identifiable threats that imperiled its recovered status 
under State management in 2009 (Bangs 2010, entire) and 2011 to 2015 
(Jimenez 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015, 2016, entire).
    In addition to the annual post-delisting assessments, previous 
rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012) 
have adequately described wolf population-level responses to various 
mortality factors in the NRM up through 2008. Regulated harvest and 
lethal control of depredating wolves account for the majority of the 
known wolf mortalities in the NRM since 2009 (see above); therefore, 
the following discussion focuses on these two types of mortality. The 
management of wolf populations through regulated harvest had never been 
attempted in the lower 48 United States until 2009 when the NRM States 
of Idaho and Montana conducted the first regulated wolf hunts. To 
highlight the adaptive style of management that Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming use to maintain a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS, 
even though State

[[Page 69798]]

objectives include reducing wolf population growth rates, we have 
included a significant amount of detail regarding the regulatory 
framework the States have used to regulate wolf harvest. This 
information also demonstrates wolf population-level responses and that 
harvest levels generally do not increase under gradually less 
restrictive regulations in some States. Lethal take of depredating 
wolves by private individuals accounts for a relatively small 
percentage of total wolves removed in the NRM annually for conflict-
related issues. Thus, in addition to agency control of depredating 
wolves, the total number of wolves lethally removed for depredating 
livestock includes wolves killed legally by private individuals in 
depredation situations unless specifically noted. Although most of the 
wolves in Oregon and Washington inhabit the NRM DPS portion of each 
State and account for the majority of the wolf mortalities in any given 
year, mortality rates presented below for these States are based on 
statewide totals unless specified otherwise. For further information 
related to the regulatory framework within each State in the NRM, see 
the Management in the NRM DPS and the Post-Delisting Management in the 
West Coast States sections of this rule as well as previous rules (74 
FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).
    Regulated Harvest in Idaho--The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 
(IDFG) has expressed its commitment to maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining wolf population above minimum Federal recovery levels, while 
minimizing conflicts (Idaho Legislative Wolf Oversight Committee 
[ILWOC] 2002, p. 4). Additional goals of wolf management in Idaho are 
to ensure connectivity with wolf populations in neighboring States and 
Provinces and to manage wolves as part of the native resident wildlife 
resource, similar to management of other large carnivores in the State 
(ILWOC 2002, p. 18). The State has indicated that it will only allow 
wolf harvest as long as wolves remain federally delisted and as long as 
15 or more packs are documented in the State. Wolves were removed from 
Federal protections in Idaho in 2009 (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), and 
IDFG determined that the first regulated, public hunt of wolves could 
begin later that fall.
    IDFG provided recommendations for the 2009-2010 wolf hunting season 
to the IDFG Commission, which approved the recommendations. The total 
statewide harvest limit was 220 wolves distributed across 12 wolf 
management zones (WMZ). Hunting was the only legal form of take, and 
the bag limit was one wolf per hunter. Successful hunters were required 
to report the harvest of a wolf within 24 hours of take and present the 
skull and hide to an IDFG regional office or conservation officer for 
inspection and to have the hide tagged with an official State export 
tag within 5 days of harvest. Seasons began in two WMZs on September 1, 
another two WMZs opened on September 15, and the remaining eight WMZs 
opened October 1, 2009; all WMZs remained open until March 31, 2010, or 
until harvest limits were reached in that specific WMZ. By the end of 
2009, 5 of the 12 WMZs were closed after harvest limits were met. An 
additional two WMZs met harvest limits prior to the season closing on 
March 31, 2010. A total of 181 wolves were harvested during the 2009-
2010 season, and a minimum count of 870 wolves were documented at the 
end of calendar year 2009 (see table 3).
    Prior to the start of the 2010-2011 wolf hunting season, a court 
order placed wolves back under Federal protections (75 FR 65574, 
October, 26, 2010), so no wolf hunting occurred during that hunting 
season.
    Wolves were again delisted in Idaho in May 2011 (76 FR 25590, May 
5, 2011). Similar to the 2009-2010 hunting season, a primary objective 
with harvest was to reverse wolf population growth at the State level 
while limiting harvest in some WMZs to conserve wolves and maintain 
adequate connectivity to wolf populations in Montana and Wyoming. As a 
result, some WMZ modifications occurred, as well as significant changes 
to season rules and regulations that were approved by the IDFG 
Commission. Harvest regulations in WMZs that bordered Montana and 
Wyoming were conservative compared to other WMZs in Idaho to limit 
potential harvest effects during peak periods of wolf dispersal. 
Harvest limits were established in five WMZs where IDFG expected high 
hunter success based on results and experience gained during the 2009-
2010 season and where it was important to maintain connectivity between 
wolf populations in adjacent States. In the eight remaining WMZs, where 
IDFG expected lower hunter success based on results and experience 
gained during the previous season or where high levels of wolf-ungulate 
or wolf-livestock conflicts occur, no harvest limits were set. Seasons 
in all WMZs opened on August 30, 2011, and closed when the harvest 
limit was reached in any of the 5 WMZs that had harvest limits or (1) 
on March 31 of the following year for 9 of 13 WMZs; (2) on December 31, 
2011, in the Beaverhead and Island Park WMZs; and (3) on June 30, 2012, 
in the Lolo and Selway WMZs. Hunting bag limits were increased to two 
wolves per calendar year. Trapping was also approved by the IDFG 
Commission as a legal form of take and was permitted in five WMZs. 
Trappers were required to attend a wolf trapper education class prior 
to purchasing wolf trapping tags. Trapping seasons began November 15, 
2011, and were open through March 31, 2012. Certified trappers could 
purchase up to three wolf trapping tags per season, and trappers were 
permitted to use hunting tags on trapped wolves. Regardless of method 
of take, the mandatory reporting period for successful hunters and 
trappers was extended to 72 hours, and they still had to present the 
hide and skull to an IDFG conservation officer or regional office 
within 10 days for inspection and tagging. As part of post-delisting 
monitoring for Idaho, the Service evaluated regulatory changes to 
Idaho's wolf harvest seasons to assess the level of impact to wolves in 
the State and determined that, although harvest would likely increase 
over the first year of regulated take, these changes did not pose a 
significant threat to wolves in Idaho and would ensure wolf numbers 
remained well above minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2011, entire). From 
this point forward in this section of the rule, Idaho wolf harvest 
totals are presented based on the calendar year rather than the 
hunting/trapping season. In calendar year 2011, 200 wolves were legally 
harvested in Idaho (173 by hunting and 27 by trapping), and 768 wolves 
were documented in the State as of December 31, 2011 (see table 3).
    Regulatory changes for the 2012-2013 wolf season were designed to 
increase take, especially in those areas that had lower hunter/trapper 
success and where high levels of wolf-ungulate or wolf-livestock 
conflicts occur. Trapping was permitted in one additional WMZ in the 
2012-2013 season for a total of six WMZs where trapping was permitted. 
Bag limits were increased in 6 of 13 WMZs from 2 to 5 hunting tags per 
hunter per calendar year and from 3 to 5 trapping tags per trapper per 
season. The remaining WMZs continue to permit two hunting tags per 
individual (trapping is not permitted in these WMZs). Season structure 
was similar to the previous season except that the season was extended 
in the Beaverhead and Island Park WMZs to January 31 (from December 31) 
and the start of the hunting season on private land in the Panhandle 
WMZ was changed to begin

[[Page 69799]]

on July 1 rather than August 31. Although the Service expected harvest 
to increase over previous years, we determined it was unlikely that 
these regulatory changes would result in Idaho's wolf population 
nearing minimum recovery levels (Cooley 2012, entire). During calendar 
year 2012, 329 wolves were legally harvested in Idaho, and 722 wolves 
were documented in the State at the end of 2012 (see table 3).
    Relatively minor changes were approved for the 2013-2014 wolf 
season and included harvest on private land year-round in one WMZ and 
the extension of the season end date to June 30 in 2 WMZs (a total of 
four WMZs now close on this date). Trapping seasons were permitted in 3 
additional WMZs, resulting in 9 out of 13 WMZs that allowed trapping. 
The Service determined no official review was necessary for these 
regulatory changes because they would not likely result in a 
significant increase in harvest (Cooley 2013, entire). A total of 356 
wolves were harvested during the 2013 calendar year, a modest increase 
over 2012 totals, with 659 wolves documented in the State at the end of 
2013 (see table 3).
    Idaho regulations were changed for the 2014-2015 wolf season to 
increase harvest. The Service determined that the changes would not 
threaten Idaho's wolf population (Cooley 2014, entire). Bag limits were 
increased statewide to five tags per hunter per calendar year or five 
tags per trapper per season; trappers were permitted to use hunting 
tags for trapped wolves. Five WMZs had year-round hunting seasons on 
private property only, and hunting seasons closed on June 30 for three 
WMZs and portions of two other WMZs. Trapping was permitted in 12 of 13 
WMZs (with specific regulations for most WMZs), and trap start dates 
were moved up to October 10 (from November 15) for 3 WMZs. Harvest 
limits remained for 5 of 13 WMZs. A total of 256 wolves were legally 
harvested in Idaho during the 2014 calendar year, with 770 wolves 
documented in the State at the end of 2014 (see table 3).
    Beginning with the 2015-2106 season, regulations were set for 2-
year periods, although the IDFG Commission could make emergency 
regulatory changes anytime during that period if necessary. Very few, 
minor changes occurred during this biennium compared to the previous 
season. As a result, harvest was very similar to 2014 with 256 wolves 
harvested during calendar year 2015 and 267 wolves harvested during 
2016. A minimum count of 786 wolves was documented in Idaho at the end 
of 2015 (see table 3). IDFG transitioned away from providing minimum 
counts beginning in 2016 and experimented with other metrics to 
evaluate population trends (see Wolf Population and Human-Caused 
Mortality In Idaho Summary section). One of these techniques estimated 
that a minimum of 81 packs was extant in Idaho during 2016 (IDFG 2017, 
p. 6).
    The 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 wolf seasons saw additional changes, 
some of which were designed to reduce the population by increasing the 
number of wolves that could be harvested in Idaho. Some changes that 
occurred were: Extending the mandatory reporting period for successful 
hunters and trappers from 3 days to 10 days; removal of wolf harvest 
limits statewide; and no longer using WMZs to set regulations for 
specific regions of the State (instead, hunt units are grouped based on 
season start and end dates as well as any special regulations that 
pertain to specific units). Idaho contains a total of 99 hunt units, 
and 25 of these had year-round hunting seasons on private land only; 
most other hunting seasons began on August 1 or 30 and ended on March 
31, April 30, or June 30. Trapping seasons began either October 10 or 
November 15 and closed on March 15 or 31. Trapping was not permitted in 
38 of the 99 hunt units in Idaho. Harvest increased slightly over 
previous years, with 281 wolves harvested in 2017 and 329 wolves during 
calendar year 2018. No minimum counts or wolf abundance estimates were 
collected during 2017 and 2018.
    The 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 wolf seasons saw minor adjustments to 
hunting and trapping regulations. Hunting and trapping seasons were 
similar to the previous 2 seasons; however, trapping was permitted in 
all hunt units except 2 (down from 38 hunt units previously). Bag 
limits also changed from the previous two seasons and again within the 
2019-2020 hunting season. Current bag limits are a harvest limit of 15 
wolves per hunter per calendar year and 15 wolves per trapper per 
trapping season; trappers continue to be permitted to use hunting tags 
for trapped wolves. Wolf harvest totals for calendar year 2019 were not 
available as of this writing; however, using an array of remote cameras 
and a modeling framework, IDFG estimated that approximately 1,000 
wolves existed in the State at the end of 2019 (IDFG, pers. comm., 
2020, USFWS 2020, p. 16), which is well above the recovery target of 10 
breeding pairs and 100 wolves.
    On average, harvest has removed approximately 21 percent of Idaho's 
known wolf population annually between 2009 and 2015. Although annual 
variations in minimum counts were documented, and Ausband et al. (2015, 
pp. 418-420) noted a decline in pup survival that may have affected 
recruitment after wolf hunts began in Idaho, the implementation of 
regulated harvest has stabilized wolf population growth in the State, 
at least between the years of 2009 to 2015 (mean population growth 
rate: 0 percent; range: -11 percent to 17 percent). While minimum 
counts were not conducted by IDFG after 2015, metrics that estimated 
the number of packs in the State in 2016 (IDFG 2017, p. 6), 
similarities in total harvest in 2016 and 2017, along with a slight 
increase in 2018, combined with regulations providing for increased 
hunter/trapper opportunities, indicates that the wolf population in 
Idaho has not deviated significantly from the 786 wolves that were 
documented in the State at the end of 2015 (see table 3). Although not 
directly comparable to a minimum count, IDFG estimated that 
approximately 1,000 wolves existed in Idaho at the end of 2019 (IDFG, 
pers. comm., 2020).
    In an analysis of Idaho wolf harvest statistics through 2014, 
hunting removed more male than female wolves, pups were trapped in 
equal proportions to other age classes, hunting removed a greater 
proportion of wolves than trapping, and there was little change in 
hunter/trapper effort over time (Ausband 2016, entire). Another 
analysis noted that most wolves in Idaho were harvested in October, 
incidental to deer and elk hunting seasons, and that more harvest 
opportunities through increased bag limits and extended season lengths 
did not necessarily result in increased harvest between 2012 and 2016 
because most hunters harvested a single wolf (IDFG 2017, entire).
    The levels of harvest mortality experienced by Idaho's wolf 
population through 2016 appears to be additive to other forms of 
mortality, which indicates that it can be an effective tool to 
manipulate wolf abundance in the state (Horne et al. 2019a, p. 40). 
However, after initial high rates of harvest post-delisting, wolf 
harvest rates moderated between 2012 and 2016, resulting in average 
pack sizes similar to those observed pre-delisting (Horne et al. 2019a, 
pp. 38-41). Similarly, both recruitment and dispersal rates did not 
change appreciably from pre-harvest levels (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 38-
41). Harvest regulations were changed in Idaho during the years of this 
study and beyond in an attempt to increase harvest. However, increased 
hunter opportunity has not resulted in significant and continuous 
increases in wolf harvest. In fact, following an initial

[[Page 69800]]

period of high harvest rates that had some effect on wolf demographics 
(see above for discussion), wolf harvest has subsequently had minimal 
overall effect on the dynamics of wolf populations in Idaho through 
2016 (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 37-41).
    Depredation Control in Idaho--Wolf-livestock depredation management 
in Idaho is guided by Idaho Statute (I.S.) 36-1107 and the provisions 
in the Idaho Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ILWOC 2002). I.S. 
36-1107 authorizes the IDFG Director or his designated authorities to 
control, trap, and/or remove animals doing damage to or destroying any 
property. Section (c) of the statute applies specifically to wolves and 
encourages the use of nonlethal methods to prevent or minimize conflict 
risk. It also permits owners of livestock or domestic animals, their 
employees, agents, or agency personnel to lethally remove wolves 
molesting or attacking livestock without the need for a permit from 
IDFG. A permit is needed from IDFG to lethally remove wolves not 
attacking or molesting livestock or domestic animals or pursuant to 
IDFG wolf harvest rules. Any wolf taken under this authority must be 
reported to IDFG within 10 days and becomes the property of the state.
    Under the IDFG Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predator Management 
(IDFG 2000), where there is evidence that predation is a significant 
factor inhibiting prey populations from achieving management 
objectives, management actions to mitigate the effects of predators may 
be developed in a predation management plan. Initial management options 
may include habitat improvements, changes to regulations governing take 
of the affected species, or regulatory changes that increase hunter/
trapper opportunity for predators. If these methods are implemented and 
do not achieve the desired management objective, predator management 
may be used to reduce predator populations where predator effects are 
most significant. To date, predator management plans have been 
developed for five elk management zones in Idaho with wolves being one 
of, if not the primary, targeted predator (IDFG 2011, IDFG 2014a, IDFG 
2014b, IDFG 2014c).
    Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal status of wolves in Idaho 
changed on several occasions. While wolves in Idaho were under Federal 
management authority, they were managed under a nonessential 
experimental population regulation in the central Idaho (south of I-90) 
and the GYA recovery areas (73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008). In addition 
to agency-directed lethal control, this designation allowed for 
opportunistic harassment of wolves by livestock producers and allowed 
lethal take of wolves that were observed attacking livestock or dogs on 
private or lawfully occupied public lands. Wolves that occupied the 
northwest Montana recovery area in the NRM, which includes a portion of 
Idaho north of U.S. Interstate 90, were classified as endangered and 
were afforded full protections under the Act.
    The total number of wolves removed in lethal control actions 
includes take from agency actions to mitigate conflicts, take by 
private citizens under a permit or when wolves were killed in the act 
of attacking or molesting livestock, and wolves removed under the IDFG 
Policy for Avian and Mammalian Predator Management (2000) when wolves 
were under State management authority unless otherwise specified. 
Minimum wolf counts are available for Idaho only through 2015, while 
records of wolves lethally removed in conflicts are available through 
2016 (see table 3). Although the total number of wolves removed in 
conflict situations was higher in Idaho under State authority (2009 and 
2011-2015; n = 465) when compared to a similar time period under 
Federal management (2004-2008 and 2010; n = 325), the annual average 
percent of wolves lethally removed did not change and remained at 7 
percent of the minimum known population. Between 2011 and 2016, 107 
wolves were removed under predation management plans to benefit 
ungulate populations. Wolf-caused sheep depredations dominate Idaho 
wolf-livestock conflicts, and although there has been annual 
variability, a general downward trend in the number of wolf-sheep 
conflicts has occurred since 2009 (IDFG 2016, pp. 12-14). Cattle 
depredations have also generally declined since 2009.
    Wolf Population and Human-caused Mortality in Idaho Summary--
Between 1999 and 2008, the rate of human-caused mortality in Idaho was 
9 percent, which allowed the wolf population to increase at a rate of 
approximately 22 percent annually. Since 2009, when wolves were 
federally delisted and primarily under State management authority (the 
exception being August 2010 to May 2011), human-caused mortality 
increased to 29 percent annually, which was one of a multitude of 
factors that likely contributed to the stabilization of the wolf 
population in Idaho between 2009 and 2015. Although some variation in 
annual wolf abundance was documented, minimum counts of wolves in Idaho 
ranged from 659 to 786 wolves between 2010 and 2015 (see table 3).
    Beginning in 2016, after Idaho's post-delisting monitoring period 
ended, IDFG transitioned away from providing minimum counts of known 
wolves and towards the use of multiple other methods to track 
population trends. These include genetic sampling of wolves for genetic 
analysis at den and rendezvous sites (Stansbury et el. 2014, entire), 
mandatory checks of all harvested wolves, incidental observations by 
the public and agency personnel, monitoring the location and number of 
lethal control actions authorized by IDFG, and limited wolf tracking 
via radio transmitters (IDFG 2017, pp. 5-6). More recently, a novel 
application of genetic data used biological samples collected from 
harvested wolves to estimate a minimum number of reproductive packs 
that existed in the State in a given year (Clendenin et al. 2020, 
entire). A minimum of 52 and 63 reproductive packs were subjected to 
harvest in Idaho in 2014 and 2015, respectively, which was similar to 
what was documented by IDFG during those years (Clendenin et al. 2020, 
pp. 6-10). Additional analyses conducted by IDFG using remote cameras 
deployed across the State during summer indicated that 81 packs existed 
in the State in 2016 (IDFG 2017, p. 6). Comparing these results to 
those of Clendenin et al. (2020, entire) indicates that not all Idaho 
packs are subjected to harvest in all years.
    More recently, using an array of remote cameras and a modeling 
framework, IDFG estimated that approximately 1,000 wolves existed in 
the State at the end of 2019 ((IDFG, pers. comm. 2020). Although not 
comparable to previous wolf surveys that used minimum counts, continued 
refinement of the methodology and estimation of the abundance of wolves 
in the State using the modeling framework will allow for annual 
evaluations of abundance and trends over time. Based on these more 
recent methods that evaluate population trends (genetic analysis of 
harvested wolves) and provide a population estimate (modeling), the 
wolf population in Idaho appears to be resilient to the increased level 
of human-caused mortality in the State, indicating that Idaho wolves 
remain well above recovery levels of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
and continue to be widely distributed across the state.
    Regulated Harvest in Montana--Regulated public harvest of wolves in 
Montana was first endorsed by the Governor's Wolf Advisory Council in 
2000 and included in Montana's Wolf

[[Page 69801]]

Conservation and Management Plan. Wolf hunting in Montana can be 
implemented only when wolves are federally delisted and under State 
management authority and when greater than 15 breeding pairs were 
documented in the State the previous year. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 
Parks (MFWP) developed wolf harvest strategies that maintain a 
recovered wolf population, maintain connectivity with other 
subpopulations of wolves in Idaho, Wyoming and Canada, minimize wolf-
livestock conflicts, reduce wolf impacts on low or declining ungulate 
populations and ungulate hunting opportunities, and effectively 
communicate to all parties the relevance and credibility of the harvest 
while acknowledging the diversity of opinions and values among 
interested parties. The Montana public has the opportunity for input 
regarding wolf harvest recommendations throughout a public season-
setting process prior to adoption of season regulations by the MFWP 
Commission.
    To prepare for the potential that wolves would be delisted and 
legal public harvest could be implemented, MFWP developed wolf harvest 
recommendations that would achieve desired management objectives. The 
recommendations were approved, with some modifications, by the MFWP 
Commission in early 2008. Three wolf management units (WMU), and one 
subunit, were established each with a harvest limit or quota. Wolf 
hunting seasons opened September 15 and remained open until December 31 
or until harvest limits were reached, whichever occurred first. Hunters 
could harvest one wolf per calendar year. Successful hunters were 
required to report their kill within 12 hours of harvest and present 
the skull and hide for inspection by MFWP within 10 days. MFWP 
Commission had authority to initiate emergency season closures if 
conditions warranted.
    Hunting quotas were developed through an evaluation of population 
parameters including wolf population status and trends, pack 
distribution, pup production, and all mortality factors. Modeling 
exercises assessed risk and harvest effects on Montana's wolf 
population, and all assumptions were made conservatively. Resulting 
harvest limits were considered biologically conservative (Sime et al. 
2010, p. 18) and included a statewide total of 75 wolves distributed 
across the three WMUs.
    Due to litigation resulting from Federal delisting efforts in 2008 
(see 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008), no public harvest occurred in 
2008. Wolves were again removed from Federal protections in Montana in 
2009 (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), and MFWP conducted the first 
regulated, public hunt of wolves that fall using the same regulations 
that were developed for the 2008 season described above. A total of 72 
wolves were harvested, and seasons closed statewide on November 16. 
Post-hunt evaluations indicated no biological threats to the wolf 
population in Montana resulted from the harvest, and, as expected, most 
hunters harvested wolves opportunistically while deer and/or elk 
hunting (MFWP 2010, entire). Year-end counts by MFWP documented a 
minimum of 524 wolves in the State, while patch occupancy modeling 
estimated that 847 wolves existed across Montana at the end of 2009 
(see table 3; also see USFWS 2020, p. 16 and the final paragraph of 
this section for an explanation of why minimum wolf counts and modeled 
estimates differed).
    Prior to the 2010 season, wildlife managers in Montana refined the 
WMU structure in the State to better distribute harvest resulting in 
the creation of 14 WMUs, primarily distributed across the western half 
of Montana where wolves exist. With input provided from regional 
personnel, a general consensus resulted in a desired objective to 
reduce wolf numbers within biological limits without jeopardizing 
Federal recovery targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves. 
Using similar modeling exercises as previous years and an objective of 
reversing wolf population growth, a total quota of 186 wolves 
distributed across the 14 WMUs was approved by the MFWP Commission. 
Prior to the start of the 2010 wolf hunting season, a court order 
placed wolves back under Federal protections (75 FR 65574, October 26, 
2010), so no wolf hunting season took place.
    Wolves were again delisted in Montana in May 2011 (76 FR 25590, May 
5, 2011). Similar to previous years, a primary objective with harvest 
was to reverse wolf population growth. As a result, archery-only and 
early back-country rifle seasons were proposed, and a quota increase to 
220 wolves distributed across all WMUs was recommended by MFWP and 
approved by the MFWP Commission. Wolf harvest was not progressing as 
expected during the early parts of the hunting seasons (121 wolves 
harvested and 2 of 14 WMU quotas met by December 31, 2011), so MFWP 
proposed a season extension through January 31, 2012, or until WMU 
quotas were met. After a public comment period, the MFWP Commission 
approved and adopted a season extension through February 15, 2012. A 
total of 166 wolves were harvested during the 2011-2012 season, 
equaling 75% of the total quota, with 3 of 14 WMUs closing due to 
quotas being met (MFWP 2012, entire). Year-end counts by MFWP 
documented a minimum of 653 wolves in the State, while patch occupancy 
modeling estimated that 971 wolves existed across Montana at the end of 
2011 (see table 3).
    The 2012-2013 wolf hunting season saw significant changes to season 
structure and regulations that were designed to increase harvest and 
reduce wolf numbers in the State to a management goal of 425 wolves, 
more than twice the Federal recovery goal. First, some hunt areas were 
reorganized to better direct or limit harvest in certain locations 
increasing the total number of WMUs to 17. Other changes included a 
statewide general season rather than a statewide quota with quotas 
remaining in WMU 110 and 316 only, which border Glacier and Yellowstone 
National Parks, respectively; a hunting season closing date of February 
28; a trapping season that would be open from December 15 through 
February 28; an increase in the overall bag limit to three wolves per 
hunter/trapper per season; consistent with State statute, the use of 
electronic calls to take wolves; and a change in the mandatory 
reporting period from 12 to 24 hours after harvest or upon returning to 
the trailhead for backcountry hunters/trappers. All wolf trappers were 
required to attend a wolf trapping educational course to become 
certified prior to purchasing a wolf trapping license and were required 
to have a minimum pan tension of 8 pounds in MFWP Regions 1 and 2 to 
minimize nontarget captures. In February 2013, the Governor signed 
House Bill 73, which included language that authorized the use of 
electronic calls and the sale of multiple wolf hunting licenses. As a 
result, these MFWP Commission provisions that were approved earlier 
became effective immediately upon the Governor's signing. As part of 
post-delisting monitoring for Montana, the Service evaluated these 
regulatory changes to Montana's wolf hunting and trapping seasons to 
assess the level of impact to wolves in the State and determined that, 
although harvest would likely increase over previous years, these 
changes did not pose a significant threat to wolves in Montana and 
would ensure wolf numbers remained well above minimum recovery levels 
(Sartorius 2012, entire; Jimenez 2013b, entire). A total of 225 wolves 
were harvested during the 2012-2013 wolf season, with the majority of 
hunters and trappers harvesting a single

[[Page 69802]]

wolf (MFWP 2013, entire). Year-end counts by MFWP documented a minimum 
of 625 wolves in the State, while patch occupancy modeling estimated 
that 915 wolves existed across Montana at the end of 2012 (see table 
3).
    The 2013-2014 wolf hunting and trapping season saw some minor 
changes to seasons that included the general (hunting) season being 
extended to March 15, an increased bag limit of five wolves in any 
combination of general or trapping per hunter/trapper per season, and 
the creation of WMU 313 (with a separate quota) north of Yellowstone 
National Park. Trappers were also required to have a minimum pan 
tension of 10 pounds in MFWP Regions 1-5 to reduce incidental capture 
of nontarget species. A total of 230 wolves were harvested during the 
2013-2014 season, with hunters taking 143 wolves and trappers taking 
another 87. Even with the increased bag limits, the majority of 
successful hunters and trappers took one wolf (MFWP 2014, entire). 
Year-end counts by MFWP documented a minimum of 627 wolves in the 
State, while patch occupancy modeling estimated that 1,088 wolves 
existed across Montana at the end of 2013 (see table 3).
    Other than some minor quota changes to those WMUs that border 
Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks, the only significant change 
that has occurred since the 2013-2014 wolf hunting and trapping season 
was the decision by the MFWP Commission prior to the 2017-2018 seasons 
to visit wolf season structure every other year rather than every year 
to allow for discussion of ungulate and wolf seasons at the same 
Commission meeting. Wolf harvest in Montana remained similar to the 
previous two seasons when 206 and 210 wolves were harvested during the 
2014-2015 and 2015-2016 seasons, respectively (MFWP 2015, entire; MFWP 
2016, entire). A slight upward trend has been observed since with 247 
wolves being harvested in the 2016-2017 season, 255 in 2017-2018, and 
295 in 2018-2019 (MFWP 2017, entire; MFWP 2018, pp. 13-14; Inman et al. 
2019, pp. 9-10). Meanwhile, the minimum known number of wolves in 
Montana has ranged between 477 and 633 animals since 2014, while patch 
occupancy modeling estimates have ranged between 814 and 981 wolves 
during the same time period (see table 3 for further information). The 
overall general trend in method of take was similar to previous years 
with hunters taking approximately two-thirds and trappers taking one-
third of all harvested wolves in Montana.
    The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) of the Flathead 
Reservation regulate wolf harvest on their Tribal lands. The CSKT 
defined three wolf hunting and trapping zones on their reservation 
where, according to the 2018-2019 regulations, seasons begin on 
September 1 and end on either March 31 or April 30 of the following 
year, or until harvest limits are reached in each zone, whichever 
occurs first. Bag and harvest limits are 1 wolf per hunter/trapper, 
with a maximum harvest of 5 wolves total in the Mission Mountain Zone 
and 2 wolves per hunter/trapper with a maximum harvest of 10 wolves in 
the Northwest and South Zones. Trappers are required to complete a Wolf 
Trapper Training Class prior to obtaining a Tribal trapping permit. 
Successful hunters/trappers must present the hide and skull for 
inspection and sample collection within 7 days of take. Wolves 
harvested on the Flathead Reservation are included in Montana totals 
described above and in table 3.
    The Blackfeet Nation provides gray wolf hunting opportunities for 
its Tribal members and descendants. The Blackfeet Nation is divided 
into 4 hunting zones and wolf hunting is allowed in Zones 2 and 3 only; 
no wolf hunting is permitted in Zones 1 or 4, and wolf trapping is not 
authorized in any hunting zone. Hunters may purchase up to three gray 
wolf hunting licenses each season. Seasons start on the third Saturday 
in October and close on March 31 of the following year. Successful 
hunters must report harvest and have animals inspected by a game warden 
within 24 hours of take. All harvest totals from the Blackfeet Nation 
are included in the Montana totals described above and in table 3.
    Regulated public harvest of wolves in Montana has removed an 
average of 22 percent (range: 10-31 percent) of Montana's minimum known 
wolf population during those years that harvest occurred and minimum 
counts were documented (2009, 2011-2017 in table 3). The minimum known 
number of wolves in Montana also gradually declined as regulations 
became less restrictive with the objective of reversing wolf population 
growth in Montana. Although harvest may have been a contributing 
factor, it is also possible that reduced wolf monitoring in the State 
resulted in lower minimum counts. When wolf harvest was evaluated using 
patch occupancy modeling estimates, which were not influenced by 
changes to MFWP survey effort over time, harvest accounted for the 
removal of between 7 and 22 percent of the population annually. Despite 
less restrictive harvest regulations, total wolf harvest has remained 
relatively consistent since 2013 (range: 205-259 wolves), and the patch 
occupancy modeled estimated wolf population appears to have stabilized 
around 800 to 900 wolves since 2014.
    Depredation Control in Montana--The 2001 Montana Legislature passed 
Senate Bill 163 (SB163), which amended several statutes in Montana 
Title 87 pertaining to fish and wildlife species and oversight and 
Title 81 related to the Montana Department of Livestock (MDOL) and 
their responsibilities related to predator control (MFWP 2002, pp. 6-
9). SB163 called for the removal of wolves from the Montana list of 
endangered species concurrent with Federal delisting. After removal as 
State endangered, wolves were classified as a species in need of 
management, which allowed MFWP and the MFWP Commission to establish 
regulations to guide management of the species. SB163 amended Montana 
Statute 87-3-130, which relieved a person from liability for the taking 
of a wolf if it was attacking, killing, or threatening to kill a 
person, livestock, or a domestic dog. SB163 also removed wolves from 
the list of species classified as ``predatory in nature,'' which are 
systematically controlled by MDOL. As a result, MDOL would work 
cooperatively with MFWP to control wolves in a manner consistent with a 
wolf management plan approved by both agencies.
    The primary goal of wolf management in Montana is to maintain a 
viable wolf population and address wolf-livestock conflicts (MFWP 2002, 
p. 50). MFWP encourages the use of preventative and nonlethal methods 
and actively participates and cooperates in many preventive conflict 
reduction programs (Inman et al. 2019, p. 14; Wilson et al. 2017, p. 
247). Current rules and regulations to address wolf-livestock conflicts 
provide more opportunity for livestock producers and/or private 
landowners to address wolf-related conflicts. Nonlethal harassment is 
allowed at all times; however, if nonlethal methods do not discourage 
wolves from harassing livestock, landowners may request a special kill 
permit from MFWP that is valid on lawfully occupied public and private 
lands. SB163 also provides authorization for livestock producers to 
kill a wolf without a permit if it is threatening, attacking, or 
killing livestock on either public or private lands. If private 
citizens kill a wolf with or without a permit, they are required to 
report the incident to MFWP as soon as possible, or within 72 hours, 
and

[[Page 69803]]

surrender the carcass to MFWP authorities. If a livestock depredation 
is documented, nonlethal or lethal control may be implemented, as 
appropriate, by providing recommendations to the livestock producer or 
through agency actions.
    Between 2008 and 2011, the Federal status of wolves in Montana 
changed on several occasions. While wolves were under Federal 
management authority, wolves throughout most of Montana were managed 
under a revised section 10(j) rule for the central Idaho and GYA 
nonessential experimental wolf population in the NRM (73 FR 4720, 
January 28, 2008). In addition to agency-directed lethal control, this 
allowed for opportunistic harassment of wolves by livestock producers 
and allowed take of wolves that were observed attacking livestock or 
dogs on private or lawfully occupied public lands. Wolves that occupied 
the northwest Montana recovery area in the NRM were classified as 
endangered and were afforded full protections under the Act.
    The Blackfeet Nation and CSKT wolf management plans each provide 
similar management responses based on potential wolf conflict scenarios 
that may occur on their respective reservations (see table 1 in 
Blackfeet Tribal Business Council [BTBC] 2008, p. 7; see table 1 in 
CSKT 2015, p. 11). In most instances, initial management responses will 
emphasize preventative and nonlethal methods to resolve conflicts (BTBC 
2008, pp. 6-7; CSKT 2015, pp. 10-11). If these methods are unsuccessful 
at resolving the conflict, more aggressive techniques, including 
agency-directed lethal control, may be implemented until the conflict 
is resolved. Wolves removed through lethal control actions to resolve 
livestock conflicts on these reservations have been included in the 
Montana totals referenced below.
    In Montana, most livestock depredations occur on private land 
(Inman et al. 2019, p. 11; DeCesare et al. 2018, pp. 5-11), and, 
although a slight increase has occurred in recent years, a general 
overall downward trend in the number of verified wolf depredations has 
occurred since 2009 (Inman et al. 2019, p. 1). This general downward 
trend in the number of depredations has tracked closely with the time 
period wolves have been under State management authority in Montana. A 
concurrent decline in the percentage of Montana wolves lethally removed 
in depredation control actions (includes agency and private citizen 
removals) has also occurred in Montana. Between the years of 2002 to 
2008 plus 2010, corresponding to the years wolves were primarily under 
Federal authority, 512 wolves were removed to address conflicts with 
livestock. As a percentage of the minimum known population during that 
time period, an average of 15 percent of Montana's wolf population was 
removed to address wolf-livestock conflicts annually. When wolves were 
primarily under State management authority, 597 wolves were removed 
between 2009 and 2017 (excluding 2010; MFWP switched to reporting wolf 
population estimates based on patch occupancy modeling estimators only 
beginning in 2018 so no minimum count was available for 2018). Although 
a greater number of wolves were lethally removed under State authority, 
the average percentage of wolves removed annually declined to 9 percent 
of the minimum known wolf population during this time period. Since 
2013, the percent of Montana's wolf population removed for depredation 
control has not exceeded 8 percent, and was as low as 5 percent of the 
minimum known population in 2015. Using population estimates based on 
patch occupancy modeling, the percentage of the wolf population removed 
annually to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts has not exceeded 5 percent 
since 2013 and has been as low as 3 percent in 2015.
    Wolf Population and Human-caused Mortality in Montana Summary--
Since 2009, despite increases in both human-caused and total mortality, 
the wolf population in Montana has continued to increase on average 2 
percent annually based on both minimum counts and patch occupancy 
modeling (POM) estimates. Between 2009 and 2017, the rate of human-
caused mortality in Montana was 32 percent and ranged between 23 and 41 
percent of the minimum known population. When other causes of mortality 
were included, total mortality generally equaled 1 to 2 percentage 
points higher than human-caused mortality. Wolf abundance estimates 
using POM was higher than minimum counts of known individuals, and as a 
result, estimated mortality rates were lower for the POM estimated wolf 
population in Montana (table 3). Based on POM estimates, the rate of 
human-caused mortality ranged between 17 and 29 percent and averaged 23 
percent since 2009. When other forms of mortality were included, total 
mortality in Montana averaged 24 percent since 2009 based on POM 
population estimates. The wolf population in Montana appears to be 
resilient to these levels of human-caused and total mortality and, 
based on POM, has stabilized between 800-900 animals in 4 of the past 5 
years (the outlier being an estimate of 981 wolves in 2015).
    Regulated Harvest in Wyoming--Wyoming Statute 23-1-304 provides 
authority for the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to promulgate 
rules and regulations related to the management of wolves in Wyoming 
where they are classified as trophy game animals. Per WGFC Chapter 21 
regulations that govern the management of wolves in Wyoming, wolves are 
classified as trophy game animals in the northwest part of the State, 
where the majority of the wolves reside, and predators in the remainder 
of Wyoming. Wolf harvest is regulated by WGFC Chapter 47 regulations in 
the wolf trophy game management area (WTGMA), whereas wolves may be 
taken by any legal means year-round and without limit in the predator 
area as provided by Wyoming Statute 23-2-303(d), 23-3-103(a), 23-3-112, 
23-3-304(b), 23-3-305, and 23-3-307. Wolf hunting regulations within 
the WTGMA are evaluated and revised annually based on current 
population objectives and past years' demographic and mortality 
information. An internal review and an extensive public input process 
occur prior to finalization of WGFC Chapter 47 regulations.
    Wolves were federally delisted in the NRM on March 28, 2008 (73 FR 
10514, February 27, 2008). In anticipation of the first regulated wolf 
hunt in Wyoming history, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 
drafted Chapter 47 regulations to guide the 2008 wolf hunting season. A 
total mortality limit of 25 wolves was distributed across 4 wolf hunt 
areas in the WTGMA, and seasons began October 1 and ended November 15 
in 1 hunt area and November 30 in the remaining 3 hunt areas, or when 
the mortality limit was reached in that specific hunt area, whichever 
occurred first. Firearms and archery were the only legal forms of take, 
and the bag limit was one wolf per hunter per calendar year. Successful 
hunters were required to report their take within 24 hours of harvest 
and were also required to present the hide and skull to a WGFD employee 
within 5 days of harvest for inspection and sample collection. On July 
18, 2008, the U.S. Federal Court in Missoula, Montana, issued a 
preliminary injunction that immediately reinstated the protections of 
the Act for gray wolves in the NRM, pending the issuance of a court 
opinion. On October 14, 2008, the court vacated the final delisting 
rule and remanded it back to the Service. As a result, no regulated 
wolf hunting occurred in Wyoming during the 2008 season. However, when

[[Page 69804]]

wolves were federally delisted between March 28 and July 18, 11 wolves 
were taken in the predator area (Jimenez et al. 2009, p. 31).
    Wolves remained under Federal protections and were managed by the 
Service in Wyoming until 2012 when they were removed from the List (77 
FR 55530, September 10, 2012). In anticipation of potential delisting 
in 2012, Chapter 47 regulations for wolf hunting seasons were approved 
by the WGFC in April 2012. To better direct harvest to areas with a 
greater potential for wolf-livestock or wolf-ungulate conflict while 
concurrently providing for lower harvest in core areas where potential 
conflict was low, WGFD designated 11 wolf hunt areas within the WTGMA 
along with a 12th hunt area as a seasonal WTGMA where wolves are 
classified as a trophy game animal from October 15 through the last day 
of February, but are classified as predators outside of this time 
period. Mortality limits were developed for each hunt area with an 
objective to reduce the Wyoming wolf population, outside of national 
parks and the Wind River Indian Reservation (WRR), to approximately 172 
wolves and 15 breeding pairs by the end of the calendar year. A total 
WTGMA mortality limit of 52 wolves was distributed across the 12 wolf 
hunt areas, and both legal and illegal harvest during open seasons 
counted towards mortality quotas. Wolf hunting seasons opened in most 
hunt areas on October 1 (October 15 in the seasonal WTGMA) and ended on 
December 31 or when the mortality quota was reached, whichever came 
first, in all hunt areas. Although take was not regulated in the 
predator area, successful hunters were required to report the take of 
any wolf or wolves in this area within 10 days of harvest. Bag limits, 
method of take, and reporting requirements were the same as under the 
2008 wolf hunting regulations. Mortality limits were reached in 6 of 12 
wolf hunt areas prior to season end dates, and a total of 42 wolves (41 
legal, 1 illegal) was harvested in the WTGMA (WGFD et al. 2013, p. 19). 
Twenty-five additional wolves were harvested in the predator area (WGFD 
et al. 2013, p. 21). In the WTGMA, the age distribution of harvested 
wolves was nearly equal between adults, subadults, and pups, and 
approximately equal numbers of males and females were harvested (WGFD 
et al. 2013, p. 19). A minimum of 186 wolves were documented in Wyoming 
outside of YNP and the WRR, with an additional 91 wolves documented in 
YNP and WRR for a total of 277 wolves documented in the entirety of 
Wyoming at the end of 2012 (see table 3).
    Chapter 47 regulations for the 2013 wolf hunting season were 
approved by the WGFC in July 2013. Total mortality limits within the 
WTGMA were designed to reduce the Wyoming wolf population, outside 
national parks and the WRR, to 160 wolves by the end of the calendar 
year (WGFD et al. 2014, p. 19). Total mortality limits were again 
distributed across the 12 wolf hunt areas and, compared to 2012 
mortality limits, were reduced by half to a total of 26 wolves that 
could legally be taken within the WTGMA. One hunt area had a mortality 
limit of zero and, thus, never opened during the 2013 season. All other 
regulations remained unchanged from the 2012 season. A total of 24 
wolves (23 legal, 1 illegal) were harvested during the wolf hunting 
season, with 8 of 11 open wolf hunt areas reaching mortality limits and 
closing before the season end dates (WGFD et al. 2014, p. 21). Again, 
little difference was observed between the gender and sex of harvested 
wolves, but young wolves outnumbered adults in the 2013 harvest. An 
additional 39 wolves were taken in the predator zone, and voluntary 
submission of tissue samples was high (WGFD et al. 2014, p. 24). A 
minimum of 199 wolves were documented in Wyoming outside of YNP and the 
WRR, with an additional 107 wolves documented in YNP and WRR, for a 
total of 306 wolves documented in the entirety of Wyoming at the end of 
2013 (see table 3).
    On September 23, 2014, the United States District Court for the 
District of Columbia vacated the 2012 final rule (77 FR 55530, 
September 10, 2012), which delisted wolves in Wyoming. Thus, wolves in 
Wyoming were immediately placed back under the Federal protections of 
the Act and were again managed by the Service. On April 25, 2017, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the 
vacatur of the 2012 final rule for wolves in Wyoming. In response, the 
Service published a direct final rule (82 FR 20284, May 1, 2017) again 
removing the protections of the Act for wolves in Wyoming and reverting 
management authority back to State, Tribal, and Federal authority 
dependent upon jurisdictional boundaries. As a result of the changes in 
legal status, no wolf hunting occurred in Wyoming between 2014 and 
2016.
    Regulations for the 2017 wolf hunting season were approved by the 
WGFC in July 2017. The primary objective was to reduce the wolf 
population to a total of 160 wolves outside of national parks and the 
WRR by the end of the calendar year. All other regulations being the 
same as previous years, a total wolf mortality limit of 44 wolves was 
distributed across 12 wolf hunt areas in the WTGMA. Mortality limits 
were met in 10 of 12 wolf hunt areas prior to wolf hunting end dates, 
and a total of 44 wolves were harvested (43 legal, 1 illegal; WGFD et 
al. 2018, p. 14). Mortality limits were exceeded in three hunt areas 
because two wolves were harvested on the same day when a quota of one 
wolf remained in those areas. More females than males were harvested, 
but sex and gender of harvested wolves were similar (WGFD et al. 2018, 
p. 14). An additional 33 wolves were harvested in the predator area 
where harvest of males and females was similar, but more adults were 
harvested compared to other age classes (WGFD et al. 2018, p. 16). A 
minimum of 238 wolves were documented in Wyoming outside of YNP and the 
WRR, with an additional 109 wolves documented in YNP and WRR, for a 
total of 347 wolves documented in the entirety of Wyoming at the end of 
2017 (see table 3). As part of post-delisting monitoring, the Service 
evaluated the status of the wolf population in Wyoming and determined 
that wolf numbers remained well above recovery targets of at least 10 
breeding pairs and 100 wolves statewide, and no significant threats 
were identified that would jeopardize the recovered status of wolves in 
Wyoming (Becker 2018a, entire).
    The objective of the 2018 wolf hunting season was to reduce the 
wolf population in Wyoming, outside of national parks and the WRR, to 
160 wolves by the end of the calendar year. A number of moderate 
changes to the 2018 wolf hunting regulations were approved by the WGFC 
in July 2018. To better direct hunter effort, two new hunt areas were 
delineated from existing hunt areas, which created a total of 14 hunt 
areas within the WTGMA. Mortality limits were combined for hunt areas 6 
and 7 as well as hunt areas 8, 9, and 11 because packs that use these 
areas regularly cross back and forth across hunt area boundaries. Total 
wolf harvest limits within the WTGMA were increased to 58 wolves, and 
hunting seasons opened 1 month earlier on September 1 in all hunt 
areas, with the exception of the seasonal WTGMA. Hunters could purchase 
up to two wolf tags per calendar year, thus could harvest up to two 
wolves per calendar year. Reporting requirement changes included: (1) 
Successful hunters have 3 days to present the skull and hide of a

[[Page 69805]]

harvested wolf to a designated WGFD employee or location for 
registration and (2) if a wolf is harvested in a designated wilderness 
area, the pelt and skull will be presented to a designated WGFD 
employee or location within 3 days of returning from the wilderness or 
within 10 days of the harvest date, whichever occurs first.
    The Service evaluated these regulatory changes and determined that 
they were unlikely to significantly increase harvest or jeopardize 
Wyoming's wolf population (Becker 2018b, entire). Four of 14 hunt areas 
met mortality limits prior to season ending dates with 2 hunt areas 
recording no harvest. A total of 43 wolves (39 legal, 4 illegal) were 
harvested during the hunting season with harvest distributed more 
equally across all 4 months when compared to previous seasons (WGFD et 
al. 2019, p. 17). Sex of harvested wolves was nearly equal, but a 
higher number of adults were taken in 2018 compared to younger age 
classes (WGFD et al. 2019, p. 17). Forty-two additional wolves were 
taken in the predator area of Wyoming with adults being the primary age 
class of wolves taken (WGFD et al. 2019, p. 18). A minimum of 196 
wolves were documented in Wyoming outside of YNP and the WRR, with an 
additional 90 wolves documented in YNP and WRR, for a total of 286 
wolves documented in the entirety of Wyoming at the end of 2018 (see 
table 3). After evaluating wolf population parameters for 2018, the 
Service concluded that Wyoming's wolf population remained well above 
the recovery targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
statewide with no significant threats identified (Becker 2019, entire).
    The objective of the 2019 wolf hunting season was to stabilize the 
wolf population in Wyoming, outside of national parks and the WRR, at 
160 wolves by the end of the calendar year. The WGFC approved a 
mortality limit of 34 wolves distributed across the 14 hunt areas 
within the WTGMA. The only significant change was that the season in 
hunt area 13 was extended to March 31, 2020, or until the harvest limit 
was reached, whichever came first, to increase hunting opportunity. 
Twenty-six wolves were harvested (25 legal, 1 illegal) during the 
hunting season with similar numbers of male and female wolves as well 
as age classes taken. However, the temporal distribution of harvest was 
heavily skewed towards the months of September and October, with zero 
wolves taken in December (WGFD et al. 2020, pp. 15-17). Twenty-three 
additional wolves were taken in the predatory animal area during 2019. 
A minimum of 201 wolves were documented in Wyoming outside of YNP and 
the WRR, with an additional 110 wolves documented in YNP and WRR, for a 
total of 311 wolves documented in the entirety of Wyoming at the end of 
2019 (see table 3).
    Wyoming has done, and continues to do, a suitable job of adaptively 
managing harvest using wolf demographic information including minimum 
counts and levels of other mortality factors from past years. Adaptive 
management will continue to be an important part of wolf management in 
Wyoming due to a lower abundance of wolves in the State compared to 
Idaho and Montana and because recent data indicates that a greater 
proportion of juvenile wolves have been harvested during the months of 
September and October compared to November and December when adults and 
subadults make up the majority of harvest (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 17). 
Contrary to what Ausband (2016, p. 501) demonstrated for juvenile 
wolves taken during the trapping season in Idaho, this indicates that 
juvenile wolves in Wyoming are more vulnerable to hunter harvest, at 
least during the early months of hunting seasons. Continued high rates 
of juvenile mortality could affect recruitment (Ausband et al. 2015, 
pp. 418-420), resulting in population declines if wolf populations are 
not monitored closely and adaptively managed to ensure they remain 
above minimum recovery levels. We anticipate monitoring by WGFD will be 
sufficient to detect significant changes in population status and that 
regulatory changes will be made to address any concerns as necessary.
    Pending the Governor's signature, the WGFC recently approved 
Chapter 47 wolf harvest recommendations for the 2020-2021 season. The 
two primary regulatory changes for the upcoming season included an 
increase in the total harvest limit to 52 wolves within the WTGMA and a 
September 15 season start date for all hunt areas (with the exception 
of hunt area 12, which will continue to open October 15). Although 
increased harvest limits could result in continued high levels of 
juvenile harvest, later season start dates may reduce the number of 
juvenile wolves harvested during the initial months of the season. All 
other regulations are the same as previous years.
    On the WRR, wolves are classified as a trophy game animal where 
legal take could occur during a regulated hunting or trapping season. 
Regulated take was not permitted on the WRR until 2019 when the Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Joint Business Council approved the first 
regulated wolf hunting season. A total harvest limit of six wolves was 
distributed evenly across two hunt areas. The wolf hunting season began 
on December 1, 2019, and closed on February 28, 2020, or until the 
harvest limit was reached in either hunt area, whichever occurred 
first. Mandatory reporting was required within 48 hours of harvest. No 
wolves were harvested on the WRR during the 2019-2020 season (WGFD et 
al. 2020, p. 24).
    As described previously, the Federal status of wolves in Wyoming 
has changed on several occasions since 2009. Overall, during those 
years when wolves were under State management authority (including 2008 
and 2014 when wolves were legally harvested in the predator area, but 
no regulated hunting season occurred in the WTGMA due to litigation), 
an average of 12 percent of Wyoming's wolf population was removed 
annually through harvest. If 2008 and 2014 are removed (the years that 
harvest was limited to the predatory animal area) and we evaluate 
regulated harvest only, an average of 15 percent of the wolf population 
in Wyoming was removed annually through harvest. Based on WGFD's 
adaptive management approach to managing wolves and wolf harvest, wolf 
populations in Wyoming have remained well above minimum recovery levels 
since 2002, regardless of whether they have been under State or Federal 
management authority.
    Depredation Control in Wyoming--Federal wolf management in Wyoming 
was guided by a nonessential experimental population special rule under 
section 10(j) of the Act (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). After wolves 
were relisted in 2008, wolf management in the central Idaho and GYA 
recovery areas of the NRM reverted back to special rules published for 
the nonessential experimental population of wolves (73 FR 4720, January 
28, 2008) because all States and some Tribes within these recovery 
areas had Service-approved wolf plans (see description of take allowed 
under the 2008 10(j) rules described above). However, after reexamining 
Wyoming's laws and wolf management plan, the Service deemed them 
unsatisfactory for the continued conservation of wolves in the State 
(74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). As a result, Federal wolf management in 
Wyoming (outside of YNP and WRR) reverted back to the more restrictive 
special rules under section 10(j) of the Act published in 1994 (59 FR 
42108, August 16, 1994). Under the 1994 10(j) rule, landowners on their 
private land and owners of domestic livestock (defined as cattle, 
sheep, horses, and mules) lawfully

[[Page 69806]]

using public lands could opportunistically harass wolves in a non-
injurious manner. Livestock producers were also able to legally take 
adult wolves on their private property if they were caught in the act 
of killing, wounding, or biting livestock, provided the incident was 
reported within 24 hours and there was evidence of the attack. If 
livestock depredations were documented, the Service could conduct 
lethal control actions or issue a permit to a livestock producer or 
permittee grazing public lands to take an adult wolf or wolves caught 
in the act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock. This section 
10(j) rule applied to wolf management in Wyoming between April 2009 and 
September 2012 and again between September 2014 and April 2017.
    When wolves were under State management authority in Wyoming, 
Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 23-1-304 provided authority for the WGFC to 
promulgate rules and regulations related to the management of wolves in 
Wyoming where they are classified as trophy game animals. WGFC Chapter 
21 regulations guide the management of wolves in the State within the 
WTGMA. Through education and outreach provided by WGFD, emphasis is 
directed towards conflict prevention and minimization of depredation 
risk (WGFC 2011, p. 30). However, when depredations do occur, agency 
response is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may include no 
action, nonlethal control if it is deemed appropriate or the landowner 
requests it, capture and radio-collaring a wolf or wolves, issuance of 
a lethal take permit to the property owner, or agency-directed lethal 
control. The use of lethal force to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts by 
WGFD and their designated agents or private citizens is authorized 
under W.S. 23-1-304, W.S.23-3-115, and WGFC Chapter 21 regulations. 
However, lethal control will not be used, and any take permits that 
have been issued may be revoked, if wolf removal threatens the 
recovered status of wolves in the State.
    Under W.S. 23-3-115 and WGFC Chapter 21 Section 6(a), any wolf in 
the act of doing damage to private property may be taken and killed by 
the owner provided the carcass is not removed from the site of the kill 
so an investigation can be completed and take is reported within 72 
hours. If livestock depredations have been confirmed, WGFD or their 
authorized agents may conduct lethal control efforts to mitigate 
conflicts. WGFD may also issue a lethal take permit to the owner of the 
livestock or domestic animals, or their designees. Permits may be 
issued for a period of up to 45 days or until the number of wolves 
specified on the permit, up to two wolves, are killed, whichever occurs 
first. Permits may be renewed if deemed necessary. Lethal take permits 
will be issued only within the WTGMA.
    In Wyoming, lethal control of depredating wolves increased 
concurrent with increases in wolf numbers and distribution as wolves 
recolonized available suitable habitat and began to occupy more 
moderate to less suitable habitat. Under Service direction, management 
of depredating wolves became more aggressive towards chronically 
depredating packs in the mid to late 2000s, which moderated the number 
of depredations and subsequent wolf removals so that the number of 
depredations no longer tracked with wolf population growth. Between 
1995 and 2008, as a percentage of the total wolf population, 8 percent 
of the known Wyoming wolf population was removed annually. From 2009 to 
the present, the percentage of Wyoming's known wolf population lethally 
removed to resolve conflicts with livestock has increased slightly to 
11 percent, but has been more variable with a slightly higher 
percentage of wolves removed under Federal authority (13 percent; 
range: 8-22 percent) when compared to State management authority (11 
percent; range: 7-12 percent). As has been observed in Montana, since 
2017 when Federal protections were most recently removed for wolves in 
Wyoming, the total number of wolves and the percentage of the 
population lethally removed to resolve livestock conflicts has declined 
to 30 wolves, which equals approximately 7 percent of the minimum known 
wolf population in 2019 (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 3). Similarly, the total 
number of damage claims and compensation payments for wolf-caused 
livestock losses has declined as wolves have been under State 
management authority (WGFD 2020a, p. 16).
    Generally, Wyoming has a higher percentage of packs involved in 
livestock depredations annually with more depredations occurring on 
public lands than Idaho or Montana (WGFD et al. 2020, pp. 20-21). 
Seasonal trends in depredations are similar to other States that have a 
high percentage of livestock seasonally grazed on public lands where a 
slight increase in depredations occurs during early spring, coinciding 
with calving season, followed by a slight drop then an increase during 
the late summer months of July, August, and September (WGFD et al. 
2020, pp. 21-22).
    In addition to wolf control for livestock depredations, WGFC 
Chapter 21 Section 6(c) provides WGFD authorization to lethally remove 
wolves should it be determined that they are causing unacceptable 
impacts to wildlife or when wolves displace elk from State-managed 
feedgrounds. Displaced elk may result in damage to privately stored 
crops, commingling with domestic livestock, or human safety concerns 
due to their presence on public roadways. To date, no wolves have been 
removed in Wyoming under these provisions. However, in some cases, WGFD 
has used regulated public harvest of wolves to better direct sportsmen 
and -women to areas where it was believed wolves may be causing 
negative impacts to wildlife.
    Since 2008, dependent on the Federal status of wolves in Wyoming, 
wolf management on the WRR has been guided by the amended 2008 10(j) 
rules for the nonessential experimental population of wolves in the 
Greater Yellowstone Area (73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008) or the 
provisions of a Service-approved WRR wolf management plan (Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, entire). Under Federal or 
Tribal management authority, lethal take by private citizens or 
agencies is authorized if a wolf or wolves are caught in the act or if 
it is deemed necessary to resolve repeated conflicts with livestock. To 
date, a single wolf has been removed within the external boundaries of 
the WRR to mitigate conflicts with livestock. This wolf was included in 
the above totals when discussing lethal wolf control in Wyoming.
    Wolf Population and Human-caused Mortality in Wyoming Summary--As 
expected, during those years when wolves were removed from Federal 
protections, human-caused mortality increased in Wyoming as WGFD 
implemented regulated harvest to manage wolf populations within the 
WTGMA. The WGFD set a population objective of 160 wolves within the 
WTGMA and has adaptively managed harvest to achieve this objective. 
Since 2009, during those years when wolves were federally listed 
(including years when harvest occurred under predator status only), the 
average rate of human-caused mortality was 14 percent. The average rate 
increased to 28 percent annually during those years when WGFD managed 
wolf populations with regulated public harvest. This management 
resulted in an overall negative growth rate for the wolf population in 
Wyoming during those years wolves were under State authority (an 
approximate 5 percent population decline on average during those years 
when wolves were federally delisted).

[[Page 69807]]

This gradual decline was expected as WGFD began to use harvest to meet 
wolf population objectives within the WTGMA (77 FR 55553, September 10, 
2012). However, the observed decline is not expected to last because 
WGFD will continue to adaptively manage harvest to stabilize the wolf 
population at 160 wolves within the WTGMA (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 14), as 
has been evidenced by a slight increase in the statewide minimum wolf 
count in 2019 (see table 3). Minor variations around the average number 
of wolves removed in agency control actions, combined with other forms 
of mortality (i.e., illegal take, natural causes, vehicle collisions, 
and unknown causes), can influence whether or not desired population 
objectives are achieved within the WTGMA, so annual adjustments to 
harvest limits will continue to be made accordingly in order to achieve 
WGFD management objectives and still maintain the recovered status of 
wolves in Wyoming.
    Managers in YNP and the WRR have not set population objectives and 
have, for the most part, allowed wolves to naturally regulate. As a 
result, the number of wolves in YNP appear to have reached an 
equilibrium and have fluctuated slightly around 100 wolves for the past 
10 years, while the number of wolves on the WRR has varied between 10 
and 20 over the same time period. Regardless of how different agencies 
manage wolves, wolf populations have remained well above the Federal 
recovery targets of at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
statewide, and we expect them to stay above this level because various 
jurisdictions in the State continue to coordinate to manage for a 
sustainable population of wolves in Wyoming.
    Regulated Harvest in Oregon--No regulated hunting or trapping of 
wolves is authorized in Oregon.
    Depredation Control in Oregon--In Oregon, an integrated approach to 
minimize wolf depredation risk has been implemented that incorporates 
both proactive and corrective measures. The primary objective of ODFW 
when addressing wolf-livestock conflicts is to continue to implement a 
three-phased approach based on population objectives that minimizes 
conflicts with livestock while ensuring conservation of wolves in the 
State (ODFW 2019, p. 44). This phased approach to wolf management 
emphasizes preventive and nonlethal methods in Phase I and provides for 
increased management flexibility when the wolf population is in Phase 
III. Presently, wolves inhabiting the West Wolf Management Zone (WWMZ) 
are managed under Phase I guidelines in the Oregon Wolf Conservation 
and Management Plan and associated rules, whereas wolves in the East 
Wolf Management Zone (EWMZ) are managed under Phase II guidelines. 
Wolves remain federally protected in the entirety of the WWMZ, whereas 
wolves in the EWMZ are federally protected in half of the management 
zone and are under State management authority in the other half (see 
figure 1, ODFW 2020, p. 3). Nonlethal methods will be prioritized to 
address wolf conflicts with livestock regardless of wolf population 
status (ODFW 2019, p. 45); however, lethal control may be authorized 
only in the eastern half of the EWMZ where they are under State 
management authority per OAR 635-110-0030.
    Under Phase III wolf management (OAR 635-110-0030), lethal force 
may be used by property owners, livestock producers, or their 
designated agents to kill a wolf that is in the act of biting, 
wounding, killing, or chasing livestock or working dogs. If nonlethal 
methods were implemented following depredation events, but were 
unsuccessful at deterring recurrent depredations, ODFW may also issue a 
lethal take permit of limited duration to a livestock producer to kill 
a wolf. Similarly, ODFW, or their agents, may conduct lethal removal on 
private and public lands to minimize recurrent depredation risk. If 
wolves are taken by private citizens, take must be reported to ODFW 
within 24 hours. The ODFW Commission may also authorize controlled take 
in specific areas to address long-term, recurrent depredations or 
significant wolf-ungulate interactions.
    Since 2009, agency-directed lethal control has resulted in the 
removal of 16 wolves in Oregon over an 11-year period. Additionally, 
two wolves have been legally taken by livestock producers or their 
designated agents when they were caught in the act of attacking 
livestock in 2016 (ODFW 2017, p. 11) and a herding dog in 2019 (ODFW 
2020, p. 11). As a percentage of the total population of wolves in 
Oregon, lethal control of depredating wolves has removed an average of 
2 percent of Oregon's wolf population annually (range: 0 to 13 
percent). This amount is much lower than was documented in Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming during Service-directed wolf recovery in the NRM. 
No wolves have been removed in Oregon as a result of ODFW issuing a 
permit to a landowner or a livestock producer after two confirmed 
depredations or by controlled take through Commission authorization.
    Wolf Population and Human-caused Mortality in Oregon Summary--Known 
human-caused mortality from all causes has resulted in the death of 40 
wolves in Oregon since 2009. On average, human-caused mortality, 
inclusive of all sources, removes approximately 4 percent of the total 
wolf population in Oregon each year (range: 0 to 13 percent), which 
represents the lowest rate of human-caused mortality among States in 
the NRM. Since 2010, human-caused mortality has not exceeded 10 percent 
of the statewide wolf population in any given year, which has provided 
Oregon wolves the opportunity to increase at an average rate of 27 
percent annually. As suitable wolf habitat in the northeast part of the 
State has become increasingly saturated, population growth has slowed 
somewhat and has ranged between 10 to 15 percent growth since 2017. 
Dispersing wolves from resident Oregon packs have recolonized portions 
of western Oregon as well as northern California and southeastern 
Washington.
    In 2015, using an individual-based population model and vital rate 
estimates obtained from the literature for established or exploited 
wolf populations, ODFW documented a 0, 3, and 5 percent chance of 
conservation failure (defined as fewer than 4 breeding pairs) over a 5-
, 10-, and 50-year period, respectively (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30-33). 
Further simulations suggested that as the wolf population in Oregon 
continued to increase, the risk of conservation failure concurrently 
declined. Rates of human-caused mortality up to 15 percent resulted in 
positive population growth, while rates of 20 percent caused population 
declines (ODFW 2015a, pp. 30-33). These rates of human-caused mortality 
were in addition to natural and other causes of mortality that were 
held constant and estimated at 12 percent. This resulted in a total 
mortality rate of 27 to 32 percent with which Oregon's wolf population 
would continue to increase or slightly decrease, respectively. These 
total mortality rates and their effects on wolf population growth in 
Oregon are comparable to wolf populations elsewhere (see NRM discussion 
above and USFWS 2020, p. 8). The rates of human-caused and total 
mortality in Oregon's wolf population are currently well below the 
thresholds described above and are estimated at 4 and 5 percent, 
respectively (see table 3). Mortality rates at this level provide ample 
opportunity for continued positive population growth and recolonization 
of suitable habitat in the State.

[[Page 69808]]

    Regulated Harvest in Washington--To date, the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has not authorized and implemented 
regulated wolf harvest in the delisted portion of the State; however, 
the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CTCR) and Spokane 
Tribe of Indians (STI) initiated regulated wolf harvest for Tribal 
members on Tribal lands only beginning in 2012 and 2013, respectively. 
Seasons have gradually become less restrictive to allow for increased 
hunter opportunity on CTCR Tribal lands. In 2019, the CTCR adopted wolf 
hunting regulations that allowed for year-round harvest with no bag 
limits (CCT Code Title 4 Natural Resources and Environment, Chapter 4-
1, and Resolution 2019-255). Trapping is also permitted and seasons 
begin on November 1 and close February 28 with no bag limits on amount 
of take. As of December 31, 2019, 12 wolves have been legally harvested 
on CTCR lands since 2012.
    Regulated wolf harvest is also allowed for Tribal members on the 
Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington. As stated previously, 
regulated wolf harvest began in 2013 and, similar to CTCR, has been 
designed to increase hunter opportunity, although the level of take has 
remained relatively low. At present, annual allowable take is a maximum 
of 10 wolves that may be harvested within the calendar year. If the 
maximum allowable take is reached, the season will close until the 
start of the next calendar year. Trapping and/or snaring on the Spokane 
Reservation is allowed by special permit only, issued by the STI 
Department of Natural Resources, and is open from October 1 through 
February 28. Between 2013 and 2019, 10 wolves have been legally 
harvested on the Spokane Indian Reservation.
    Despite less restrictive regulations for harvest on Tribal lands in 
Washington, the total number of wolves legally harvested has been 
relatively low and has had minimal impact on wolf populations in the 
State (see table 3). Since 2012 when regulated take began, an average 
of 3 percent of the total statewide wolf population in Washington has 
been legally harvested annually (range: 0 to 4 percent).
    Depredation Control in Washington--A primary goal of wolf 
management in Washington is to minimize livestock losses in a way that 
continues to provide for the recovery and long-term perpetuation of a 
sustainable wolf population (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 14). Nonlethal 
management of wolf conflicts is prioritized in the State (Wiles et al. 
2011, p. 85; WDFW 2017, pp. 2-9). WDFW personnel work closely with 
livestock producers to implement conflict prevention measures suitable 
to each producers' operation. Interested livestock producers may also 
enter into a Depredation Prevention Cooperative Agreement with WDFW, 
which provides a cost-share for the implementation of conflict 
prevention tools (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 24).
    In the eastern one-third of Washington where wolves are federally 
delisted and under the management authority of WDFW, State law (RCW 
77.12.240) provides WDFW authority to implement lethal control to 
resolve repeated wolf-livestock conflicts when other methods were 
deemed unsuccessful in deterring depredations. The WDFW wolf-livestock 
and interaction protocol provides specific guidelines for when lethal 
control may be implemented (WDFW 2017, pp. 14-15). When lethal control 
is implemented, WDFW uses an incremental removal approach followed by 
an evaluation period to determine the effectiveness of any control 
action (WDFW 2017, p. 15).
    Under State law (RCW 77.36.030 and RCW 77.12.240), administrative 
rule (WAC 220-440-080), and the provisions of the Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan, WDFW may permit a livestock producer or their 
authorized employees in the federally delisted portion of the State to 
lethally remove wolves caught in the act of attacking livestock on 
private property or lawfully used public grazing allotments after a 
documented livestock depredation caused by wolves. Furthermore, WAC 
220-440-080 provides authority for owners of domestic animals and their 
immediate family members or designated agents to kill one gray wolf 
without a permit in the delisted part of Washington if the wolf is 
attacking their animals (caught-in-the-act rule). Any wolf removed 
under these provisions must be reported to WDFW within 24 hours of take 
and the carcass must be surrendered to the agency.
    Lethal control of depredating wolves was first used to mitigate 
wolf conflicts with livestock in 2012 when WDFW removed 7 wolves. 
Between 2013 and 2019, as Washington's wolf population continued to 
increase in number and expand in range, WDFW has used lethal control to 
resolve wolf conflicts with livestock in 5 of 7 years. In total, 31 
wolves have been removed by WDFW due to conflicts with livestock 
between 2008, when wolves were first documented in the State, and 2019.
    No wolves have been legally removed under authority of a lethal 
take permit issued to a livestock producer after a documented 
depredation. However, four wolves have been killed by owners of 
domestic animals under the caught-in-the-act rule, two each in 2017 and 
2019.
    The goal of wolf-livestock conflict management on the Colville 
Reservation is to resolve conflicts before they become chronic 
(Colville Confederated Tribes Fish and Wildlife Department [CCTFWD] 
2017, p. 24). Potential livestock depredations on the Colville 
Reservation will be investigated by CCTFWD personnel. The CCTFWD 
personnel will work with livestock owners proactively and reactively to 
prevent and/or resolve conflicts as they arise (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24). To 
date, no wolves have been removed to resolve conflicts with livestock 
on the Colville Reservation.
    The effect of agency-directed and private individual lethal control 
on Washington's wolf population has been relatively minor to date. 
Overall, the percentage of wolves removed annually through lethal 
control in Washington is less than what was documented in the core of 
the NRM in the years following wolf reintroduction. In Washington, as a 
percent of the minimum known population, an average of 4 percent of the 
total statewide wolf population has been removed due to conflicts with 
livestock annually (range: 0 to 12 percent; see table 3).
    Analyses of factors that contribute to wolf-livestock conflicts in 
Washington indicate that, in general, areas having a high abundance of 
livestock (Hanley et al. 2018a, pp. 8-10) or high densities of both 
wolves and livestock (Hanley et al. 2018b, pp. 8-11) are at higher risk 
for conflict. Also, persistent wolf presence has not been documented in 
some Washington counties with the highest risk of wolf-livestock 
conflicts based on cattle abundance alone (Hanley et al. 2018a, p. 10), 
thus the potential exists for increased levels of conflict as wolves 
continue to recolonize portions of the State. Similar to Wyoming, but 
contrary to what has been documented in Montana and Idaho, most 
livestock depredations in Washington have occurred on public grazing 
allotments (Hanley et al. 2018a, pp. 8-10) where greater challenges 
exist to minimize conflict risk.
    Wolf Population and Human-caused Mortality in Washington Summary--
Since 2008 when wolves were first documented in Washington, human-
caused mortality has been responsible for the average removal of 9 
percent of the known wolf population annually; and has fluctuated 
between 6 percent and 11 percent of the known population annually since 
2013 (see table 3). Over a similar time period, the mean total wolf 
mortality rate has been 10 percent

[[Page 69809]]

and ranged between 7 percent and 13 percent since 2013 (see table 3). 
According to the Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, wolf 
recovery will be achieved when a minimum of 15 breeding pairs are 
equitably distributed across 3 wolf recovery areas in the State for 3 
consecutive years or when 18 breeding pairs are documented for a single 
year (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 58-70). Analyses indicate that once 
recovery is achieved, Washington's wolf population would be relatively 
resilient to increases in human-caused mortality provided a low level 
of dispersal from outside the State continues (Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 
7).
    Concurrent with increased rates of human-caused mortality, wolf 
numbers and distribution have continued to increase in Washington, 
although the rate of increase has slowed somewhat in recent years (WDFW 
et al. 2020, pp. 12-20). Since 2010, wolf populations have increased an 
average of 26 percent annually as dispersing wolves originating from 
both inside and outside of Washington continue to recolonize vacant 
suitable habitat in the State. Population growth has been most rapid in 
the eastern Washington recovery area due to its proximity to large wolf 
populations in the NRM and Canada. However, as suitable habitat in 
eastern Washington has become increasingly saturated with wolves, 
statewide population growth has declined in recent years (WDFW et al. 
2020, pp. 12-20) and has ranged between 3 and 15 percent since 2017. 
Increases in wolf abundance and distribution continue at a moderate 
pace in the North Cascades recovery area. Documentation of dispersing 
individuals continues in the Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast 
recovery area, but, to date, confirmation of a resident pack has not 
occurred. Slow recolonization of this recovery area was anticipated by 
WDFW (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 69). Factors that may be contributing to 
the lack of documented, resident wolves in southwest Washington may 
include its distance from large wolf population centers and the 
availability of intervening suitable habitat between it and those 
population centers. However, with continued positive population growth 
and relatively low levels of human-caused mortality, substantial 
opportunities remain for dispersing wolves to recolonize vacant 
suitable habitat in Washington even though this may occur at a slower 
pace than some expect.

[[Page 69810]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03NO20.019


[[Page 69811]]


Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Dynamics
    Although wolf populations typically have a high rate of natural 
turnover (Mech 2006a, p. 1482), increased human-caused mortality may 
negatively affect the pack dynamics and social structure of gray 
wolves. However, we do not expect these effects will have a significant 
impact at the population level due to the life-history characteristics 
of gray wolves. In most instances, only the dominant male and female in 
a pack breed. Consequently, the death of one or both of the breeders 
may negatively affect the pack (via reduced pup survival/recruitment or 
pack dissolution) or the population as a whole (by reduced recruitment, 
reduced dispersal rates, or a reduction or reversal of population 
growth), but these effects are context-dependent. The availability of 
replacement breeders and the timing of mortality can moderate the 
consequences of breeder loss on both the pack and the population 
(Brainerd et al. 2008, entire; Borg et al. 2014, entire; Schmidt et al. 
2017, entire; Bassing et al. 2019, entire). In populations that are at 
or near carrying capacity, where breeder replacement and subsequent 
reproduction occurs relatively quickly, population growth rate and pack 
distribution and occupancy is largely unaffected by breeder loss (Borg 
et al. 2014, pp. 6-7; Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 582-584). Breeder 
replacement and subsequent reproduction in colonizing populations 
greater than 75 wolves was similar to that of core populations at or 
near carrying capacity, whereas small recolonizing populations (<75 
wolves) took about twice as long to replace breeders and subsequently 
reproduce (Brainerd et al. 2008, pp. 89, 93). Therefore, the effects of 
breeder loss may be greatest on small recolonizing gray wolf 
populations. In some cases where extremely high rates of human-caused 
mortality were intentionally used to drastically reduce wolf 
populations, immigration from neighboring areas was found to be the 
most important determinant in the speed with which wolf populations 
recovered (Bergerud and Elliot 1998, pp. 1554-1559, 1562; Hayes and 
Harestead 2000, pp. 44-46).
    In the short term, increased human-caused mortality can result in 
lower natality rates (the number of pups produced) and pup survival in 
individual packs due to an overall reduction in pack size and the loss 
of one or both breeders (Schmidt et al. 2017, pp. 14-18; Ausband et al. 
2017a, pp. 4-6). However, wolf populations respond to decreased 
densities resulting from increased human-caused mortality by increasing 
reproductive output (Schmidt et al. 2017, pp. 14-18). This could 
partially explain the fact that the reduction in pack sizes observed in 
Idaho after wolf hunts began was short-lived, as pack sizes rebounded 
to levels documented prior to the initiation of hunting seasons and 
mid-year recruitment of young was similar during periods of harvest 
versus without (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 37-38). In another study, 
breeding female turnover increased polygamy within packs while breeding 
male turnover reduced recruitment of female pups, although the 
mechanisms for the latter were unknown (Ausband et al. 2017b, pp. 1097-
1098). Mortality of breeding gray wolves was more likely to lead to 
pack dissolution and reduced reproduction when mortality occurred very 
near to, or during, the breeding season (Borg et al. 2014, p. 8, 
Ausband et al. 2017a, pp. 4-5) and when pack sizes were small (Brainerd 
et al. 2008, p. 94; Borg et al. 2014, pp. 5-6). Nonetheless, harvest 
had no effect on the frequency of breeder turnover in Idaho (Ausband et 
al. 2017b, p. 1097) and little evidence of pack dissolution was found 
in a heavily harvested wolf population with frequent breeder loss in 
southwestern Alberta (Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 584-585).
    Bryan et al. (2015, pp. 351-354) indicated that high rates of 
human-caused mortality resulted in physiological changes to wolves that 
increased levels of cortisol as well as reproductive hormones. The 
authors suggest these results were indicative of social disruptions to 
the pack that affected the rate of female pregnancy or psuedopregnancy 
and the number of interindividual interactions among male wolves (Bryan 
et al. 2015, pp. 351-352). However, it was unknown if these 
physiological changes affected overall fitness (i.e., reproductive and 
population performance) of the affected wolf population or if other 
factors contributed equally to, or more than, wolf harvest (Bryan et 
al. 2015, pp. 351-354). Boonstra (2012, entire) suggested that chronic 
stress in wildlife was rare, but could be considered adaptive in that 
it benefits the affected species, which allows it to adapt to changing 
conditions to maintain, or improve, long-term fitness. Indeed, Bryan et 
al. (2015, p. 351) suggested that the physiological changes observed in 
the stressed wolf population could be considered adaptive and 
beneficial to the wolf when dealing with the specific stressors. Due to 
the inherent challenges associated with interpreting the specific 
causes and effects of stress in wildlife, experimental field studies 
that evaluate potential factors contributing to observed increases in 
stress and their associated positive or negative effects on wildlife 
populations are warranted (Boonstra 2012, p. 10).
    Overall, gray wolf pack social structure is very adaptable and 
resilient. Breeding members can be quickly replaced from either within 
or outside the pack, and pups can be reared by another pack member 
should their parents die (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Consequently, wolf 
populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as intensive 
human-caused mortality or disease, provided immigration from either (or 
both) within the affected population or from adjacent populations 
occurs (Bergerud and Elliot 1998, pp. 1554-1559; Hayes and Harestad 
2000, pp. 44-46; Bassing et al. 2019, entire). Although we acknowledge 
that breeder loss can and will occur in the future regardless of 
Federal status, we conclude that the effects of breeder loss on gray 
wolves in the lower 48 United States is likely to be minimal as long as 
adequate regulatory mechanisms are in place to ensure a sufficiently 
large population is maintained.
The Role of Public Attitudes
    In general, human attitudes toward wolves vary depending upon how 
individuals value wolves in light of real or perceived risks and 
benefits (Bruskotter and Wilson 2014, entire). An individual who views 
wolves as threatening is likely to have a more negative perception than 
an individual who believes wolves are beneficial. This perception may 
be directly influenced by an individual's proximity to wolves (Houston 
et al. 2010, pp. 399-401; Holsman et al. 2014, entire; Carlson et al. 
2020, pp. 4-6), personal experiences with wolves (Houston et al. 2010, 
pp. 399-401; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, pp. 62-69), or indirect factors 
such as social influences (e.g., news and social media, internet, 
friends, relatives) and governmental policies (Houston et al. 2010, pp. 
399-401; Treves and Bruskotter 2014, p. 477, Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, 
pp. 62-69; Olson et al. 2014, entire; Chapron and Treves 2016, p. 5; 
Lute et al. 2016, pp. 1208-1209; Carlson et al. 2020, pp. 4-6). 
Consequently, wolves often invoke deep-seated issues related to 
identity, fear, knowledge, empowerment, and trust that are not directly 
related to the issues raised in this rulemaking (Naughton-Treves et al. 
2003, pp. 1507-1508; Madden 2004, p. 250; Madden and McQuinn 2014, pp. 
100-102; Browne-Nunez et al. 2015, p. 69; Carlson et al. 2020, pp. 4-
6). Due to these known human attitudes, in our

[[Page 69812]]

1978 rule reclassifying wolves, we acknowledged that regulations 
prohibiting the killing of wolves, even wolves that may be attacking 
livestock and pets, could create negative sentiments about wolves and 
their recovery under the protections of the Act. We acknowledge that 
public attitudes towards wolves vary with demographics, change over 
time, and can affect human behavior toward wolves, including poaching 
(illegal killing) of wolves (See Kellert 1985, 1990, 1999; Nelson and 
Franson 1988; Kellert et al. 1996; Wilson 1999; Browne-Nu[ntilde]ez and 
Taylor 2002; Williams et al. 2002; Manfredo et al. 2003; Naughton-
Treves et al. 2003; Madden 2004; Mertig 2004; Chavez et al. 2005; 
Schanning and Vazquez 2005; Beyer et al. 2006; Hammill 2007; Schanning 
2009; Treves et al. 2009; Wilson and Bruskotter 2009; Shelley et al. 
2011; Treves and Martin 2011; Treves et al. 2013; Madden and McQuinn 
2014; Hogberg et al. 2016; Lute et al. 2016).
    Surveys have indicated that overall public support for legal, 
regulated wolf hunting is relatively high, but negative attitudes about 
wolves persist and overall tolerance for wolves remains low (Browne-
Nunez 2015 pp. 62-69; Hogberg et al. 2016, pp. 49-50; Lute et al. 2016, 
pp. 1206-1208; Lewis et al. 2018, entire). Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50) 
documented an overall decline in tolerance for wolves after public 
harvest occurred in Wisconsin, which indicates that hunting may not be 
the most effective policy to increase tolerance for the species 
(Epstein 2017, entire). However, Hogberg et al. (2016, p. 50) also 
documented that 36 percent of respondents self-reported an increase in 
their tolerance towards wolves after wolf hunting began in Wisconsin. 
Similarly, a survey conducted in Montana (Lewis et al. 2018, entire) 
found that while overall tolerance remained low compared to a similar 
survey from 2012, it had slightly increased over time as the State has 
continued to manage wolves primarily through public harvest. 
Furthermore, statements made by interviewees regarding hunting and 
trapping of wolves in Montana indicate that, if those management 
options were no longer available to them, their tolerance and 
acceptance of the species would likely decline, resulting in increased 
polarization of opinions about wolves (Mulder 2014, p. 68). These 
studies suggest that the passage of time (which may be considered 
equivalent to an individual getting used to having wolves on the 
landscape even though wolves may still be disliked) and the belief that 
State management provides more opportunities for an individual to 
assist with wolf population management are two factors, of many, that 
may slowly increase tolerance for wolves. Although general trends in 
overall attitudes towards wolves are most often obtained through 
surveys, Browne-Nunez et al. (2015, p. 69) cautioned that these surveys 
often do not capture the complexity of attitudes that more personal 
survey techniques, such as focus groups, allow. Furthermore, Decker et 
al. (2006, p. 431) stressed the importance of providing details about 
situational context when evaluating human attitudes towards specific 
wildlife management actions.
    Human attitudes may be indicative of behavior (Bruskotter and 
Fulton 2012, pp. 99-100). Thus, it has been theorized that if tolerance 
for a species is low or declining, the likelihood for illegal activity 
towards that species may increase. Individual attitudes and behaviors 
may then be manifested by actions directed towards the species. In the 
case of wolves, if an individual feels they have limited management 
options to mitigate a real or perceived conflict, they may be more 
likely to act illegally in an attempt to address the conflict. Indeed, 
using empirical data from Wisconsin, researchers studied trends in the 
illegal killing of wolves and documented that rates of illegal take of 
wolves in the State was higher during periods of less management 
flexibility (e.g., during periods when wolves were federally protected) 
when compared to more flexible State management that permitted lethal 
control of depredating wolves as a mitigation response (Olson et al. 
2014, entire). Another study contradicted these results and indicated 
that illegal take of wolves increased during periods of State 
management in Wisconsin and Michigan because, the authors argued, the 
perceived value of wolves declined as agencies increased culling 
activities (Chapron and Treves 2016, entire). However, this analysis 
has since been refuted by Olson et al. (2017, entire) and Pepin et al. 
(2017, entire). Furthermore, Stein (2017, entire) reanalyzed the same 
data but included variation in reproductive rates and concluded that 
the use of lethal depredation control to mitigate wolf-livestock 
conflicts decreased the likelihood of illegal take.
    Strong emotions and divergent viewpoints about wolves and wolf 
management will continue regardless of the Federal status of the 
species. We expect that some segments of the public will be more 
tolerant of wolf management at the State level because it may be 
perceived by some as more flexible than Federal regulation, whereas 
other segments may continue to prefer Federal management due to a 
perception that it is more protective. State wildlife agencies have 
professional staff dedicated to disseminating accurate, science-based 
information about wolves and wolf management. They also have experience 
in managing wildlife to maintain long-term sustainable populations with 
enforcement staff to enforce State wildlife laws and regulations. To be 
more inclusive of constituents with different values, several States, 
including Washington and Wisconsin, have convened advisory committees 
to engage multiple stakeholder groups in discussing and addressing 
present and future management in their respective States (WDFW 2020, 
entire; WI DNR 2020, entire). As the status and management of the gray 
wolf evolves, continued collaboration between managers and researchers 
to monitor public attitudes toward wolves and their management will 
help guide State conservation actions.
Human-Caused Mortality Summary
    Despite human-caused wolf mortality, wolf populations have 
continued to increase in both number and range since the mid-to-late 
1970s (Smith et al. 2010, entire; O'Neil et al. 2017, entire; Stenglein 
et al. 2018, entire). Although legal mortality (primarily in the form 
of legal harvest and lethal control) will increase in the Great Lakes 
area after delisting, as has occurred within the NRM states of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, we do not expect that this will have a 
significant effect on the wolf population in this area. We also do not 
expect to see significant increases in human-caused mortality in the 
West Coast States primarily because those States have regulatory 
mechanisms in place that balance wolf management and wolf conservation. 
Similarly, we do not expect that current, or potentially increased, 
levels of human-caused mortality post-delisting will have a significant 
effect on the recolonization and establishment of wolves in the central 
Rocky Mountain States due to the life-history characteristics of wolves 
and their ability to recolonize vacant suitable habitat. Furthermore, 
the central Rocky Mountain States have existing laws and regulations to 
conserve wolves, and Utah has a management plan that will be 
implemented post-delisting to guide wolf management in the State. Based 
on knowledge gained about wolf population responses to increases in 
human-caused mortality during past

[[Page 69813]]

delisting efforts in the Great Lakes area, as well as the currently 
delisted NRM wolf population, we expect to see an initial population 
decline followed by fluctuations around an equilibrium resulting from 
slight variations in birth and death rates. Further, compensatory 
mechanisms in wolf populations provide some resiliency to perturbations 
caused by increased human-caused mortality. Wolves have evolved 
mechanisms to compensate for increased mortality, which makes 
populations resilient to perturbations.
    Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will use adaptive management to 
respond to wolf population fluctuations to maintain populations at 
sustainable levels well above Federal recovery requirements defined in 
the Revised Recovery Plan. Because wolf population numbers in each of 
these three States are currently much higher than Federal recovery 
requirements, we expect to see some reduction in wolf populations in 
the Great Lakes area when they are delisted as States implement lethal 
depredation control and decide whether to institute wolf hunting 
seasons with the objective of stabilizing or reversing population 
growth. However, the States have plans in place to achieve their goal 
of maintaining wolf populations well above Federal recovery targets 
(see Post-delisting Management).
    The 2019 State management plan for Oregon and the 2016 plan for 
California do not include population-management goals (Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2019, p. 17; California 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2016a, p. 12). While the 2011 
Washington State management plan does not include population-management 
goals, it includes recovery objectives intended to ensure the 
reestablishment of a self-sustaining population of wolves in Washington 
(Wiles et al. 2011, p. 9). We expect these States will manage wolves 
through appropriate laws and regulations to ensure recovery objectives 
outlined in their respective wolf management plans are achieved. The 
State management plan for Utah, which will be implemented when wolves 
are federally delisted statewide, will guide management of wolves until 
2030 or until at least two breeding pairs occur in the State for two 
consecutive years, or until the assumptions of the plan change. For 
additional information on management plans and objectives in 
California, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, see Post-delisting 
Management.

Habitat and Prey Availability

    Gray wolves are habitat generalists (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163) 
and once occupied or transited most of the United States, except the 
Southeast. To identify areas of suitable wolf habitat in the lower 48 
United States, researchers have used models that relate the 
distribution of wolves to characteristics of the landscape. These 
models have shown the presence of wolves is correlated with prey 
density, livestock density, landscape productivity, winter rainfall, 
snow, topography, road density, human density, land ownership, habitat 
patch size, and forest cover (e.g., Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284-292; 
Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41-43; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 542; Oakleaf 
et al. 2006, pp. 558-559; and Hanley et al. 2018a, pp. 6-8). Aside from 
direct and indirect measures of prey availability and livestock 
density, these environmental variables are proxies for the likelihood 
of wolf-human conflict and the ability of wolves to escape human-caused 
mortality. Therefore, predictions of suitable habitat generally depict 
areas with sufficient prey, where human-caused mortality is likely to 
be relatively low due to limited human access, high amounts of escape 
cover, or relatively low numbers of wolf-livestock conflicts. We 
consider suitable habitat to be areas containing adequate wild ungulate 
populations (e.g., elk and deer), adequate habitat cover, and areas 
with low enough wolf-human conflict (which generally precipitates 
human-caused wolf mortality) to allow populations to persist (see Mech 
2017, pp. 312-315).
    Much of the area currently occupied by wolves corresponds to what 
is considered suitable wolf habitat in the lower 48 United States as 
modeled by Oakleaf et al. (2006, entire), Carroll et al. (2006, 
entire), Mladenoff et al. (1995, entire), and Mladenoff et al. (1999, 
entire). Habitat and population models indicate that, if human-caused 
wolf mortality can be sufficiently limited, wolves will likely continue 
to recolonize areas of the Pacific Northwest (Maletzke et al. 2015, 
entire; ODFW 2015b, entire) and California (Nickel and Walther 2019, 
pp. 386-389); and could become established in the central and southern 
Rocky Mountains (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27, 31-32), and the Northeast 
(Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 3). While it is also possible for 
wolves to recolonize other non-forested portions of their historical 
range in the Midwest (Smith et al. 2016, entire), relatively high 
densities of livestock and limited hiding cover for wolves (forests) in 
this region are likely reasons that wolves have failed to recolonize 
this area (Smith et al. 2016, pp. 560-561).
    In addition to suitable habitat, we assessed prey availability 
based on population estimates and population targets provided by State 
wildlife agencies, as well as land management activities that might 
affect prey populations (see below). Prey availability is a primary 
factor in sustaining wolf populations. Each State within wolf-occupied 
range manages its wild ungulate populations sustainably. States employ 
an adaptive-management approach that adjusts hunter harvest in response 
to changes in big game population numbers and trends when necessary, 
and predation is one of many factors considered when setting seasons. 
We acknowledge the continued spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) 
among cervids in North America and provide some additional information 
here regarding our current state of knowledge of this emerging disease 
and potential impacts to wolf prey. CWD is a contagious prion disease 
that affects hoofed animals, such as deer, elk, and moose, is 
neurodegenerative, rapidly progressive, and always fatal (reviewed by 
Escobar et al. 2020, entire). Prions are the proteinaceous infection 
agents responsible for prion diseases (Escobar et al. 2020, p. 2) that 
are hardy in the environment and can remain infective for years to 
decades (reviewed by Escobar et al. 2020, p. 8). CWD was first 
identified in a Colorado research facility in the 1960s, and in wild 
deer in 1981 (CDC 2020, unpaginated). CWD continues to spread in North 
America (Escobar et al. 2020, p. 24) and is currently confirmed in 24 
States (CDC 2020, unpaginated). Within the current range of the gray 
wolf, CWD has been confirmed in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan (CDC 2020, unpaginated).
    While CWD has caused population declines of deer and elk in some 
areas (e.g., Miller et al. 2008, pp. 2-6; Edmunds et al. 2016, p. 12; 
DeVivo et al. 2017, entire), the prevalence of the disease across the 
landscape is not evenly distributed and there is still much to learn 
about CWD prevalence, the spatial distribution of the disease, 
transmission, and the elusive properties of prions (Escobar et al. 
2020, pp. 7-13). State wildlife agencies--all of whom have a vested 
interest in maintaining robust populations of deer, elk, and moose--
have developed surveillance strategies and management response plans to 
minimize and mitigate this threat to cervids to the maximum extent 
practicable (CPW 2018, entire; MFWP 2019a, entire; WGFD 2020b, entire; 
MI DNR and MDARD 2012, entire; WI DNR 2010, entire; MN DNR 2019, 
entire; IDFG 2018, entire). Simulation models predict that predation by 
wolves and

[[Page 69814]]

other carnivores can lead to a significant reduction in the prevalence 
of CWD infections across the landscape (see Hobbs 2006, p. 8; Wild et 
al. 2011, pp. 82-88), thereby slowing its spread, partially because 
large carnivores selectively prey on CWD-infected individuals (Krumm et 
al. 2010, p. 210). However, in areas of high disease prevalence, prion 
epidemics can negatively affect local prey populations even with 
selective predation pressure (Miller et al. 2008, p. 2). How prey 
populations are altered by the emergence of CWD at larger geographic 
scales remains to be determined (Miller et al. 2008, p. 2). While some 
have speculated that wolves and other carnivores may be vectors for 
spreading the disease--or, conversely, slowing the spread of the 
disease--neither has been empirically shown in the wild (Escobar et al. 
2020, p. 10).
Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat
    Various researchers have investigated habitat suitability for 
wolves in the central and eastern portions of the United States. Most 
of these efforts have focused on using a combination of human density, 
density of agricultural lands, deer density or deer biomass, and road 
density, or have used road density alone to identify areas where wolf 
populations are likely to persist or become established (Mladenoff et 
al. 1995, pp. 284-285; 1997, pp. 23-27; 1999, pp. 39-43; Harrison and 
Chapin 1997, p. 3; 1998, pp. 769-770; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, pp. 
1-8; Wydeven et al. 2001, pp. 110-113; Erb and Benson 2004, p. 2; 
Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1661-1668; Mladenoff et al. 2009, pp. 132-135; 
Smith et al. 2016, pp. 559-562).
    To a large extent, road density has been adopted as the best 
predictor of habitat suitability in the Midwest due to the connection 
between roads and human-caused wolf mortality. Several studies 
demonstrated that wolves generally did not maintain breeding packs in 
areas with a road density greater than about 0.9 to 1.1 linear mi per 
mi\2\ (0.6 to 0.7 km per km\2\) (Thiel 1985, pp. 404-406; Jensen et al. 
1986, pp. 364-366; Mech et al. 1988, pp. 85-87; Fuller et al. 1992, pp. 
48-51). Work by Mladenoff and associates indicated that colonizing 
wolves in Wisconsin preferred areas where road densities were less than 
0.7 mi per mi\2\ (0.45 km per km\2\) (Mladenoff et al. 1995, p. 289). 
Later work showed that during early colonization wolves selected some 
of the lowest road density areas, but as the wolf population grew and 
expanded, wolves accepted areas with higher road densities (Mladenoff 
et al. 2009, pp. 129-136). Research in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 
indicates that, in some areas with low road densities, low deer density 
appears to limit wolf occupancy (Potvin et al. 2005, pp. 1667-1668) and 
may prevent recolonization of portions of the Upper Peninsula. In 
Minnesota, a combination of road density and human density is used by 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) to model suitable 
habitat. Areas with a human density up to 20 people per mi\2\ (8 people 
per km\2\) are suitable if they also have a road density less than 0.8 
mi per mi\2\ (0.5 km per km\2\). Areas with a human density of less 
than 10 people per mi\2\ (4 people per km\2\) are suitable if they have 
road densities up to 1.1 mi per mi\2\ (0.7 km per km\2\) (Erb and 
Benson 2004, table 1). Smith et al. (2016, p. 560) relied mainly on 
road density and human population density to assess potential wolf 
habitat across the central United States, and thus may show exaggerated 
potential for wolf colonization, especially in the western Great Plains 
that lack forest cover.
    Road density is a useful parameter because it is easily measured 
and mapped, and because it correlates directly and indirectly with 
various forms of other human-caused wolf mortality. A rural area with 
more roads generally has a greater human density, more vehicular 
traffic, greater access by hunters and trappers, more farms and 
residences, and more domestic animals. As a result, there is a greater 
likelihood that wolves in such an area will encounter humans, domestic 
animals, and various human activities. These encounters may result in 
wolves being hit by motor vehicles, being subjected to government 
control actions after becoming involved in depredations on domestic 
animals, being shot intentionally by unauthorized individuals, being 
trapped or shot accidentally, or contracting diseases from domestic 
dogs (Mech et al. 1988, pp. 86-87; Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 332; 
Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 282, 291). Stenglein et al. (2018, p. 106) 
demonstrated that in the core of wolf range and in high-quality 
habitat, survival rate ranged 0.78-0.82. At the edge of wolf range and 
into more marginal habitat, survival rates declined to 0.49-0.61 
(Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 106). Also, natural mortality was more 
prevalent in core habitat, whereas there was a shift to a prominence of 
human[hyphen]caused mortality in more marginal habitat (Stenglein et 
al. 2018, p. 107).
    Some researchers have used a road density of 1 mi per mi\2\ (0.6 km 
per km\2\) of land area as an upper threshold for suitable wolf 
habitat. However, the common practice in more recent studies is to use 
road density to predict probabilities of persistent wolf pack presence 
in an area. Areas with road densities less than 0.7 mi per mi\2\ (0.45 
km per km\2\) are estimated to have a greater than 50 percent 
probability of wolf pack colonization and persistent presence, and 
areas where road density exceeded 1 mi per mi\2\ (0.6 km per km\2\) 
have less than a 10 percent probability of occupancy (Mladenoff et al. 
1995, pp. 288-289; Mladenoff and Sickley 1998, p. 5; Mladenoff et al. 
1999, pp. 40-41). The predictive ability of this model was questioned 
(Mech 2006b, entire; Mech 2006c, entire) and responded to (Mladenoff et 
al. 2006, entire), and an updated analysis of Wisconsin pack locations 
and habitat was completed (Mladenoff et al. 2009, entire). This model 
maintains that road density is still an important indicator of suitable 
wolf habitat; however, lack of agricultural land is also a strong 
predictor of habitat that wolves occupy.
    Wisconsin researchers view areas with greater than 50 percent 
probability of wolf pack colonization and persistence as ``primary wolf 
habitat,'' areas with 10 to 50 percent probability as ``secondary wolf 
habitat,'' and areas with less than 10 percent probability as 
unsuitable habitat (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) 
1999, pp. 47-48).
    The territories of packs that do occur in areas of high road 
density, and hence with low expected probabilities of occupancy, are 
generally near areas of more suitable habitat that are likely serving 
as a source of wolves, thereby assisting in maintaining wolf presence 
in the higher road density areas (Mech 1989, pp. 387-388; Wydeven et 
al. 2001, p. 112). It appears that essentially all suitable habitat in 
Minnesota is now occupied, range expansion has slowed, and the wolf 
population within the State has stabilized (Erb and Benson 2004, p. 7; 
Erb and DonCarlos 2009, pp. 57, 60; Erb et al. 2018, pp. 5, 8). This 
suitable habitat closely matches the areas designated as Wolf 
Management Zones 1 through 4 in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, 
p. 72), which are identical in area to Minnesota Wolf Management Zone A 
(MN DNR 2001, appendix III).
    Recent surveys for Wisconsin wolves and wolf packs show that wolves 
have recolonized the areas predicted by habitat models to have low, 
moderate, and high probability of occupancy (primary and secondary wolf 
habitat). The late-winter 2017-2018 Wisconsin wolf survey identified 
packs occurring throughout the central Wisconsin forest

[[Page 69815]]

area (Wolf Management Zone 2) and across the northern forest zone (Zone 
1), with highest pack densities in the northwest and north-central 
forest (WI DNR 2018, entire). In Michigan, wolf surveys in winter 2017-
2018 continue to show wolf pairs or packs (defined by Michigan DNR as 
two or more wolves traveling together) in every Upper Peninsula County 
(MI DNR 2018, entire).
    Habitat suitability studies in the Upper Midwest indicate that the 
only large areas of suitable or potentially suitable habitat areas that 
are currently unoccupied by wolves are located in the northern Lower 
Peninsula of Michigan (Mladenoff et al. 1997, p. 23; Mladenoff et al. 
1999, p. 39; Potvin 2003, pp. 44-45; Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239). 
One published Michigan study (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1239) 
estimates that this area could support 46 to 89 wolves while another 
study estimated that 110-480 wolves could exist in the northern Lower 
Peninsula (Potvin 2003, p. 39). A recent study that assessed potential 
den habitat and dispersal corridors in the northern Lower Peninsula 
determined that 736 mi\2\ (1,906 km\2\) of high-quality den habitat 
existed in the region, but the landscape has low permeability for wolf 
movement (Stricker et al. 2019, pp. 87-88). The northern Lower 
Peninsula is separated from the Upper Peninsula by the Straits of 
Mackinac, whose 4-mile (6.4-km) width freezes during mid- and late-
winter in some years. In recent years there have been two documented 
occurrences of wolves in the northern Lower Peninsula, but there has 
been no indication of persistence beyond several months. Prior to those 
occurrences, the last recorded wolf in the Lower Peninsula was in 1910.
    These northern Lower Peninsula patches of potentially suitable 
habitat contain a great deal of private land, are small in comparison 
to the occupied habitat on the Upper Peninsula and in Minnesota and 
Wisconsin, and are intermixed with agricultural areas and areas of 
higher road density (Gehring and Potter 2005, p. 1240). The Gehring and 
Potter study (2005, p. 1239) predicted 850 mi\2\ (2,198 km\2\) of 
suitable habitat (areas with greater than a 50 percent probability of 
wolf occupancy) in the northern Lower Peninsula. Potvin (2003, p. 21), 
using deer density in addition to road density, believes there are 
about 3,090 mi\2\ (8,000 km\2\) of suitable habitat in the northern 
Lower Peninsula. Gehring and Potter (2005, p. 1239) exclude from their 
calculations those northern Lower Peninsula low-road-density patches 
that are less than 19 mi\2\ (50 km\2\), while Potvin (2003, pp. 10-15) 
does not limit habitat patch size in his calculations. Both of these 
area estimates are well below the minimum area described in the Revised 
Recovery Plan, which states that 10,000 mi\2\ (25,600 km\2\) of 
contiguous suitable habitat is needed for a viable isolated gray wolf 
population, and half that area (5,000 mi\2\ or 12,800 km\2\) is needed 
to maintain a viable wolf population that is subject to wolf 
immigration from a nearby population (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26). 
Therefore, continuing wolf immigration from the Upper Peninsula may be 
necessary to maintain a future northern Lower Peninsula population.
    Based on the above-described studies and the guidance of the 1992 
Revised Recovery Plan, the Service has concluded that suitable habitat 
for wolves in the western Great Lakes area can be determined by 
considering four factors: Road density, human density, prey base, and 
area. An adequate prey base is an absolute requirement. In much of the 
western Great Lakes area, with the exception of portions of the Upper 
Peninsula of Michigan where deep snow causes deer to congregate (yard-
up) during winter, thereby limiting deer distribution and availability, 
white-tailed deer densities are well above management objectives set 
forth by the States, causing the other factors to become the 
determinants of suitable habitat. Road density and human density 
frequently are highly correlated; therefore, road density is often used 
as a predictor of habitat suitability. However, areas with higher road 
density may still be suitable if the human density is very low, so a 
consideration of both factors is sometimes useful (Erb and Benson 2004, 
p. 2). Finally, although the territory of individual wolf packs can be 
relatively small, packs are not likely to establish territories in 
areas of small, isolated patches of suitable habitat.
Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability
    Deer (prey) decline, due to succession of habitat and severe winter 
weather, was identified as a threat at the time of listing. Wolf 
density is heavily dependent on prey availability (for example, 
expressed as ungulate biomass, Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 170-171), and 
the primary prey of wolves in the Great Lakes area is white-tailed 
deer, with moose being the second most important prey (DelGiudice et 
al. 2009, pp. 162-163). Prey availability is high in the Great Lakes 
area; white-tailed deer populations in the region have fluctuated (in 
response to natural environmental conditions) throughout the wolf 
recovery period, but have been consistently at relatively high 
densities (DelGiudice et al. 2009, p. 162).
    Conservation of white-tailed deer and moose in the Great Lakes area 
is a high priority for State conservation agencies. As MN DNR points 
out in its wolf-management plan (MN DNR 2001, p. 25), it manages 
ungulates to ensure a harvestable surplus for hunters, nonconsumptive 
users, and to minimize conflicts with humans. To ensure a harvestable 
surplus for hunters, MN DNR must account for all sources of natural 
mortality, including loss to wolves, and adjust hunter harvest levels 
when necessary. For example, after severe winters in the 1990's, MN DNR 
modified hunter harvest levels to allow for the recovery of the local 
deer population (MN DNR 2001, p. 25). In addition to regulating the 
human harvest of deer and moose, MN DNR also plans to continue to 
monitor and improve habitat for these species.
    Land management activities carried out by other public agencies and 
by private landowners in Minnesota's wolf range, including timber 
harvest and prescribed fire, incidentally and significantly improves 
habitat for deer, the primary prey for wolves in the State. 
Approximately one-half of the Minnesota deer harvest is in the Forest 
Zone, which encompasses most of the occupied wolf range in the State 
(Cornicelli 2008, pp. 208-209). There is no indication that harvest of 
deer and moose or management of their habitat will significantly 
depress abundance of these species in Minnesota's primary wolf range.
    In Wisconsin, the statewide post-hunt white-tailed deer population 
estimate for 2017 was approximately 1,377,100 deer, approximately 2 
percent higher than in 2016 (Stenglein 2017, pp. 1-4). In the Northern 
Forest Zone of the State, the post-hunt population estimate has ranged 
from approximately 250,000 deer to more than 400,000 deer since 2002, 
with an estimate of 405,300 in 2017. Three consecutive mild winters and 
limited antlerless harvest may explain the population growth in the 
northern deer herd in 2017. The Central Forest Zone post-hunt 
population estimates have been largely stable since 2009 at 60,000-
80,000 deer on average, with an estimate of 79,000 in 2017. The Central 
Farmland Zone deer population has increased since 2008, and the 2017 
post-hunt deer population estimate was 368,100. For a third year in a 
row, the 2017 post-hunt deer population estimate in the Southern 
Farmland Zone exceeded 250,000 deer.
    Because of severe winter conditions (persistent, deep snow) in the 
Upper Peninsula, deer populations can

[[Page 69816]]

fluctuate dramatically from year to year. In 2016, the MI DNR finalized 
a new deer-management plan to address ecological, social, and 
regulatory shifts. An objective of this plan is to manage deer at the 
appropriate scale, considering impacts of deer on the landscape and on 
other species, in addition to population size (MI DNR 2016, p. 16). 
Additionally, the Michigan wolf-management plan addresses maintaining a 
sustainable population of wolf prey (MI DNR 2015, pp. 29-31). Short of 
a major, and unlikely, shift in deer-management and harvest strategies, 
there will be no shortage of prey for Wisconsin and Michigan wolves for 
the foreseeable future.
NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat
    We refer the reader to our 2009 and 2012 final delisting rules (74 
FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012), which 
contain detailed analyses of suitable wolf habitat in the northern 
Rocky Mountains. A summary of those analyses is provided below.
    The northern Rocky Mountains contain some of the best remaining 
suitable habitat for wolves in the Western United States (Carroll et 
al. 2006, figure 6). The region contains relatively large blocks of 
undeveloped public lands and some of the largest blocks of wilderness 
in the coterminous United States. Suitable wolf habitat in the region 
is characterized by 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 
(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 536-548; 2006, pp. 27-31; Oakleaf et al. 
2006, pp. 555-558). Unsuitable wolf habitat is typically 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).
    Based on a wolf habitat model (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555-559) 
that considered roads accessible to two-wheel and four-wheel drive 
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, there is an estimated 65,725 mi\2\ (170,228 
km\2\) of suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 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). The current distribution of wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains generally mirrors Oakleaf et al.'s (2006, p. 
559) prediction of suitable habitat, indicating that it is a reasonable 
approximation of where suitable habitat exists.
NRM DPS: Prey Availability
    We refer the reader to our 2009 and 2012 final delisting rules (74 
FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012), which 
contain analyses of prey availability in the northern Rocky Mountains. 
A summary of those analyses, with updated information on ungulate 
numbers and references to ungulate management plans, is provided below.
    Wild ungulate prey in the NRM is composed mainly of elk, but also 
includes deer, moose, and--in the Greater Yellowstone Area--bison. 
Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn antelope also are common 
but relatively unimportant as wolf prey. In total, State population 
estimates indicate that, in Idaho, there are approximately 100,000 elk 
(IDFG 2014d, p. 1), between 250,000 to 325,000 mule deer (IDFG 2019a, 
p. 1), and an unknown, but large, number of white-tailed deer (IDFG 
2019b, entire); in Montana, there are approximately 134,000 elk (MFWP 
2020a, p. 3), over 300,000 mule deer (MFWP 2020b, p. 1), and almost 
200,000 white-tailed deer (MFWP 2020c, p. 1); and, in Yellowstone 
National Park, there are approximately 10,000-20,000 elk in summer, 
4,000 elk in winter (NPS 2020a, entire), tens of thousands of elk 
outside of YNP in northwest Wyoming (WGFD 2019a, b, c, d, entire), 
5,000 bison (NPS 2020b, entire), and an additional 396,000 mule deer in 
the State (Mule Deer Working Group 2018, p. 1). The States in the NRM 
have successfully managed resident ungulate populations for decades. 
Since we delisted the NRM, these States have continued to maintain 
relatively high densities of ungulate populations along with a large, 
well distributed, and recovered wolf population. State ungulate 
management plans commit them to maintaining ungulate populations at 
densities that will continue to support a recovered wolf population 
well into the foreseeable future (For examples of State ungulate 
management plans and adaptive harvest strategies, see IDFG 2014d, 
2019a, 2019b, entire; MFWP 2001, 2014, entire).
West Coast States: Suitable Habitat
    In Washington, wolves are expected to persist in habitats with 
similar characteristics to those identified by Oakleaf et al. (2006 in 
Wiles et al. 2011, p. 50) and as described above. Several modeling 
studies have estimated potentially suitable wolf habitat in Washington 
with most predicting suitable habitat in northeastern Washington, the 
Blue Mountains, the Cascade Mountains, and the Olympic Peninsula. Total 
area estimates in these studies range from approximately 16,900 mi\2\ 
(43,770 km\2\) to 41,500 mi\2\ (107,485 km\2\) (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 
51, 53; Maletzke et al. 2015, p. 3).
    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) developed a map 
of ``potential gray wolf range'' as part of its recent status review of 
wolves in Oregon (ODFW 2019, Appendix D). The model used predictors of 
wolf habitat including land-cover type, elk range, human population 
density, road density, and land types altered by humans; they chose to 
exclude public land ownership because wolves will use forested cover on 
both public and private lands (ODFW 2019, p. 147). Approximately 41,256 
mi\2\ (106,853 km\2\) were identified as potential wolf range in 
Oregon. The resulting map coincides well with the current distribution 
of wolves in Oregon. The ODFW estimates that wolves occupy 31.6 percent 
of the potential wolf range in the east management zone (the majority 
of wolves here are under State management) and 2.7 percent of potential 
wolf range in the western management zone (all wolves here are under 
Federal management) (ODFW 2019, p. 153).
    Habitat models developed for the northern Rocky Mountains (e.g., 
Oakleaf et al. 2006, entire; Larsen and Ripple 2006, entire; Carroll et 
al. 2006, entire) may have limited applicability to California due to 
differences in geography, distribution of habitat types, distribution 
and abundance of prey, potential restrictions for movement, and human 
habitation (CDFW 2016b, pp. 154, 156). Despite these challenges, CDFW 
used these models to determine that wolves are most likely to occupy 
three general areas: (1) The Klamath Mountains and portions of the 
northern California Coast Ranges; (2) the southern Cascades, the Modoc 
Plateau, and Warner Mountains; and (3) the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range 
(CDFW 2016b, p. 20). These areas were identified as having a higher 
potential for wolf occupancy based on prey abundance, amount of public 
land ownership, and forest cover, whereas other areas were

[[Page 69817]]

less suitable due to human influences (CDFW 2016b, p. 156). Using a 
different approach and modeling technique, Nickel and Walther (2019, 
pp. 387-398) largely affirmed CDFW's conclusions regarding areas 
maintaining a high potential for wolf recolonization. As wolves 
continue to expand into California, models may be refined to better 
estimate habitat suitability and the potential for wolf occupancy.
West Coast States: Prey Availability
    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recently conducted a 
Wildlife Program 2015-2017 Ungulate Assessment to identify ungulate 
populations that are below management objectives or may be negatively 
affected by predators (WDFW 2016, entire). The assessment covers white-
tailed deer, mule deer, black-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain elk, 
Roosevelt elk, bighorn sheep, and moose (WDFW 2016, p. 12). Washington 
defines an at-risk ungulate population as one that falls 25 percent 
below its population objective for 2 consecutive years and/or one in 
which the harvest decreases by 25 percent below the 10-year-average 
harvest rate for 2 consecutive years (WDFW 2016, p. 13). Based on 
available information, the 2016 report concludes that no ungulate 
populations in Washington were considered to be at-risk (WDFW 2016, p. 
13).
    In Oregon, 20 percent of Roosevelt elk populations are at or above 
management objectives; however, the populations within the western two-
thirds of Oregon are generally stable (ODFW 2019, p. 66). Rocky 
Mountain elk are above management objectives in 63 percent of 
populations and are considered to be stable or increasing across the 
State (ODFW 2019, p. 66). Mule deer and black-tailed deer populations 
peaked in the mid-1900s and have since declined, likely due to human 
development, changes in land use, predation, and disease (ODFW 2019, p. 
66). White-tailed deer populations, including Columbian white-tailed 
deer, are small, but are increasing in distribution and abundance (ODFW 
2019, p. 69). In Oregon, deer are a secondary prey item when elk are 
present (ODFW 2019, pp. 57, 61).
    In California, declines of historical ungulate populations were the 
result of overexploitation by humans dating back to the 19th century 
(CDFW 2016b, p. 147). However, elk distribution and abundance have 
increased due to implementation of harvest regulations, reintroduction 
efforts, and natural expansion (CDFW 2016b, p. 147). Mule deer also 
experienced overexploitation, but were also more likely subject to 
fluctuations in habitat suitability as a result of logging, burning, 
and grazing. Across the West, including California, mule deer 
populations have been declining since the late 1960s due to multiple 
factors including loss of habitat, drought, predation, and competition 
with livestock, but, as noted above, deer are a secondary prey when elk 
are present (CDFW 2016b, p. 147).
Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat
    Models developed to assess habitat suitability and the probability 
of wolf occupancy indicate that Colorado contains adequate habitat to 
support a population of wolves, although the number of wolves the State 
could support is variable.--Based on mule deer and elk biomass, a pack 
size of between 5 and 10 wolves, and a reduction in available winter 
range due to increased snow depths, Bennett (1994, pp. 112, 275-280) 
estimated that the probable wolf population size in Colorado would 
range between 407 and 814 wolves. Carroll et al. (2003, entire) 
examined multiple models to evaluate suitable wolf habitat, occupancy, 
and the probability of wolf persistence given various landscape changes 
and potential increases in human density in the southern Rocky 
Mountains, which included portions of southeast Wyoming, Colorado, and 
northern New Mexico. Using a resource selection function (RSF) model 
developed for wolves in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and 
projecting it to Colorado, Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 541-542) 
identified potential wolf habitat across north-central and northwest 
Colorado and also in the southwestern part of the State. RSF model 
predictions indicate that Colorado could support an estimated 1,305 
wolves with nearly 87 percent of wolves occupying public lands in the 
State. Carroll et al. (2003, entire) also used a dynamic model that 
incorporated population viability analysis to evaluate wolf occupancy 
and persistence based on current conditions as well as potential 
changes resulting from increased road and human densities in the 
future. The dynamic model based on current conditions predicted similar 
distribution and wolf population estimates as the RSF model; however, 
as predicted, as road and human densities increased in Colorado, the 
availability of suitable habitat and the estimated number of wolves 
that habitat could support declined (Carroll et al. 2003, pp. 541-543).
    An evaluation by Switalski et al. (2002, p. 9) indicated that the 
most likely avenues for dispersing wolves to enter Utah from Idaho and 
Wyoming were via the Bear River Range and Flaming Gorge National 
Recreation Area in the northern part of the State. A wolf habitat 
suitability model was developed for Utah to identify areas most likely 
to support wolf occupancy in the State (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 11-
15). The model evaluated five habitat characteristics that included 
estimates of prey abundance, estimates of road density, proximity to 
year-round water sources, elevation, and topography. Although the 
resulting model identified primarily forested and mountainous areas of 
Utah as suitable wolf habitat, an area over 13,900 mi\2\ (36,000 
km\2\), it was highly fragmented as a result of high road densities. 
Nonetheless, six relatively large core areas of contiguous habitat were 
identified that ranged in size from approximately 127 mi\2\ to 2,278 
mi\2\ (330 km\2\ to 5,900 km\2\) (Switalski et al. 2002, p. 13). 
Although these estimates should be considered maximums, it was 
estimated that the six core areas have the potential to support up to 
214 wolves and the entirety of Utah could theoretically support over 
700 wolves (Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 15-16). Without concerted 
efforts to minimize human-caused mortality and with low levels of 
immigration from neighboring populations, wolves recolonizing Utah 
would likely exist in small numbers and increase slowly, which could 
elevate local extinction risk (Switalski et al. 2002, p. 16).
    An analysis similar to that of Carroll et al. (2003, entire) was 
conducted for the entirety of the Western United States and indicated 
that high-quality wolf habitat exists in Colorado and Utah, but that 
wolves recolonizing Colorado and Oregon would be most vulnerable to 
landscape changes because these areas lack, and are greater distances 
from, large core refugia (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 33-36). The authors 
proposed that habitat improvements, primarily in the form of road 
removal or closures, could mitigate these effects (Carroll et al. 2006, 
p. 36). Switalski et al. (2002, pp. 12-13) and Carroll et al. (2003, p. 
545) also cautioned that model predictions may be inaccurate because 
they did not account for the presence of livestock and the potential 
use of lethal removal to mitigate wolf conflicts, which may affect wolf 
persistence and distribution in some areas of Colorado and Utah.
Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability
    Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages ungulate populations using Herd 
Management Plans which establish population objective minimums and 
maximums for each ungulate herd in the

[[Page 69818]]

State (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019, unpaginated). The Herd 
Management Plans consider both biological and social factors when 
setting herd objective ranges. All of the following information on 
ungulates is from the 2019 Colorado Parks and Wildlife ungulate summary 
report (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019, entire). Similar to other 
western States, mule deer in Colorado have declined due to a multitude 
of factors since the 1970s to a statewide population estimate of 
433,100 animals in 2018, which was well below the minimum statewide 
population objective of 500,450. In 2018, of 54 mule deer herds in the 
State, 23 were below their population objective minimum with the 
western part of the State being the most affected. In contrast, elk 
populations in Colorado are stable with a winter population estimate of 
287,000 elk in 2018. Although 22 of 42 elk herds are above the maximum 
population objective, the ratio of calves per 100 cows (a measure of 
overall herd fitness) has been on the decline in some southwestern herd 
units, and research has been initiated to determine potential causes. 
Moose are not native to Colorado, so to create hunting and wildlife 
viewing opportunities, Colorado Parks and Wildlife transplanted moose 
to the State beginning in 1978 and has since transplanted moose on four 
other occasions through 2010. In 2018, the moose population was 
estimated at 3,200 animals and continues to increase as moose expand 
into new areas of the State. In summary, while deer and elk numbers are 
down from their peak populations in some parts of Colorado, they still 
number in the hundreds of thousands of individuals, and the State is 
actively managing populations to meet objectives. In addition, as of 
the latest estimates, elk numbers exceed their population objectives in 
22 of 42 herds (Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2019, p. 8). Introduced 
moose provide an additional potential food resource for wolves in some 
parts of the State.
    The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources manages ungulate 
populations by establishing population objectives at the herd unit 
level and directing management efforts, primarily through public 
harvest, to achieve population goals for each herd unit. The summation 
of herd unit objectives can be considered a statewide objective for the 
species. Since a population decline during the winter of 1992-1993, 
mule deer populations in Utah have shown a generally increasing overall 
trend with a 2018 estimate of 372,500 animals in the State, an average 
increase of 1.6 percent annually (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 
2019, unpaginated). This estimate is 82 percent of the long-term 
statewide objective of 453,100 mule deer. The biggest threats to mule 
deer in Utah are habitat degradation and loss combined with unfavorable 
weather conditions (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2019, 
unpaginated). Elk populations in Utah have increased from an average of 
slightly over 60,000 from 1995 to 2005 to an average estimate of 
slightly over 80,000 between 2012 and 2017 (Bernales et al. 2018, pp. 
104-105). The 2017 statewide elk population estimate was 80,955 elk, 
which is marginally higher than the population objective of 78,215 elk. 
Moose are relatively recent migrants to Utah, first being documented in 
the early 1900s. Since that time, moose have dispersed, or been 
transplanted, to occupy suitable habitats primarily in the north half 
of the State. In Utah, moose are susceptible to habitat limitations 
caused by increasing densities and, as a result, are proactively 
managed at appropriate densities to prevent population declines caused 
by habitat limitations due to high moose densities (Utah Division of 
Wildlife Resources 2017, unpaginated). Moose populations in Utah are 
estimated on a 3-year cycle, and as of 2016, an estimated 2,469 moose 
inhabited the State. Switalski et al. (2002, p. 18) suggested that a 
wolf population of 200 animals would not have a significant effect on 
ungulate populations in Utah; however, although the magnitude of 
effects would be difficult to predict, some local herd units may be 
disproportionately affected by wolves. In summary, deer and elk 
populations in Utah are increasing (Bernales et al. 2018, pp. 104-105; 
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2019, unpaginated), and habitat 
models estimate that the State is theoretically capable of supporting 
several hundred wolves if wolf-human conflicts can be addressed 
(Switalski et al. 2002, pp. 15-16).
Habitat and Prey Availability Summary
    Sufficient suitable habitat exists in the Lower 48 United States to 
continue to support wolves into the future. Current land-use practices 
throughout the vast majority of the species' current range in the 
United States do not appear to be affecting the viability of wolves. We 
do not anticipate overall habitat changes will occur at a magnitude 
that would affect gray wolves across their range in the lower 48 United 
States, because wolves are broadly distributed in two large 
metapopulations and are able to withstand high levels of mortality due 
to their high reproductive capacity and vagility (the ability of an 
organism to move about freely and migrate) (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; 
Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330). Further, much of the area occupied by gray 
wolves occurs on public land where wolf conservation is a priority and 
conservation plans have been adopted to ensure continued wolf 
persistence (see Federal Lands discussion under Management in the NRM 
DPS and Post-delisting Management) (73 FR 10538, February 27, 2008).
    Prey availability is an important factor in maintaining wolf 
populations. Native ungulates (e.g., deer, elk, and moose) are the 
primary prey within the range of gray wolves in the lower 48 United 
States. Each State within wolf-occupied range manages its wild ungulate 
populations sustainably. States employ an adaptive-management approach 
that adjusts hunter harvest in response to changes in big game 
population numbers and trends when necessary, and predation is one of 
many factors considered when setting seasons. While we are aware of CWD 
as an emerging contagious disease threat to deer and elk, the ultimate 
impact of CWD and its prevalence across the landscape are still largely 
unknown. To address this emerging threat, States have developed robust 
surveillance and response plans for CWD to minimize and mitigate 
impacts.

Disease and Parasites

    Although disease and parasites were not identified as a threat at 
the time of listing, a wide range of diseases and parasites has been 
reported for the gray wolf, and several of them have had temporary 
impacts during the recovery of the species in the lower 48 United 
States (Brand et al. 1995, p. 419; WI DNR 1999, p. 61, Kreeger 2003, 
pp. 202-214; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785-788; Stronen et al. 2011, 
entire). Although some diseases may be destructive to individuals, most 
of them seldom have long-term, population-level effects (Fuller et al. 
2003, pp. 176-178; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). All States that 
presently have wolf populations also have some sort of disease-
monitoring program that may include direct observation of wolves to 
assess potential disease indicators or biological sample collection 
with subsequent analysis at a laboratory. Although Washington has not 
submitted biological samples for analysis, samples have been collected 
and laboratory analysis is planned for the future (Roussin 2018, pers. 
comm.). Also, in the central Rocky Mountain States, Colorado Parks and 
Wildlife adopted the recommendations of the Colorado Wolf Management 
Working

[[Page 69819]]

Group (see Post De-listing Management) to conduct basic monitoring and 
surveillance of wolf health via general assessments of captured wolves, 
necropsies performed on dead wolves, and analysis of biological samples 
(Colorado Wolf Management Working Group 2004, p. 37). The Utah Division 
of Wildlife Resources developed guidelines to ensure the proper 
collection and preservation of biological samples, which can be used to 
assess overall wolf health, disease, and parasite loads (UDWR 2020, 
pers comm).
    Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 
familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), coyotes, skunks (Mephitis 
mephitis), and raccoons (Procyon lotor). Canine parvovirus 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, pp. 270-272; ODFW 2014, p. 7), 
and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost universal. Nearly 100 
percent of the wolves handled in Montana (Atkinson 2006, pp. 3-4), 
Yellowstone National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18), Minnesota 
(Mech and Goyal 1993, p. 331), and Oregon (ODFW 2017, p. 8) had blood 
antibodies indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. Clinical CPV is 
characterized by severe hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting, which leads 
to dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, debility, and shock and may 
eventually lead to death.
    Based on data collected 1973-2004 in northeastern Minnesota, Mech 
et al. (2008, p. 824) concluded that CPV reduced pup survival, 
subsequent dispersal, and the overall rate of population growth of 
wolves in Minnesota (a population near carrying capacity in suitable 
habitat). After the CPV became endemic in the population (around 1979), 
the population developed immunity and was able to withstand severe 
effects from the disease (Mech and Goyal 1993, pp. 331-332). These 
observed effects are consistent with results from studies in smaller, 
isolated populations in Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan (Wydeven 
et al. 1995, entire; Peterson et al. 1998, entire), but indicate that 
CPV also had only a temporary effect in a larger population.
    Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that 
has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and infects canids 
worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease generally infects pups 
when they are only a few months old, so mortality in wild wolf 
populations might be difficult to detect (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-
421). There have been few documented cases of mortality from CDV among 
wild wolves; for example, it has been documented in two littermate pups 
in Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111-112), in two Alaskan yearling wolves 
(Peterson et al. 1984, p. 31), in seven Wisconsin wolves (five adults 
and two pups) (Thomas in litt. 2006; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 
20; Wiedenhoeft et al. 2018, p. 5), and in at least two wolves in 
Michigan (Beyer 2019, pers. comm.). Carbyn (1982, pp. 113-116) 
concluded that CDV was partially responsible for a 50-percent decline 
in the wolf population in Riding Mountain National Park (Manitoba, 
Canada) in the mid-1970s. Studies in Yellowstone National Park have 
shown that CDV outbreaks can contribute to short-term population 
effects through significantly reduced pup survivorship, though these 
effects may be offset by other factors influencing reproductive success 
(Almberg et al. 2009, p. 5; Almberg et al. 2012, p. 2848; Stahler et 
al. 2013, pp. 227-229). Serological evidence indicates that exposure to 
CDV is high among some wolf populations--29 percent in northern 
Wisconsin and 79 percent in central Wisconsin from 2002 to 2003 
(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. 23-24, table 7) and 2004 (Wydeven 
and Wiedenhoeft 2004, pp. 23-24, table 7), and similar levels in 
Yellowstone National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). Exposure to 
CDV was first documented in Oregon in 2016 (n=3; ODFW 2017, p. 8), but 
no mortalities or clinical signs of the disease were observed. The 
continued strong recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere in North 
American wolf populations, however, indicates that while distemper may 
cause population-level decreases in the short term, it is not likely a 
significant cause of mortality over longer periods (Almberg et al. 
2009, p. 9; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421).
    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. A study of wolves in Wisconsin found exposure to 
Lyme disease in 65.6 percent of individuals, with exposure increasing 
during the period from 1985 to 2011 (Jara et al. 2016, pp. 5-9). 
Clinical symptoms have not been reported in wolves, but based on 
impacts seen in other mammals, individuals can likely experience 
debilitating conditions, perhaps contributing to their mortality; 
however, Lyme disease is not considered to be a significant factor 
affecting wolf populations (Kreeger 2003, p. 212; Jara et al. 2016, p. 
13).
    Mange has been detected in wolves throughout North America (Brand 
et al. 1995, pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Mange mites 
(Sarcoptes scabeii) infest the skin of the host, causing irritation due 
to feeding and burrowing activities. This causes intense itching that 
results in scratching and hair loss. Mortality may occur due to 
exposure, primarily in cold weather, emaciation, or secondary 
infections (Almberg et al. 2012, pp. 2842, 2848; Knowles et al. 2017, 
entire; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Mange mites are spread from an 
infected individual through direct contact with others or through the 
use of common areas. 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 in some areas (Kreeger 2003, p. 208), but not 
others (Wydeven et al. 2009b, pp. 96-97). In Montana and Wyoming, the 
percentage of packs with mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent 
annually from 2003 to 2008 (Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331-332; Atkinson 
2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). In packs with the most 
severe infestations, pup survival appeared low, and some adults died 
(Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331-332); however, evidence indicates 
infestations do not normally become chronic because wolves often 
naturally overcome them.
    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 infestation 
levels, 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 may 
be possible. Dog-biting lice were confirmed on two wolves in Montana in 
2005, on a wolf in south-central Idaho in early 2006 (USFWS et al. 
2006, p. 15; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2010, pp. 331-332), 
and in 4 percent of Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005 (Paul in 
litt. 2005), but their infestations were not severe. Dog-biting lice

[[Page 69820]]

infestations are not expected to have a significant impact even at a 
local scale.
    Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine heartworm, 
blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia, 
brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, 
canine hepatitis, canine adenovirus-1, canine herpesvirus, 
anaplasmosis, ehrlichiosis, echinococcus granulosus, and oral 
papillomatosis have been documented in wild wolves, but their impacts 
on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be significant 
(Almberg et al. 2009, p. 4; Almberg et al. 2012, pp. 2847, 2849; Brand 
et al. 1995, pp. 419-429; Bryan et al. 2012, pp. 785-788; Hassett in 
litt. 2003; Jara et al. 2016, p. 13; Johnson 1995, pp. 431, 436-438; 
Knowles et al. 2017, entire; Mech and Kurtz 1999, pp. 305-306; Thomas 
in litt. 1998, Thomas in litt. 2006, WI DNR 1999, p. 61; Foreyt et al. 
2009, p. 1208; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214).

Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding

    There were no genetic concerns for the gray wolf identified at the 
time of listing. Improved genetic techniques since then have vastly 
improved our understanding of population genetics and the potential 
consequences of range and population contraction and expansion. For 
example, research has firmly established that genetic issues such as 
inbreeding depression can be a significant concern in small wild 
populations, with potentially serious implications for population 
viability (Frankham 2010, entire). Inbreeding is caused by the mating 
of close relatives and can result in increased prevalence or expression 
of deleterious mutations within a population, leading to various 
negative effects on fitness, referred to as inbreeding depression (see 
Robinson et al. 2019, entire, and references therein).
    Inbreeding depression, as evidenced by physiological anomalies or 
other effects on fitness, has been documented in wild wolf populations, 
including Scandinavian wolves (Vila et al. 2003, entire; Raikkonen et 
al. 2013, entire; Akesson et al. 2016, p. 4746), Mexican wolves (Asa et 
al. 2007, entire; Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; Robinson et al. 
2019, entire), and Isle Royale wolves (Hedrick et al. 2019, entire; 
Robinson et al. 2019, entire). In each of these cases, the population 
size or number of founders was very small, and the population was 
completely or nearly completely isolated over several generations.
    Although inbreeding depression has been documented in wolves, there 
are signs that wolves are adept at avoiding inbreeding when possible 
(vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire). Reintroduced and naturally expanding 
populations in the northern Rocky Mountains showed low levels of 
inbreeding even in the Yellowstone and Idaho populations, which were 
begun with a limited number of founders (vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire; 
vonHoldt et al. 2010, pp. 4416-4417). Moreover, in both the 
Scandinavian wolves and Mexican wolves, many of the effects of 
inbreeding depression were mitigated by relatively small influxes of 
additional wolves (i.e., new genetic material) into the population 
(Vila et al. 2003, entire; Fredrickson et al. 2007, entire; vonHoldt et 
al. 2008, p. 262; vonHoldt et al. 2010, p. 4421; Akesson et al. 2016, 
entire; Wayne and Hedrick 2011, entire). Harding et al. (2016, p. 154), 
in an examination of recovery goals for Mexican wolves, provides a list 
of wolf populations that experienced notably low numbers but later 
recovered and are increasing or stable.
    Aside from the unique situation on Isle Royale, where infrequent 
migrations to the island appear to have been too limited to reduce the 
effects of inbreeding depression (Hedrick et al. 2014, entire; Hedrick 
et al. 2019, entire), we are not aware of any instances of inbreeding 
or inbreeding depression within the lower 48 United States, though 
there are indications that inbreeding may have occurred during the 
course of recovery in the Great Lakes area (Fain et al. 2010, p. 1760). 
Although Leonard et al. (2005, entire) examined historical genetic 
diversity and concluded that a significant amount has likely been lost, 
current populations have high levels of genetic diversity in the Great 
Lakes area (Koblm[uuml]ller 2009, p. 2322; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758; 
Gomez-Sanchez et al. 2018, p. 3602), including an analysis of samples 
from Minnesota that indicated large effective population sizes \4\ over 
a long period (Robinson et al. 2019. p. 2). In fact, likely due to 
connectivity with wolves in Canada, there is no evidence of a 
population bottleneck in Minnesota. Instead, the range reduction and 
subsequent expansion seems to more accurately resemble contraction of a 
larger range rather than an isolated bottleneck (Koblm[uuml]ller et al. 
2009, p. 2322; Rick et al. 2017, p. 1101). Similarly, wolves in 
Washington, Oregon, and California can trace most of their ancestry to 
populations in the northern Rocky Mountains that have been shown to 
have high genetic diversity, low levels of inbreeding, and connectivity 
with the large Canadian wolf population to the north (Forbes and Boyd 
1996, entire; Gomez-Sanchez et al. 2018, p. 3602; vonHoldt et al. 2008, 
entire; vonHoldt et al. 2010, entire).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Effective population size is the size of an idealized, 
randomly mating population that experiences genetic drift, or the 
random loss of alleles, at the same rate as the population of 
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important factor for maintaining genetic diversity can be 
connectivity or effective dispersal between populations or 
subpopulations (Raikonnen et al. 2013, entire; Wayne and Hedrick 2011, 
entire). As noted in the final delisting rule for the northern Rocky 
Mountains, connectivity was an important factor in ensuring the long-
term viability of that metapopulation (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). 
Similarly, the potential lack of connectivity between Wyoming's 
population and the rest of the metapopulation in the northern Rocky 
Mountains was noted as a concern in the subsequent delisting rule for 
Wyoming (77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). To address those concerns, 
Idaho and Montana each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 
the Service that committed to monitoring and managing the population to 
ensure sufficient connectivity (Groen et al. 2008, entire). Wyoming 
signed a nearly identical MOU in 2012, prior to the final rule 
delisting wolves there (Talbott and Guertin 2012, entire). With each 
MOU, a range of management options, up to and including translocation 
of individual wolves, was made available to address any noted 
deficiencies in effective dispersal, thereby mitigating concerns of 
negative genetic effects due to delisting those wolves. Such measures 
have not been necessary since the MOUs were signed, and are unlikely to 
become necessary in the future, as natural dispersal within the 
metapopulation has been and is expected to remain sufficient.
    Connectivity has been investigated in other parts of the species' 
range as well. In the Great Lakes area, dispersal and interbreeding 
appears to be occurring both among Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 
and also between these States and the population in Canada (Fain et al. 
2010, p. 1758; Wheeldon et al. 2010, p. 4438). In the West Coast 
States, wolves have dispersed from Montana, Idaho, and the Greater 
Yellowstone area to form packs in Oregon and Washington (Jimenez et al. 
2017, entire; Hendricks et al. 2018, entire), while individuals from 
Oregon and Washington have dispersed both within and across their 
respective State borders as well as to California, other northern Rocky 
Mountains States, and Canada to join existing packs or to find a mate 
and

[[Page 69821]]

form a new pack (USFWS 2020, pp. 16-18). In addition, the presence of 
admixed coastal/northern Rocky Mountain individuals in Washington 
indicates that coastal wolves or their admixed progeny have dispersed 
successfully from Canada into the State (Hendricks et al. 2018, entire) 
and are living in Washington's interior.
    Delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States may have the 
effect of reducing connectivity among the more central areas of the 
large metapopulations in the Great Lakes area or the Western United 
States and more peripheral areas in those or other States. Such a 
reduction might be caused by increased mortality of dispersing 
individuals (Smith et al. 2010, p. 627) or of individuals in 
established packs on the periphery of occupied range (O'Neil et al. 
2017b, p. 9525; Stenglein et al. 2018, pp. 104-106; Mech et al. 2019, 
pp. 62-63) and could result in decreased genetic diversity and 
increased likelihood of inbreeding in those peripheral packs if they 
become isolated. Rick et al. (2017, entire) examined genetic diversity 
and structuring in Minnesota prior and then following a year of harvest 
during the period when wolves were delisted in the State. The results 
showed no difference in genetic diversity, a slight increase in large-
scale genetic structuring, and some differences in the geography of 
effective dispersal. Because the study contained only 2 years of data, 
however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about long-term effects or 
to discern the cause or causes of the observed differences.
    We acknowledge that some level of genetic effects to wolf 
populations is likely to occur following delisting and may include 
changes in genetic diversity or population structuring (Allendorf et 
al. 2008, entire). These changes, however, are not likely to be of such 
a magnitude that they pose a significant threat to the species. 
Available evidence indicates that continued dispersal, even at a lower 
rate, within and among areas of the lower 48 United States should be 
adequate to maintain sufficient genetic diversity for continued 
viability. Increased effects to smaller, peripheral populations are 
certainly possible as wolves continue to disperse and recolonize areas 
within their historical range, but evidence of inbreeding avoidance 
(vonHoldt et al. 2008, entire) and the demonstrated benefits of even 
relatively low numbers of effective dispersers (Wayne and Hedrick 2011, 
entire; Vila et al. 2003, entire; Akesson et al. 2016, entire) indicate 
that instances of inbreeding depression would not likely be widespread 
or impact the larger population. The maintenance of genetic diversity 
could also be enhanced in core populations due to moderate increases in 
human-caused mortality that results in more social openings being 
created and filled by dispersing individuals. Moreover, the genetic 
isolation of peripheral packs or individual wolves is not likely to 
impact the larger metapopulations from which those individuals 
originated. Management plans in place in States in the Great Lakes 
area, for example, will likely ensure that connectivity within those 
areas remains sufficiently high to avoid potential genetic impacts.

Effects of Climate Change

    Effects of climate change were not identified as threats at the 
time of listing. There is research indicating that climate change could 
affect gray wolves through impacts to prey species (Hendricks et al. 
2018, unpaginated; Weiskopf et al. 2019, entire) or increased exposure 
to diseases such as Lyme disease (Jara et al. 2016, p. 13), but the 
best available information does not indicate that climate change is 
causing negative effects to the viability of the gray wolf in the lower 
48 United States, or that it is likely to do so in the future.
    Vulnerability to climate change is often gauged by factors such as 
physiological tolerance, habitat specificity, and adaptive capacity, 
which includes dispersal capability (Dawson et al. 2011, p. 53). 
Throughout their circumpolar distribution, gray wolves persist in a 
variety of ecosystems with temperatures ranging from -70 [deg]F to 120 
[deg]F (-57 [deg]C to 49 [deg]C) (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. xv). Gray 
wolves are highly adaptable animals and are efficient at exploiting 
food resources available to them. Although Weiskopf et al. (2019, 
entire) noted that the ungulate community in the Great Lakes area may 
shift as moose decline and deer increase due to climate change, there 
is no indication that prey would become limiting for wolves. In 
assessing climate change impacts to wildlife in the northern Rocky 
Mountains, McKelvey and Buotte (2018, p. 360) note that wolves, because 
of their generalist, adaptable life history, are not likely to be 
strongly affected by climate. Despite the likelihood of wolves being 
exposed to the effects of climate change, due to their life history and 
plasticity or adaptability, we do not expect that gray wolves will be 
negatively impacted. For a full discussion of potential impacts of 
climate change on wolves, see the final delisting rule for the gray 
wolf in Wyoming (77 FR 55597-55598, September 10, 2012). The best 
available information does not indicate that any research conducted 
since the 2012 rule significantly changes that analysis.

Cumulative Effects

    When threats occur together, one may exacerbate the effects of 
another, causing effects not accounted for when threats are analyzed 
individually. Many of the threats to the gray wolf in the lower 48 
United States and gray wolf habitat discussed above are interrelated 
and could be synergistic, and thus may cumulatively affect the gray 
wolf in the lower 48 United States beyond the extent of each individual 
threat. For example, a decline in available wild prey could cause 
wolves to prey on more livestock, resulting in a potential increase in 
human-caused mortality. However, although the types, magnitude, or 
extent of cumulative impacts are difficult to predict, the best 
available information does not demonstrate that cumulative effects are 
occurring at a level sufficient to negatively affect gray wolf 
populations within the lower 48 United States. We anticipate that the 
threats described above will be sufficiently addressed through ongoing 
management measures that are expected to continue post-delisting and 
into the future. The best scientific and commercial data available 
indicate that the vast majority of gray wolves occur within one of two 
widespread, large, and resilient metapopulations and that threat 
factors--either individually or cumulatively--are not currently 
resulting, nor are they anticipated to result, in reductions in gray 
wolf numbers or habitat at a level sufficient to significantly affect 
gray wolf populations within the lower 48 United States.

Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and Federal Wolf Management

    In addition to considering threats to the species, our analysis of 
a species status under section 4 of the Act must also account for those 
efforts made by States, Tribes, or others to protect the species. 
Evaluating these efforts is particularly important for the gray wolf 
because the primary threat to their viability is unregulated human-
caused mortality. States, Tribes, and Federal land management agencies 
have extensive authorities to regulate human-caused mortality of 
wolves. Below, we evaluate ongoing State, Tribal, and Federal 
management of wolves in the recovered NRM DPS, as well as anticipated 
State, Tribal, and Federal management of wolves that we are delisting 
in this final rule. Due to recent

[[Page 69822]]

information confirming the presence of a group of six wolves in extreme 
northwest Colorado, and their proximity to and potential use of 
habitats within Utah, we include evaluations of the Colorado Wolf 
Management Recommendations and the Utah Wolf Management Plan.

Management in the NRM DPS

    As part of both the 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, 
April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012), the Service determined 
that the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming had laws, regulations, 
and management plans in place that met the requirements of the Act to 
maintain their respective wolf populations within the NRM DPS above 
recovery levels into the foreseeable future. Similarly, Tribal and 
Federal agency plans were also determined to contribute to the recovery 
of the gray wolf in those States. In this section we provide a brief 
summary of past and present management of gray wolves in the NRM States 
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. We also include relevant updates to 
Tribal plans that apply exclusively to the eastern one-third of both 
Washington and Oregon, areas previously delisted due to recovery. Other 
State and Federal management that applies statewide in Washington and 
Oregon is included in the Post-delisting Management section of this 
final rule. Specific information on regulated harvest and other sources 
of human-caused mortality are described in the Human-Caused Mortality 
section of this final rule.
State Management
    Before the delisting of wolves in the NRM DPS, it was long 
recognized that the future conservation of a delisted wolf population 
in the NRM depended almost solely on State regulation of human-caused 
mortality. In 1999, the Governors of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming agreed 
that regional coordination in wolf management planning among the 
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions was necessary. They signed a 
memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate cooperation among the 
three States to develop adequate State wolf management plans so that 
delisting could proceed. In this agreement, which was renewed in April 
2002, all three States committed to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs 
and 100 wolves per State.
    In 2009, the Service determined that Idaho and Montana had State 
laws, management plans, and regulations that met the requirements of 
the Act to maintain their respective wolf populations within the NRM 
DPS above recovery levels into the foreseeable future (74 FR 15123, 
April 2, 2009). A similar determination was made for Wyoming in 2012 
(77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). The three States agreed to manage 
above the recovery level, and to adapt their management strategies and 
adjust allowable rates of human-caused mortality should the population 
be reduced to near recovery levels per their management objectives. 
State management has maintained wolf numbers well above minimal 
recovery levels and, combined with wolves' reproductive and dispersal 
capabilities, has maintained the recovered status of the NRM DPS. The 
State laws and management plans balance the level of wolf mortality, 
primarily human-caused mortality, with the wolf population growth rate 
to achieve desired population objectives. Management by the NRM States 
maintains 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. 
Similarly, State ungulate management plans provide a commitment to 
maintain ungulate populations at densities that will continue to 
support a recovered wolf population, as well as recreational 
opportunities for the public, well into the future.
    Idaho--Wolves in Idaho are managed under the 2002 Idaho Wolf 
Conservation and Management Plan (IWCMP; Idaho Wolf Legislative Wolf 
Oversight Committee 2002, entire). The gray wolf was classified as 
endangered by the State until March 2005, when the Idaho Fish and Game 
Commission (IDFG Commission) reclassified the gray wolf as a big game 
animal (74 FR 15168, April 2, 2009). Hunting and trapping are both 
legal means of taking gray wolves throughout Idaho (IDFG 2017, p. 4). 
The IWCMP states that wolves will be protected against illegal take as 
a big game animal in Idaho (Idaho Wolf Legislative Wolf Oversight 
Committee 2002, p. 19).
    Under the IWCMP, IDFG is the primary manager of wolves, and as 
such, will maintain a minimum of 15 packs of wolves to maintain a 
margin of safety over the Service's minimum recovery target of 10 
breeding pairs and 100 wolves. IDFG is committed to managing wolves as 
a native species in the State to maintain a viable self-sustaining 
population that will not require relisting under the Act. Public 
harvest is used as a management tool when there are 15 or more packs in 
Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with livestock producers or big game 
populations.
    The IDFG manages both ungulates and carnivores, including wolves, 
to maintain viable populations of each. Ungulate harvest focuses on 
maintaining sufficient prey populations to sustain quality hunting and 
healthy, viable wolf and other carnivore populations. In addition, the 
Mule Deer Initiative and the Clearwater Elk Initiative were implemented 
in the mid-2000s to improve populations of both species. These 
improvements provide benefits to carnivores and hunters.
    Idaho's regulatory framework of State laws, wolf management plans, 
and implementing regulations maintains the wolf population well above 
recovery minimums, assuring maintenance of the State's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population well into the 
future.
    Montana--In Montana, statutes and administrative rules categorize 
the gray wolf as a ``Species in Need of Management'' under the Montana 
Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973 (MCA 87-5-101 
to 87-5-123). 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. Illegal human-caused mortality is prosecuted 
under State law and regulations issued by Montana's Fish, Wildlife, and 
Parks (MFWP) Commission. At present, the MFWP Commission evaluates wolf 
hunting regulations every other year to allow for discussion of 
ungulate and wolf seasons at the same Commission meeting (see Human-
Caused Mortality section of this final rule).
    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 (MFWP 2003, entire). The Record of 
Decision (ROD) was amended in 2004, to select the ``Contingency'' 
alternative to allow flexibility while wolves were still federally 
listed and to provide a transition to State management upon Federal 
delisting (MFWP 2004, entire).
    Under the management plan, the wolf population is maintained above 
the recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves by managing for 
at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves. Wolves

[[Page 69823]]

are not deliberately confined to any specific geographic areas of 
Montana, nor is the population size deliberately capped at a specific 
level. However, wolf numbers and distribution are managed adaptively 
based on ecological factors, wolf population status, conflict 
mitigation, and social tolerance. The plan and Administrative Rules 
commit MFWP to implement its management framework in a manner that 
encourages connectivity among resident wolves in Montana as well as 
wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, and Wyoming to maintain 
metapopulation structure in the NRM. Overall, wolf management includes 
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, information 
dissemination, and public outreach.
    The MFWP has and will continue to manage wild ungulates according 
to Commission-approved policy direction and species management plans. 
MFWP strives to manage ungulates in a way that continues to provide for 
recreational hunting opportunities yet maintains sufficient prey to 
support the full suite of large carnivores in the State including a 
recovered wolf population.
    The Montana wolf plan and regulatory framework is designed to 
maintain a recovered wolf population and minimize conflicts with other 
traditional activities in Montana's landscape. Montana continues to 
implement the commitments it has made in its current laws, regulations, 
and wolf plan to provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to assure 
maintenance of the State's numerical and distributional share of a 
recovered NRM wolf population well into the future.
    Wyoming--The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and Wyoming 
Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) manage wolves under the 2011 Wyoming 
Gray Wolf Management Plan (WGFC 2011, entire), as amended in 2012 (WGFC 
2012, entire). Under this plan, wolves in the northwestern portion of 
the State are managed as trophy game animals year-round in the Wolf 
Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA), which encompasses approximately 
15,000 mi\2\ (38,500 km\2\). Wolves are designated as predatory animals 
in the remainder of the State.
    Wolf harvest in the WTGMA is regulated by WGFC Chapter 47 
regulations. Because wolf management in northwest Wyoming falls under 
different Federal, State, and Tribal jurisdictions, the Service agreed 
to allow WGFD to maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 
within the WTGMA. Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and the Wind River 
Indian Reservation combined would maintain at least 5 breeding pairs 
and 50 wolves, so that the totality of Wyoming's wolf population is 
managed at or above 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves (which provides 
the buffer above the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf recovery level). 
Further, Wyoming wolf management regulations commit to the management 
of wolves so that genetic diversity and connectivity issues do not 
threaten the population. To accomplish this, WGFC Chapter 21 
regulations provide for a seasonal expansion of the WTGMA from October 
15 through the end of February to facilitate natural dispersal of 
wolves between Wyoming and Idaho (WGFC 2011, figure 1, pp. 2, 8, 52).
    Wolves that are classified as predators are regulated by the 
Wyoming Department of Agriculture under title 11, chapter 6 of the 
Wyoming Statutes. Under this statute, wolves may be taken year-round by 
any legal means without a license, but any harvest must be reported to 
WGFD within 10 days of take. As we have previously concluded (73 FR 
10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, 
September 10, 2012), wolf packs are unlikely to persist in portions of 
Wyoming where they are designated as predatory animals. However, the 
WTGMA is large enough to support Wyoming's management goals and a 
recovered wolf population.
    To ensure the goal of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 
individuals in the area directly under State management is not 
inadvertently compromised, Wyoming maintains an adequate buffer above 
minimum population objectives. A large portion of Wyoming's wolf 
population exists in areas outside the State's control (e.g., YNP and 
the Wind River Indian Reservation). The wolf populations in YNP and the 
Wind River Indian Reservation further buffer the population above the 
minimum recovery goal, ensuring the State meets the required management 
level of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves.
    The Wyoming wolf plan is used by WGFD and WGFC in setting annual 
hunting quotas and limiting controllable sources of mortality (see 
Human-Caused Mortality section). Wyoming's regulatory framework, 
including the wolf plan, State statutes, and regulations, assures 
maintenance of the State's numerical and distributional share of a 
recovered NRM wolf population well into the future.
Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
    In the NRM DPS, there are approximately 20 Tribes and about 12,719 
mi\2\ (32,942 km\2\) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal land. Of the 
Tribes within the NRM DPS, the Wind River, Blackfeet, Flathead, and The 
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservations have wolf 
management plans. Currently, a small number of wolf packs have their 
entire territories on Tribal lands in the NRM DPS. While Tribal lands 
provide habitat for wolf packs in the NRM, these lands represent a 
small proportion of the overall recovered wolf population in the NRM 
DPS. However, Tribes have various treaty rights, such as wildlife 
harvest, in areas of public land where many wolf packs live. The NRM 
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. The exercise of Tribal treaty rights to harvest 
wolves does not significantly impact the wolf population or reduce it 
below recovery levels due to the small portion of the wolf population 
that could be affected by Tribal harvest or Tribal harvest rights. 
Specific information on regulated harvest and other sources of human-
caused mortality on Tribal lands are described in the Human-Caused 
Mortality section of this final rule. Below we describe past and 
present management of gray wolves on Tribal lands in the NRM States of 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. We also include relevant updates to Tribal 
plans that apply exclusively to the eastern one-third of both 
Washington and Oregon, areas previously delisted due to recovery.
    Wind River Indian Reservation--The Wind River Indian Reservation 
(WRR) typically contains a small number of wolves relative to the 
remainder of Wyoming (approximately 10-20 wolves annually for the past 
10 years). The WRR adopted a wolf management plan in 2007 (Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, 2007, entire) and updated it in 
2008 (Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, 2008, entire). 
Wolves are managed as game animals on the Wind River Indian Reservation 
(Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, pp. 3, 9). The 
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes govern this area and the 
Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department manage wildlife on

[[Page 69824]]

the WRR with assistance from the Service's Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Office in Lander, Wyoming.
    Wyoming claims management authority of non-Indian fee title lands 
and on Bureau of Reclamation lands within the external boundaries of 
the WRR. Thus, wolves are classified as game animals within about 80 
percent of the reservation and as predators on the remaining 20 percent 
(Hnilicka in litt. 2020). To date, predator status has had minimal 
impact on wolf management and abundance on the WRR because these 
inholdings tend to be concentrated on the eastern side of the 
reservation in habitats that are less suitable for wolves (Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 5, figure 1).
    Under the plan, any enrolled member can shoot a wolf in the act of 
attacking livestock or dogs on Tribal land, provided the enrolled 
member supplies evidence of livestock or dogs recently (less than 24 
hours) wounded, harassed, molested, or killed by wolves, and a 
designated agent is able to confirm that the livestock or dogs were 
wounded, harassed, molested, or killed by wolves (Eastern Shoshone and 
Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 8). The plan also allows the Tribal 
government to remove ``wolves of concern'' defined as wolves that 
attack livestock, dogs, or livestock herding and guarding animals once 
in a calendar year or any domestic animal twice in a calendar year 
(Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2008, p. 8).
    As described above, the WRR alone is not considered essential to 
maintaining a recovered wolf population in Wyoming, but through 
cooperative management among the tribes, WGFD, and YNP, the goal is to 
continue to maintain a recovered wolf population into the future.
    Blackfeet Indian Reservation--Wolves on the Blackfeet Indian 
Reservation exist on the Reservation's western boundary, which has a 
high predicted probability of use (MFWP 2019b, p. 8). The Blackfeet 
Tribe Wolf Management Plan was finalized in 2008 (BTBC 2008, entire). 
Wolves on the Blackfeet Reservation are classified as big game animals 
and are managed by Blackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department similar to 
other wildlife species on the reservation (BTBC 2008, p. 4). The plan 
does not specify maximum or minimum population sizes. Rather it is 
driven by wolf behavior and the level of conflict. The goal of the plan 
is to manage wolves on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana to provide 
for their long-term persistence. This is accomplished by minimizing 
wolf-human conflict while incorporating cultural values and beliefs 
(BTBC 2008, p. 3). For example, low levels of conflict with a high wolf 
population will be tolerated without resulting in efforts to reduce the 
wolf population (BTBC 2008, p. 4). Lethal control may be used for 
wolves that repeatedly kill livestock (BTBC 2008, pp. 4-5).
    The objectives of the plan are: (1) Provide training for Tribal 
game wardens and Blackfeet Fish and Wildlife Department personnel; (2) 
incorporate culture and traditions into wolf management; (3) educate 
Blackfeet Reservation residents on wolf biology, ecology, and 
management; (4) investigate and resolve wolf-human conflicts; (5) 
report and record wolf-human conflicts; (6) mitigate losses associated 
with wolf activity; (7) conduct effective monitoring of the wolf plan 
and revise as needed; and (8) collect wolf population status and health 
information (BTBC 2008, pp. 3-4). These objectives appear to be 
consistent with the goal of the plan for long-term persistence of 
wolves on the Blackfeet Reservation.
    Flathead Indian Reservation--The Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes Tribal Wildlife Management Program finalized a wolf management 
plan for the Flathead Indian Reservation in western Montana in 2015 
(CSKT 2015, entire). Wolf activity on the reservation is concentrated 
in the western half and southern boundary (CSKT 2015, p. 7), with at 
least three packs using portions of the reservation. These wolves are 
included in totals reported in Montana's annual reports. The management 
of wolves is coordinated with State and Federal agencies with the goal 
of long-term persistence of wolves in Montana and preventing the need 
for Federal relisting, while minimizing conflicts between wolves and 
humans and adverse impacts to big game (CSKT 2015, p. 8).
    The objectives of the plan are: (1) Include cultural beliefs of 
Tribes into wolf management; (2) develop management prescriptions with 
wolf ecology and behavior in mind; (3) educate residents of the 
reservation on wolf ecology and management; (4) work cooperatively with 
State and Federal agencies to monitor and manage wolf conflicts 
regionally; (5) monitor and manage wolf impacts on ungulates; (6) 
monitor, manage, and minimize wolf-livestock conflicts; and (7) include 
human safety as a potential management concern (CSKT 2015, p. 8)
    Similar to management on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, the 
Flathead Indian Reservation wolf plan does not specify maximum or 
minimum population sizes. Rather it is driven by wolf behavior and the 
level of conflict. For example, low levels of conflict with a high wolf 
population will be tolerated without efforts to reduce the wolf 
population (CSKT 2015, p. 9). Lethal control may be used for wolves 
that threaten human safety or kill livestock or domestic animals (CSKT 
2015, p. 9). However, trapping and hunting of wolves is not part of the 
management plan, but it may be considered by the Tribal Council in the 
future (CSKT 2015, p. 9).
    The Flathead Indian Reservation wolf management plan will be 
reviewed at the end of 5 years of implementation (CSKT 2015, p. 15). We 
are not aware of any updates or revisions to the plan at this time. 
Management of wolves on the Flathead Indian Reservation, in 
coordination with State and Federal agencies, is expected to continue 
to contribute to the long-term persistence of wolves in Montana.
    Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation--The Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation is located in north-central 
Washington. At the end of 2019, the minimum wolf count was 37 wolves in 
five packs on the Colville Reservation (WDFW et al. 2020, p. 3). The 
CCTFWD Gray Wolf Management Plan was finalized in 2017 and guides 
management and conservation of gray wolf populations and their prey on 
the Colville Reservation (CCTFWD 2017, p. 5). The goals of the plan 
include developing a strategy for maintaining viable wolf populations 
while also maintaining healthy ungulate populations to support the 
cultural and subsistence needs of Tribal members and their families 
(CCTFWD 2017, p. 20). The plan also seeks to resolve wolf-livestock 
conflicts early to avoid escalation (CCTFWD 2017, p. 24).
    Under the CCTFWD wolf plan, management actions include: (1) Monitor 
gray wolf populations; (2) monitor ungulate response to gray wolf 
recolonization; (3) educate Tribal members and general public about 
wolves; (4) use population goals to develop an annual harvest 
allocation; (5) investigate, document, provide support to reduce 
resource or property damage; (6) report annual wolf management; (7) 
establish a wildlife parts distribution protocol; (8) coordinate on 
regional wolf management concerns; and (9) review and/or modify Tribal 
Codes to actively manage gray wolves (CCTFWD 2017, pp. 30-32).
    With the subsistence culture of the Colville Tribal members, the 
impacts of

[[Page 69825]]

wolves on ungulate populations are an important aspect of the plan 
(CCTFWD 2017, p. 20). As such, if wolves are determined to be a 
significant source of reduced ungulate population growth, measures will 
be considered to preserve the subsistence culture of Colville Tribal 
Members (CCTFWD 2017, p. 22). Implementation of the CCTFWD gray wolf 
management plan promotes informed decision making to balance the 
benefits wolf recovery and maintenance of existing ungulate populations 
that are important to Colville Tribal members.
Management on Federal Lands
    Federal lands in the NRM States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are 
primarily lands managed by National Park Service, National Wildlife 
Refuge System, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Wolf 
management on these lands is similar to that described previously in 
our 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 
55530, September 10, 2012) and elsewhere in this final rule.
    The National Park Service Organic Act and National Park Service 
policies provide protection following Federal delisting for wolves 
located within park boundaries. Within National Park System units, 
hunting is not allowed unless the authorizing legislation specifically 
provides for hunting. National Wildlife Refuges operate under 
individual Comprehensive Conservation Plans, which guide their 
management. Hunting wolves is not allowed on National Wildlife Refuge 
lands (https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/map/). Wolves occurring in 
National Parks and on National Wildlife Refuges in the NRM States are 
monitored in coordination with the wildlife agencies in those States. 
Some wolves in protected areas, such as National Park Service land or 
the National Wildlife Refuge System, may be vulnerable to hunting and 
other forms of human-caused mortality when they leave these Federal 
land management units. Overall, National Park Service and National 
Refuge Lands manage their lands in such a way to provide sufficient 
habitat for wildlife, including wolves and their prey, and these lands 
will continue to be adequately managed for multiple uses including for 
the benefit of wildlife.
    Federal law indicates land managed by the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land management shall be managed to provide habitat for fish 
and wildlife. Wilderness areas are afforded the highest protections of 
all Forest Service lands. Within Forest Service lands, including 
Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas (which are generally Forest 
Service lands), the Forest Service typically defers to States on 
hunting decisions (16 U.S.C. 480, 528, 551, 1133; 43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). 
The primary exception to this deference is the Forest Service's 
authority to identify areas and periods when hunting is not permitted 
(43 U.S.C. 1732(b)). However, even these decisions must be developed in 
consultation with the States. Thus, most State-authorized hunting 
occurs on State and Federal public lands like National Forests, 
Wilderness Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas. Bureau of Land Management 
lands are managed similarly to Forest Service lands. This final rule 
does not alter the current management on lands under the jurisdiction 
of the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management. The Forest Service 
and Bureau of Land Management have a demonstrated capacity and a proven 
history of providing sufficient habitat for wildlife, including wolves 
and their prey, and these lands will continue to be adequately managed 
for multiple uses including for the benefit of wildlife.
Summary of Management in the NRM DPS
    Past and ongoing State, Tribal, and Federal management has 
provided, and continues to provide, long-term maintenance of the 
recovered NRM wolf population. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming implement 
wolf management in a manner that also encourages connectivity among 
wolf populations (Groen et al. 2008, entire; WGFC 2011, pp. 26-29, 52, 
54; Talbott and Guertin 2012, entire). The coordination and management 
of wolves above population targets by State, Tribal, and Federal 
agencies provides protections against potential unforeseen or 
uncontrollable sources of mortality such that they do not compromise 
the gray wolf's recovered status in the NRM.

Post-Delisting Management

State Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
    During the 2000 legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature 
passed wolf-management provisions addressing wolf protection, taking of 
wolves, and directing the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN 
DNR) to prepare a wolf-management plan. The MN DNR revised a 1999 draft 
wolf-management plan to reflect the legislative action of 2000, and 
completed the Minnesota Wolf Management Plan in early 2001 (MN DNR 
2001, entire). The MN DNR plans to update the Wolf Management Plan in 
the near future, and will create a new advisory committee and use a 
public process to help inform the update.
    The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board approved the Wisconsin Wolf 
Management Plan in October 1999. In 2004 and 2005 the Wisconsin Wolf 
Science Advisory Committee and the Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders group 
reviewed the 1999 Plan, and the Science Advisory Committee subsequently 
developed updates and recommended modifications to the 1999 Plan. The 
updates were completed and received final Natural Resources Board 
approval on November 28, 2006 (WI DNR 2006a, entire).
    In late 1997, the Michigan Wolf Recovery and Management Plan was 
completed and received the necessary State approvals. That plan focused 
on recovery of a small wolf population, rather than long-term 
management of a large wolf population, and addressing the conflicts 
expected to result as a consequence of successful wolf restoration. The 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) revised its original 
wolf plan and created the 2008 Michigan Wolf Management Plan in 
recognition of a shift in its focus from the recovery of an endangered 
species to the management of wolf-human conflicts. The 2008 plan 
addressed the biological and social issues associated with wolf 
management in Michigan at that time. Since then, wolf management in 
Michigan has continued to evolve, and the MI DNR again updated its 
wolf-management plan in 2015 (MI DNR 2015, entire). The 2015 updates 
reflect the biological and social issues associated with the increased 
population size and distribution of wolves in the State, although the 
four principal goals of the 2008 plan remain the same. The complete 
text of the Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf-management plans 
can be found on our website (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The following sections discuss the individual state management 
plans and depredation control that took place while gray wolves were 
listed in the State, as well as expected post-delisting depredation 
control and potential public harvest. Wolves have also been removed for 
health and human safety concerns while they were listed. The number of 
wolves taken for this purpose is few in any given year, however, thus 
it will not be discussed for individual state summaries.
    The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan--The Minnesota Plan is based, in 
part, on the recommendations of a State wolf-management roundtable (MN 
DNR 2001, Appendix V) and on a State wolf-

[[Page 69826]]

management law enacted in 2000 (MN DNR 2001, Appendix I). In 2000, the 
Minnesota legislature passed the Wolf Management Act (Minn. Stat. 
sections 97B.645-48). That statute specifically requires the MN DNR to 
adopt a wolf management plan that includes, among other factors, the 
goal of ensuring the ``long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota.'' It 
requires preparation of a wolf management plan, establishes gray wolf 
zones, prohibits the taking of wolves in violation of Federal law, 
prohibits the harassment of gray wolves, and authorizes the destruction 
of individual wolves threatening human life and posing imminent threats 
to cattle or domestic pets. Finally, the Act establishes a civil 
penalty for the unlawful take, transport, or possession of a wolf in 
violation of Minnesota's game and fish laws. The Wolf Management Act 
and the Minnesota Game and Fish Laws constitute the basis of the 
State's authority to manage wolves. The Plan's stated goal is ``to 
ensure the long-term survival of wolves in Minnesota while addressing 
wolf-human conflicts that inevitably result when wolves and people live 
in the same vicinity'' (MN DNR 2001, p. 2). It establishes a minimum 
goal of 1,600 wolves in the State. Key components of the plan are 
population monitoring and management, management of wolf depredation of 
domestic animals, management of wolf prey, enforcement of laws 
regulating take of wolves, public education, and increased staffing to 
accomplish these actions. Following Federal delisting, MN DNR's 
management of wolves would differ from that which occurred while wolves 
were listed as threatened under the Act. Most of these differences 
relate to two aspects of wolf management: The control of wolves that 
attack or threaten domestic animals and the implementation of a 
regulated wolf harvest season.
    The Minnesota Plan divides the State into two wolf-management 
zones--Zones A and B (see map in MN DNR 2001, Appendix 3). Zone A 
corresponds to Federal Wolf Management Zones 1 through 4 (approximately 
30,000 mi\2\ (77,700 km\2\) in northeastern Minnesota) in the Service's 
Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf, whereas Zone B 
constitutes Zone 5 in that recovery plan (the rest of the State 
(approximately 57,000 mi\2\ (147,600 km\2\)) (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-20 
and appendix III; USFWS 1992, p. 72). Within Zone A, wolves would 
receive strong protection by the State, unless they were involved in 
attacks on domestic animals. The rules governing the take of wolves to 
protect domestic animals in Zone B would be less protective of wolves 
than in Zone A (see Post-delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota, 
below).
    The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources plans to allow wolf 
numbers and distribution to naturally expand, with no maximum 
population goal. If any winter population estimate is below 1,600 
wolves, MN DNR would take actions to ``assure recovery'' to 1,600 
wolves (MN DNR 2001 p. 19). The MN DNR plans to continue to monitor 
wolves in Minnesota to determine whether such intervention is 
necessary. In response to the 2011 delisting of the WGL DPS, in 2013 
the MN DNR increased the frequency of population surveys from every 5 
years to every year. Although the agency is evaluating wolf-monitoring 
methods and optimal frequencies, in the short term it plans to continue 
annual population-size estimates. In addition to these statewide 
population surveys, MN DNR annually reviews data on depredation-
incident frequency and locations provided by Wildlife Services and 
winter track-survey indices (see Erb 2008, entire) to help ascertain 
annual trends in wolf population or range (MN DNR 2001, pp. 18-19).
    Minnesota (MN DNR 2001, pp. 21-24, 27-28) plans to reduce or 
control illegal mortality of wolves through education, increased 
enforcement of the State's wolf laws and regulations, discouraging new 
road access in some areas, and maintaining a depredation-control 
program that includes compensation for livestock losses. The MN DNR 
plans to use a variety of methods to encourage and support education of 
the public about the effects of wolves on livestock, wild ungulate 
populations, and human activities and the history and ecology of wolves 
in the State (MN DNR 2001, pp. 29-30). These are all measures that have 
been in effect for years in Minnesota, although increased enforcement 
of State laws against take of wolves would replace enforcement of the 
Act's take prohibitions. Financial compensation for livestock losses 
has increased to the full market value of the animal, replacing 
previous caps of $400 and $750 per animal (MN DNR 2001, p. 24). We do 
not expect the State's efforts to result in the reduction of illegal 
take of wolves from existing levels, but we anticipate that these 
measures will help prevent a significant increase in illegal mortality 
after Federal delisting.
    Under Minnesota law, the illegal killing of a wolf is a gross 
misdemeanor and is punishable by a maximum fine of $3,000 and 
imprisonment for up to 1 year. The restitution value of an illegally 
killed wolf is $2,000 (MN DNR 2001, p. 29). The MN DNR has designated 
three conservation officers who are stationed in the State's wolf range 
as the lead officers for implementing the wolf-management plan (MN DNR 
2001, pp. 29, 32; Stark in litt. 2018).
    Depredation Control in Minnesota--Although federally protected as a 
threatened species in Minnesota, wolves that attacked domestic animals 
have been killed by designated government employees under the authority 
of a regulation (50 CFR 17.40(d)) under section 4(d) of the Act. 
However, no control of depredating wolves was allowed in Federal Wolf 
Management Zone 1, comprising about 4,500 mi\2\ (7,200 km\2\) in 
extreme northeastern Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 72). In Federal Wolf 
Management Zones 2 through 5, employees or agents of the Service 
(including USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services) have taken wolves in response 
to depredations of domestic animals within one-half mile (0.8 km) of 
the depredation site. Young-of-the-year (young produced in one 
reproductive year) captured on or before August 1 must be released. The 
regulations that allow for this take (50 CFR 17.40(d)(2)(i)(C)) do not 
specify a maximum duration for depredation control, but, per State 
rules, a site may be worked for no more than 60 days after a verified 
depredation event.
    During the period from 1980-2018, the Federal Minnesota wolf-
depredation-control program euthanized between 20 (in 1982) and 215 (in 
2012) wolves annually. The annual averages and the percentage of the 
statewide wolf population for 5-year periods are presented in table 4.

[[Page 69827]]



 Table 4--Average Annual Number of Wolves Euthanized Under Minnesota Wolf Depredation Control and the Percentage of the Statewide Wolf Population for 5
                                                              Year Periods During 1980-2017
                                                  [Final time period represents 4, rather than 5 years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1980-1984   1985-1989   1990-1994   1995-1999   2000-2004   2005-2009   2010-2014   2015-2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average annual # wolves euthanized......................          30          49         115         152         128         157         194         194
Average annual % of wolf population.....................         2.2         3.0         6.0         6.7         4.2         5.4         7.6         7.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Erb 2008, p. 4; USDA-Wildlife Services 2010, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2011, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2017, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2018,
  p. 2).

    Since 1980, the lowest annual percentage of Minnesota wolves killed 
under this program was 1.5 percent in 1982; the highest percentage was 
9.4 in both 1997 and 2015 (Paul 2004, pp. 2-7; Paul 2006, p. 1; USDA-
Wildlife Services 2017, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2018, p. 2). The 
periods during which the depredation-control program was taking its 
highest percentages of wolves was during the 1990s and the 2010s. 
During the 1990s, when wolves euthanized for depredation control 
averaged around 6 percent of the wolf population, Minnesota wolf 
numbers continued to grow at an average annual rate of nearly 4 percent 
(Paul 2004, pp. 2-7). Wolf populations in the State fluctuated during 
the 2010s, when wolves euthanized for depredation control averaged 
around 7 percent of the wolf population. Although wolf populations in 
the State did decline while wolves were delisted from 2011-2014, other 
management techniques in addition to depredation control were also 
implemented during that time (e.g., regulated harvest), aimed at 
reducing wolf numbers while maintaining a minimum population level. The 
past level of wolf removal for depredation control has not interfered 
with wolf recovery in Minnesota.
    Under a Minnesota statute, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture 
(MDA) compensates livestock owners for full market value of livestock 
that wolves have killed or severely injured. An authorized investigator 
must confirm that wolves were responsible for the depredation. The 
Minnesota statute also requires MDA to periodically update its Best 
Management Practices to incorporate new practices that it finds would 
reduce wolf depredation (Minnesota Statutes 2018, Section 3.737, 
subdivision 5).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota--When wolves in 
Minnesota are delisted, depredation control will be authorized under 
Minnesota State law and conducted in conformance with the Minnesota 
Wolf Management Plan (MN DNR 2001). The Minnesota Plan divides the 
State into Wolf Management Zones A and B, as discussed above. The 
statewide survey conducted during the winter of 2003-2004 estimated 
that there were approximately 2,570 wolves in Zone A and 450 in Zone B 
(Erb in litt. 2005). As discussed in Recovery Criteria for the Eastern 
United States above, the Federal planning goal is 1,251-1,400 wolves 
for Zones 1-4 and there is no minimum population goal for Zone 5 (USFWS 
1992, p. 28).
    In Zone A, wolf depredation control will be limited to situations 
of (1) immediate threat and (2) following verified loss of domestic 
animals. In this zone, if a state-authorized entity verifies that a 
wolf destroyed any livestock, domestic animal, or pet, and if the owner 
requests wolf control be implemented, trained and certified predator 
controllers or Wildlife Services may take wolves (specific number to be 
determined on a case-by-case basis) within a 1-mile (1.6-km) radius of 
the depredation site (depredation-control area) for up to 60 days. In 
contrast, in Zone B, predator controllers or Wildlife Services may take 
wolves (specific number to be determined on a case-by-case basis) for 
up to 214 days after MN DNR opens a depredation-control area, depending 
on the time of year. Under State law, the MN DNR may open a control 
area in Zone B anytime within 5 years of a verified depredation loss 
upon request of the landowner, thereby providing more of a preventative 
approach than is allowed in Zone A, in order to avoid repeat 
depredation incidents (MN DNR 2001, p. 22).
    Depredation control will be allowed throughout Zone A, which 
includes an area (Federal Wolf Management Zone 1) where such control 
has not been permitted under the Act's protection. Depredation by 
wolves in Zone 1, however, has been limited to two to four reported 
incidents per year, mostly of wolves killing dogs. In 2009, there was 
one probable and one verified depredation of a dog near Ely, Minnesota, 
and in 2010, Wildlife Services confirmed three dogs killed by wolves in 
Zone 1 (USDA-Wildlife Services 2009, p. 3; USDA-Wildlife Services 2010, 
p. 3). There are few livestock in Zone 1; therefore, the number of 
verified future depredation incidents in that Zone is expected to be 
low, resulting in a correspondingly low number of depredating wolves 
being killed there after delisting.
    State law and the Minnesota Plan will also allow for private wolf 
depredation control throughout the State. Any person can shoot or 
destroy a wolf that poses ``an immediate threat'' to livestock, guard 
animals, or domestic animals on lands that he or she owns, leases, or 
occupies. Immediate threat is defined as ``in the act of stalking, 
attacking, or killing.'' This does not include trapping because traps 
cannot be placed in a manner such that they trap only wolves in the act 
of stalking, attacking, or killing. Owners of domestic pets can also 
kill wolves posing an immediate threat to pets under their supervision 
on lands that they do not own or lease, although such actions are 
subject to local ordinances, trespass law, and other applicable 
restrictions. To protect their domestic animals in Zone B, individuals 
do not have to wait for an immediate threat or a depredation incident 
in order to take wolves. At any time in Zone B, persons who own, lease, 
or manage lands may shoot wolves on those lands to protect livestock, 
domestic animals, or pets. They may also employ a predator controller 
or request assistance from Wildlife Services to trap a wolf on their 
land or within 1 mile (1.6 km) of their land (with permission of the 
landowner) to protect their livestock, domestic animals, or pets (MN 
DNR 2001, pp. 23-24). The MN DNR will investigate any private taking of 
wolves in Zone A (MN DNR 2001, p. 23). The Minnesota Plan will also 
allow persons to harass wolves anywhere in the State within 500 yards 
of ``people, buildings, dogs, livestock, or other domestic pets or 
animals.'' Harassment may not include physical injury to a wolf.
    As discussed above, landowners or lessees will be allowed to 
respond to situations of immediate threat by shooting wolves in the act 
of stalking,

[[Page 69828]]

attacking, or killing livestock or other domestic animals in Zone A. We 
conclude that this action is not likely to result in the killing of 
many additional wolves, as opportunities to shoot wolves ``in the act'' 
will likely be few and difficult to successfully accomplish, a 
conclusion shared by a highly experienced wolf-depredation agent (Paul 
in litt. 2006, p. 5).
    State law and the Minnesota Plan will provide broad authority to 
landowners and land managers to shoot wolves at any time to protect 
their livestock, pets, or other domestic animals on land owned, leased, 
or managed by the individual in Zone B (as described above). Such 
takings can occur in the absence of wolf attacks on the domestic 
animals. Thus, the estimated 450 wolves in Zone B could be subject to 
substantial reduction in numbers. At the extreme, wolves could be 
eliminated from Zone B, but this is highly unlikely--the Minnesota Plan 
states that ``Although depredation procedures will likely result in a 
larger number of wolves killed, as compared to previous ESA management, 
they will not result in the elimination of wolves from Zone B.'' (MN 
DNR 2001, pp. 22-23). While wolves were under State management in 2007-
2008 and in 2011-2014, landowners in Zone B shot six and eight wolves 
under this authority, respectively. Fourteen additional wolves were 
trapped and euthanized in Zone B by State-certified predator 
controllers and Wildlife Services, 1 in 2009, and 13 in 2013 (Stark in 
litt. 2009; Stark in litt. 2018).
    The limitation of this broad take authority to Zone B is fully 
consistent with the advice in the Revised Recovery Plan that wolves 
should be restored to the rest of Minnesota but not to Zone B (Federal 
Zone 5) (USFWS 1992, p. 20). The Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern 
Timber Wolf envisioned that the Minnesota numerical planning goal would 
be achieved solely in Zone A (Federal Zones 1-4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), 
and that has occurred. Wolves outside of Zone A are not necessary to 
the establishment and long-term viability of a self-sustaining wolf 
population in the State, and, therefore, there is no need to establish 
or maintain a wolf population in Zone B. Accordingly, there is no need 
to maintain significant protection for wolves in Zone B in order to 
maintain a Minnesota wolf population that continues to satisfy the 
Federal recovery criteria after Federal delisting.
    This expansion of depredation-control activities would not threaten 
the continued survival of wolves in the State or the long-term 
viability of the wolf population in Zone A, the majority of wolf range 
in Minnesota. Significant changes in wolf depredation control under 
State management will primarily be restricted to Zone B, which is 
outside of the area necessary for wolf recovery (USFWS 1992, pp. 20, 
28). Furthermore, wolves are highly likely to persist in Zone B despite 
the likely increased take there. With respect to Zone A, the Eastern 
Timber Wolf Recovery Team concluded that the changes in wolf management 
would be ``minor'' and would not likely result in ``significant change 
in overall wolf numbers.'' They found that, despite an expansion of the 
individual depredation-control areas, depredation control would remain 
``very localized'' in Zone A. The requirement that such depredation-
control activities be conducted only in response to verified wolf 
depredation in Zone A played a key role in the team's evaluation 
(Peterson in litt. 2001). While wolves were under State management in 
2007 and 2008, the number of wolves killed for depredation control (133 
wolves in 2007 and 143 wolves in 2008) remained consistent with those 
killed under the special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act while 
wolves were federally listed (105 in 2004; 134 in 2005; and 122 in 
2006). The number of wolves killed for depredation control while wolves 
were under State management for the second time (2011-2014) was 
slightly higher (203 wolves in 2011; 262 in 2012; 114 in 2013; and 197 
in 2014) than during 2007 and 2008, but was still consistent with those 
killed under section 4(d) in the surrounding years (192 wolves in 2010 
and 213 in 2015).
    Minnesota will continue to monitor wolf populations throughout the 
State and will also monitor all depredation-control activities in Zone 
A (MN DNR 2001, p. 18). We expect that these and other activities 
contained in their plan will be effective in meeting their population 
goal of a minimum statewide winter population of 1,600 wolves, well 
above the planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves that the Revised 
Recovery Plan identifies as sufficient to ensure the wolf's continued 
survival in Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 28).
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota--The Minnesota 
Department of Natural Resources will consider wolf population-
management measures, including public hunting and trapping seasons and 
other methods, when wolves are federally delisted. In 2011, the 
Minnesota Legislature authorized the MN DNR to implement a wolf season 
following the Federal delisting and classified wolves as small game in 
State statute (Minnesota Statutes 2018 97B.645 Subd. 9). Following 
Federal delisting, the 2012 Legislature established wolf hunting and 
trapping licenses, clarified the authority for the MN DNR to implement 
a wolf season, and required the start of the season to be no later than 
the start of firearms deer season each year. Three regulated harvest 
seasons (in 2012, 2013, and 2014) were subsequently implemented in the 
State while wolves were federally delisted. The harvest was divided 
into three segments: An early hunting season that coincided with the 
firearms deer season, a late hunting season, and a concurrent late 
trapping season. In 2012, the MN DNR established a total target harvest 
of 400 wolves (the close of the harvest season is to be initiated when 
that target is met) (Stark and Erb 2013, pp. 1-2). During that first 
regulated season, 413 wolves were harvested. Based on the results of 
the 2012 harvest season, the MN DNR adjusted the target to 220 wolves 
for 2013; that year 238 wolves were harvested. The 2014 target harvest 
was 250 wolves and 272 were harvested.
    The Minnesota management plan requires that population-management 
measures be implemented in such a way to maintain a statewide late-
winter wolf population of at least 1,600 animals (MN DNR 2001, pp. 19-
20), well above the planning goal of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the 
State in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, p. 28). Therefore, we 
expect the management measures implemented under that requirement will 
ensure the wolf's continued survival in Minnesota.
    The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan--The Wisconsin Plan allows for 
differing levels of protection and management within four separate 
management zones (see WI DNR 2006a, figure 8). The Northern Forest Zone 
(Zone 1) and the Central Forest Zone (Zone 2) contain most of the 
State's wolf population, with approximately 6 percent of the Wisconsin 
wolves in Zones 3 and 4 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2009, table 1). Zones 
1 and 2 contain all the larger unfragmented areas of suitable habitat, 
so we anticipate that most of the State's wolf packs will continue to 
inhabit those parts of Wisconsin. At the time the 1999 Wisconsin Plan 
was completed, it recommended immediate reclassification from State-
endangered to State-threatened status, because Wisconsin's wolf 
population had already exceeded its reclassification criterion of 80 
wolves for 3 years; thus, State reclassification occurred that same 
year.
    The Wisconsin Plan contains a management goal of 350 wolves outside

[[Page 69829]]

of Native American reservations, and specifies that the species should 
be delisted by the State once the population reaches 250 animals 
outside of reservations. The species was proposed for State delisting 
in late 2003, and the State delisting process was completed in 2004. 
Upon State delisting, the species was classified as a ``protected 
nongame species,'' a designation that continues State prohibitions on 
sport hunting and trapping of the species (Wydeven and Jurewicz 2005, 
p. 1; WI DNR 2006b, p. 71). The Wisconsin Plan includes criteria for 
when State relisting to threatened (a decline to fewer than 250 wolves 
for 3 years) or endangered status (a decline to fewer than 80 wolves 
for 1 year) should be considered. The Wisconsin Plan will be reviewed 
annually by the Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee and will be reviewed 
by the public every 5 years.
    The Wisconsin Plan was updated between 2004 and 2006 to reflect 
current wolf numbers, additional knowledge, and issues that have arisen 
since its 1999 completion. This update was not a major revision; 
rather, it included text changes, revisions to two appendices, and the 
addition of a new appendix to the 1999 plan. Several components of the 
plan that are key to our delisting evaluation were not changed. The 
State wolf-management goal of 350 animals and the boundaries of the 
four wolf-management zones remain the same as in the 1999 Plan. The 
updated 2006 Plan continues to recommend access management on public 
lands and the protection of active den sites. Protection of pack-
rendezvous sites, however, is no longer considered necessary in areas 
where wolves have become well established, due to the transient nature 
of these sites and the larger wolf population. The updated Plan states 
that rendezvous sites may need protection in areas where wolf 
colonization is still under way or where pup survival is extremely 
poor, such as in northeastern Wisconsin (WI DNR 2006a, p. 17). The 
guidelines for the wolf depredation-control program (see Post-delisting 
Depredation Control in Wisconsin) did not undergo significant 
alteration during the update process. The only substantive change to 
depredation-control practices is to expand the area of depredation-
control trapping in Zones 1 and 2 to 1 mi (1.6 km) outward from the 
depredation site, replacing the previous 0.5-mi (0.8-km) radius 
trapping zone (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 3-4).
    An important component of the Wisconsin Plan is the annual 
monitoring of wolf populations by radio collars and winter track 
surveys in order to provide comparable annual data to assess population 
size and growth for at least 5 years after Federal delisting. The 
Wisconsin Plan also includes a hierarchical approach to wolf health 
monitoring that is predicated on the species' conservation status. 
Following Federal delisting, the Wisconsin DNR will assume 
responsibility for all health monitoring, which will include 
examination of all dead wolves found, necropsy of suspicious deaths to 
identify the mortality agent responsible, and health monitoring of wild 
wolves captured for research purposes in coordination with the 
Wisconsin DNR Wildlife Health Team (WI DNR 2006a, p. 13). The 2006 
update to the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan did not change the WI 
DNR's commitment to annual wolf population monitoring, and ensures 
accurate and comparable data (WI DNR 1999, pp. 19-20).
    Cooperative habitat management will be promoted with public and 
private landowners to maintain existing road densities in Zones 1 and 
2, protect wolf dispersal corridors, and manage forests for deer and 
beaver (WI DNR 1999, pp. 4, 22-23; 2006a, pp. 15-17). Furthermore, in 
Zone 1, a year-round prohibition on tree harvest within 330 feet (100 
m) of active den sites and seasonal restrictions to reduce disturbance 
within one-half mile (0.8 km) of dens will be WI DNR policy on public 
lands and will be encouraged on private lands (WI DNR 1999, p. 23; 
2006a, p. 17).
    The 1999 Wisconsin Plan contains, and the 2006 update retains, 
other components that will protect wolves and help maintain a viable 
wolf population in the State following delisting. Namely, the plan: (1) 
Continues the protection of the species as a ``protected wild animal'' 
with penalties similar to those for unlawfully killing large game 
species (fines of up to $1,000-$2,000 and possible loss of hunting 
privileges for 3 years); (2) requires State permits to possess a wolf 
or wolf-dog hybrid; and (3) establishes a restitution value to be 
levied in addition to fines and other penalties for wolves that are 
illegally killed (WI DNR 1999, pp. 21, 27, 30-31; 2006a, pp. 3-4).
    The 2006 update of the Wisconsin Plan continues to emphasize the 
need for public education efforts that focus on living with a recovered 
wolf population, ways to manage wolves and wolf-human conflicts, and 
the ecosystem role of wolves. The Plan implements the State law 
requiring reimbursement for depredation losses (including dogs and 
missing calves), citizen stakeholder involvement in the wolf-management 
program, and coordination with the Tribes in wolf management and 
investigation of illegal killings (WI DNR 1999, pp. 24, 28-29; 2006a, 
pp. 22-23).
    Depredation Control in Wisconsin--Lethal depredation control has 
not been authorized in Wisconsin (due to the listed status of wolves 
there as endangered) except for several years when such control was 
authorized under a permit from the Service or while wolves were 
delisted under previous actions. The rapidly expanding Wisconsin wolf 
population has resulted in an increased need for depredation control, 
however. From 1979 through 1989, there were only five cases (an average 
of 0.4 per year) of verified wolf depredations in Wisconsin, but the 
number of incidents has steadily increased over the subsequent decades. 
During the 1990s there were an average of approximately 4 incidents per 
year, increasing to an average of approximately 38 per year during the 
2000s and to an average of approximately 69 per year since 2010 (WI DNR 
data files and summary of wolf survey and depredation reports).
    A significant portion of depredation incidents in Wisconsin involve 
attacks on dogs. In most cases, these have been hunting dogs that were 
being used for, or being trained for, hunting bears, bobcats, coyotes, 
and snowshoe hare (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 285-286). It is believed that 
the dogs entered the territory of a wolf pack and may have been close 
to a den, rendezvous site, or feeding location, thus triggering an 
attack by wolves defending their territory or pups. The frequency of 
attacks on hunting dogs has increased as the State's wolf population 
has grown. Of the 206 dogs killed by wolves during the 25 years from 
1986-2010, more than 80 percent occurred during the period from 2001-
2010, with an average of 17 dogs killed annually during that 10-year 
period (WI DNR files). Data on depredations from 2013 to 2017 show a 
continued increase in wolf attacks on dogs, with an average of 23 dogs 
killed annually (with a high of 41 dogs in 2016). While the WI DNR 
compensates dog owners for mortalities and injuries to their dogs, the 
DNR takes no action against the depredating pack unless the attack was 
on a dog that was leashed, confined, or under the owner's control on 
the owner's land. Instead, the WI DNR issues press releases to warn 
bear hunters and bear-dog trainers of the areas where wolf packs have 
been attacking bear dogs (WI DNR 2008, p. 5) and provides maps and 
advice to hunters on the WI DNR website (see

[[Page 69830]]

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/dogdeps.html).
    During the first periods that wolves were federally delisted in 
Wisconsin (from March 2007 through September 2008 and from April 
through early July 2009), 92 wolves were killed for depredation control 
in the State, including 8 legally shot by private landowners (Wydeven 
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, p. 8; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 6; Wydeven et al. 
2010, p. 13). When wolves were again delisted from January 2012 through 
December 2014, depredation control resulted in 164 wolves being killed, 
including 38 legally shot by private landowners (McFarland and 
Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; Wiedenhoeft et al, 2014, p. 10; Wiedenhoeft et 
al. 2015, p. 10).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin--Following Federal 
delisting, wolf depredation control in Wisconsin will be carried out 
according to the 2006 Updated Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan (WI DNR 
2006a, pp. 19-23), Guidelines for Conducting Depredation Control on 
Wolves in Wisconsin Following Federal Delisting (WI DNR 2014c). The 
2006 updates did not significantly change the 1999 State Plan, and the 
State wolf management goal of 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations 
(WI DNR 2006a, p. 3) is unchanged. Verification of wolf depredation 
incidents will continue to be conducted by U.S. Department of 
Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife 
Services (hereafter Wildlife Services), working under a Cooperative 
Service Agreement with WI DNR, or at the request of a Tribe, depending 
on the location of the suspected depredation incident. If determined to 
be a confirmed or probable depredation by a wolf or wolves, one or more 
of several options will be implemented to address the depredation 
problem. These options include technical assistance, loss compensation 
to landowners, translocating or euthanizing problem wolves, 
implementation of nonlethal management methods, and private landowner 
or agency control of problem wolves in some circumstances (WI DNR 
2006a, pp. 3-4, 20-22).
    Technical assistance, consisting of advice or recommendations to 
prevent or reduce further wolf conflicts, will be provided. This may 
also include providing the landowner with various forms of noninjurious 
behavior-modification materials, such as flashing lights, noise makers, 
temporary fencing, and fladry (a string of flags used to contain or 
exclude wild animals). Monetary compensation is also provided for all 
verified and probable losses of domestic animals and for a portion of 
documented missing calves (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23). The compensation 
is made at full market value of the animal (up to a limit of $2,500 for 
dogs) and can include veterinarian fees for the treatment of injured 
animals (WI DNR 2006c 12.54). Current Wisconsin law requires the 
continuation of the compensation payment for wolf depredation 
regardless of Federal listing or delisting of the species (WI DNR 2006c 
12.50). In recent years, annual depredation compensation payments have 
ranged from $91,000 (2009) to $256,000 (2017). From 1985 through April 
2018, the WI DNR had spent over $2,378,000 on reimbursement for damage 
caused by wolves in the State, with 60 percent of that total spent over 
the last 10 years (since 2009) (https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/WolfDamagePayments.pdf).
    For depredation incidents in Wisconsin Zones 1 through 3, where all 
wolf packs currently reside, wolves may be trapped by Wildlife Services 
or WI DNR personnel and, if feasible, translocated and released at a 
point distant from the depredation site. If wolves are captured 
adjacent to an Indian reservation or a large block of public land, the 
animals may be translocated locally to that area. Long-distance 
translocating of depredating wolves has become increasingly difficult 
in Wisconsin and is likely to be used infrequently in the future as 
long as the off-reservation wolf population is above 350 animals. In 
most wolf-depredation cases where technical assistance and nonlethal 
methods of behavior modification are judged to be ineffective, wolves 
will be shot or trapped and euthanized by Wildlife Services or WI DNR 
personnel. Trapping and euthanizing will be conducted within a 1-mi 
(1.6-km) radius of the depredation in Zones 1 and 2, and within a 5-mi 
(8-km) radius in Zone 3. There is no distance limitation for 
depredation-control trapping in Zone 4, and all wolves trapped in Zone 
4 will be euthanized, rather than translocated (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-
23).
    Full authority to conduct lethal depredation control has not been 
allowed in Wisconsin (due to the listed status of the wolf as an 
endangered species) except for short periods of time. So we have 
evaluated post-delisting lethal depredation control based upon verified 
depredation incidents over the last decade and the impacts of the 
implementation of similar lethal control of depredating wolves under 50 
CFR 17.40(d) for Minnesota, Sec.  17.40(o) for Wisconsin and Michigan, 
and section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for Wisconsin and Michigan. Under 
those authorities, WI DNR and Wildlife Services trapped and euthanized 
17 wolves in 2003; 24 in 2004; 29 in 2005; 18 in 2006; 37 in 2007; 39 
in 2008; 9 in 2009; and 16 in 2010 (WI DNR 2006a, p. 32; Wydeven et al. 
2009a, pp. 6-7; Wydeven et al. 2010, p. 15; Wydeven et al. 2011, p. 3).
    Although these lethal control authorities applied to WI DNR for 
only a portion of 2003 (April through December) and 2005 (all of 
January for both States; April 1 and April 19, for Wisconsin and 
Michigan respectively, through September 13), they covered nearly all 
of the verified wolf depredations during 2003-2005, and thus provide a 
reasonable measure of annual lethal depredation control. For 2003, 
2004, and 2005, this represents 5.1 percent, 6.4 percent, 7.4 percent 
(including the several possible wolf-dog hybrids), respectively, of the 
late-winter population of Wisconsin wolves during the previous winter. 
This level of lethal depredation control was followed by a wolf 
population increase of 11 percent from 2003 to 2004, 17 percent from 
2004 to 2005, and 7 percent from 2005 to 2006 (Wydeven and Jurewicz 
2005, p. 5; Wydeven et al. 2006, p. 10). Limited lethal-control 
authority was granted to WI DNR for 3.5 months in 2006 by a section 10 
permit, resulting in removal of 18 wolves (3.9 percent of the winter 
wolf population) (Wydeven et al. 2007, p. 7).
    Lethal depredation control was again authorized in the State while 
wolves were delisted in 2007 (9.5 months) and 2008 (9 months). During 
those times, 40 and 43 wolves, respectively, were killed for 
depredation control (by Wildlife Services or by legal landowner 
action), representing 7 and 8 percent of the late-winter population of 
Wisconsin wolves during the previous year. This level of lethal 
depredation control was followed by a wolf population increase of 0.5 
percent from 2007 to 2008, and 12 percent from 2008 to 2009 (Wydeven 
and Wiedenhoeft 2008, pp. 19-22; Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 6). Authority 
for lethal control on depredating wolves occurred for only 2 months in 
2009. During that time, eight wolves were euthanized for depredation 
control by Wildlife Services, and one wolf was shot by a landowner; 
additionally, later in 2009 after relisting, a wolf was captured and 
euthanized by Wildlife Services for human safety concerns (Wydeven et 
al. 2010, p. 15). Thus in 2009, 10 wolves, or 2 percent of the winter 
wolf population, were removed in control activities.
    In 2010, authority for lethal control of wolves depredating 
livestock was not

[[Page 69831]]

available in Wisconsin, but 16 wolves or 2 percent of the winter 
population were removed for human-safety concerns (Wydeven et al. 2011, 
p. 3). The Wisconsin wolf population in winter 2010-2011 grew to 687 
wolves, an increase of 8 percent from the wolf population in winter 
2009-2010 (Wydeven et al. 2010, pp. 12-13). When wolves were again 
delisted from January 2012 through December 2014, a total of 164 wolves 
were killed under authorized lethal depredation control (McFarland and 
Wiedenhoeft 2013, p. 9; Wiedenhoeft et al. 2014, p. 10; Wiedenhoeft et 
al. 2015, p. 10). It is more difficult to evaluate the effects 
attributed specifically to depredation control over that time, as the 
State also implemented a regulated public harvest those years. However, 
information from previous years where depredation control was the 
primary change in management provides strong evidence that this form 
and magnitude of depredation control would not adversely affect the 
viability of the Wisconsin wolf population. Furthermore, Stenglein et 
al. (2015a, pp. 17-21) demonstrates that regular removal of 10 percent 
of the wolf population for depredation controls has little impact on 
growth of the wolf population. The locations of depredation incidents 
provide additional evidence that lethal control will not have an 
adverse impact on the State's wolf population. Most livestock 
depredations are caused by packs near the northern forest-farm-land 
interface. Few depredations occur in core wolf range and in large 
blocks of public land. Thus, lethal depredation-control actions would 
not affect most of the Wisconsin wolf population (WI DNR 2006a, p. 30). 
Additionally, Olson et al. (2015, pp. 680-681) showed that only a small 
percentage of packs cause depredation on livestock, and several risk 
maps show that the potential locations with high risk of wolf 
depredations on livestock represent a small portion of wolf range in 
Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2011, entire; Treves and Rabenhorst 2017, 
entire).
    One substantive change to lethal control that will result from 
Federal delisting is the ability of a small number of private 
landowners, whose farms have a history of recurring wolf depredation, 
to obtain limited-duration permits from WI DNR to kill a limited number 
of depredating wolves on land they own or lease, based on the size of 
the pack causing the local depredations (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). Such 
permits can be issued to: (1) Landowners with verified wolf 
depredations on their property within the last 2 years; (2) landowners 
within 1 mile (1.6 km) of properties with verified wolf depredations 
during the calendar year; (3) landowners with vulnerable livestock 
within WI DNR-designated proactive control areas; (4) landowners with 
human safety concerns on their property; and (5) landowners with 
verified harassment of livestock on their property (WI DNR 2008, p. 8). 
Limits on the number of wolves that could be killed will be based on 
the estimated number of wolves in the pack causing depredation 
problems.
    During the 19 months in 2007 and 2008 when wolves were federally 
delisted, the WI DNR issued 67 such permits, resulting in 2 wolves 
being killed. Some landowners received permits more than once, and 
permits were issued for up to 90 days at a time and restricted to 
specific calendar years. In addition, landowners and lessees of land 
statewide will be allowed to kill a wolf ``in the act of killing, 
wounding, or biting a domestic animal'' without obtaining a permit. The 
incident must be reported to a conservation warden within 24 hours, and 
the landowners are required to turn any dead wolves over to the WI DNR 
(WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23; WI DNR 2008, p. 6). During that same 19-month 
time period, landowners killed a total of five wolves under that 
authority. One wolf was shot in the act of attacking domestic animals 
during the 2 months when wolves were delisted in 2009. Another 38 
wolves were legally shot by landowners during the 35 months that wolves 
were delisted from 2012 to 2014. The death of these 46 additional 
wolves--which accounted for less than 3 percent of the State's wolves 
in any year--did not affect the viability of the population.
    Another potential substantive change after delisting will be 
proactive trapping or ``intensive control'' of wolves in sub-zones of 
the larger wolf-management zones (WI DNR 2006a, pp. 22-23). Triggering 
actions and types of controls planned for these ``proactive control 
areas'' are listed in the WI DNR depredation-control guidelines (WI DNR 
2008, pp. 7-9). Controls on these actions would be considered on a 
case-by-case basis to address specific problems, and will be carried 
out only in areas that lack suitable habitat, have extensive 
agricultural lands with little forest interspersion, in urban or 
suburban settings, and only when the State wolf population is well 
above the management goal of 350 wolves outside Indian reservations in 
late-winter surveys. The use of intensive population management in 
small areas would be adapted as experience is gained with implementing 
and evaluating localized control actions (Wydeven 2006, pers. comm.). 
We are confident that the number of wolves killed by these actions will 
not affect the long-term viability of the Wisconsin wolf population, 
because generally less than 15 percent of packs cause depredations that 
will initiate such controls, and ``proactive'' controls will be carried 
out only if the State's late-winter wolf population exceeds 350 animals 
outside Indian reservations.
    The State's current guidelines for conducting depredation-control 
actions say that no control trapping would be conducted on wolves that 
kill ``dogs that are free roaming, roaming at large, hunting, or 
training on public lands, and all other lands except land owned or 
leased by the dog owner'' (WI DNR 2008, p. 5). Controls will be applied 
on wolves depredating pet dogs attacked near homes and wolves attacking 
livestock. Because of these State-imposed limitations, we conclude that 
lethal control of wolves depredating on hunting dogs will be rare and, 
therefore, will not be a significant additional source of mortality in 
Wisconsin. Lethal control of wolves that attack captive deer is 
included in the WI DNR depredation-control program, because farm-raised 
deer are considered to be livestock under Wisconsin law (WI DNR 2008, 
pp. 5-6; 2006c, 12.52). However, we expect that changes to Wisconsin 
regulations for deer farm fencing will result in reduced wolf 
depredations inside deer farms, thus decreasing the need for lethal 
control. Claims for wolf depredation compensation are rejected if the 
claimant is not in compliance with regulations regarding farm-raised-
deer fencing or livestock-carcass disposal (Wisconsin Statutes 90.20 & 
90.21, WI DNR 2006c 12.54).
    Data from verified wolf depredations in recent years indicate that 
depredation on livestock is likely to increase as long as the Wisconsin 
wolf population increases in numbers and range. Wolf packs in more 
marginal habitat with high acreage of pasture land are more likely to 
become depredators (Treves et al. 2004, pp. 121-122). Most large areas 
of forest land and public lands are included in Wisconsin Wolf 
Management Zones 1 and 2, and they have already been colonized by 
wolves. Therefore, new areas likely to be colonized by wolves in the 
future will be in Zones 3 and 4, where they will be exposed to much 
higher densities of farms, livestock, and residences. During 2008, of 
farms experiencing wolf depredation, 25 percent (8 of 32) were in Zone 
3, yet only 4 percent of the State wolf population occurs in this zone

[[Page 69832]]

(Wydeven et al. 2009a, p. 23). Further expansion of wolves into Zone 3 
will likely lead to an increase in depredation incidents and an 
increase in lethal control actions against Zone 3 wolves. However, 
these Zone 3 mortalities will have a negligible impact on wolf 
population viability in Wisconsin because of the much larger wolf 
populations in Zones 1 and 2.
    We anticipate that under the management laid out in the Wisconsin 
Wolf Management Plan the wolf population in Zones 1 and 2 will continue 
to greatly exceed the recovery goal in the Revised Recovery Plan of 200 
late-winter wolves for an isolated population and 100 wolves for a 
subpopulation \5\ connected to the larger Minnesota population, 
regardless of the extent of wolf mortality from all causes in Zones 3 
and 4. Ongoing annual wolf population monitoring by WI DNR will provide 
timely and accurate data to evaluate the effects of wolf management 
under the Wisconsin Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A population that is part of a larger population or 
metapopulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin--A regulated public 
harvest of wolves is acknowledged in the Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 
and its updates as a potential management technique (WI DNR 1999, 
Appendix D; 2006c, p. 23). Wisconsin Act 169 was enacted in April 2012, 
following Federal delisting of wolves earlier that year. The law 
reclassified wolves in Wisconsin as a game species and directed the WI 
DNR to establish a harvest season in 2012. The harvest season was set 
from October 15 through February 28 with zones closing as individual 
quotas are met. The WI DNR holds the authority to determine harvest 
zones and set harvest quotas.
    With the establishment of the first wolf hunting season in 2012, 
the WI DNR modified the four zones from the 1999 wolf plan into six 
harvest zones (WI DNR 2014a, p. 8). Much of the original Zone 1 
(northern forest wolf range) from the 1999 plan was modified into four 
harvest zones, with harvest Zones 1 and 2 representing core wolf areas 
and Zone 3 and 4 representing transitional wolf habitat. Most of Zone 2 
from the 1999 plan (central forest core wolf range) became harvest Zone 
5. The remainder of the State is marginal or unsuitable wolf habitat 
and became wolf harvest Zone 6.
    Harvest quotas for the 2012-2013 season were designed to begin 
reducing the population toward the established objective, and the 
harvest zones were designed to focus harvest in areas of highest human 
conflict with lower harvest rates in areas of primary wolf habitat. 
State-licensed hunters and trappers were not allowed permits within the 
reservation boundaries of the Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac Courte 
Oreilles, Lac Du Flambeau, and Menominee reservations or within the 
Stockbridge-Munsee wolf zone. A large portion of the zones open to wolf 
hunting in the State included ceded territories (lands outside 
reservations where Tribes continue to hold fishing, hunting, and 
gathering rights). Within ceded territories, the Tribes can request up 
to half of any allowable harvest of wildlife for their members. The 
ceded territories portions of wolf harvest zones included an allowable 
harvest of 170 wolves, and one half (or 85 wolves) was offered to the 
Tribes for harvest in 2012. The Tribes chose not to take part in the 
wolf harvest, and all Tribes in the State closed tribal lands to wolf 
hunting. Because the Tribes chose not to exercise their wolf hunting 
authority, the portions of the allowable harvest offered to Tribes 
declined in subsequent years to 24 in 2013, and 6 in 2014 (WI DNR 2013 
pp. 1, 2; WI DNR 2014b, p. 4; McFarland and Wiedenhoeft 2015, pp. 2, 
4).
    The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board established a total quota of 
201 wolves (comprising a State-licensed quota of 116 wolves and a 
Tribal offer of 85 wolves). A total of 117 wolves were harvested during 
that first season, all under the State licenses (Tribes did not 
authorize Tribal members to harvest wolves within reservation 
boundaries). In 2013-2014, the total quota was 275 wolves: A State-
licensed quota of 251, and a Tribal offer of 24. That year, 257 wolves 
were harvested. The 2014-2015 wolf quota was reduced to 156 (a 57-
percent reduction from the 2013-2014 wolf quota), and 154 wolves were 
harvested that season (a 60-percent decrease from the 2013-2014 
harvest.
    Evidence from Wisconsin indicates that active management with 
public harvests and targeted lethal depredation controls could reduce 
wolf-human conflicts without causing major declines in wolf numbers in 
the State. The minimum count of wolves in Wisconsin when they were 
delisted in 2012 was 815 wolves. After 3 years of public hunting and 
trapping seasons, they had been reduced to a minimum count of 746 in 
2015, or a reduction of only 8.5 percent. During that same time period, 
verified wolf kills on cattle and the number of farms with verified 
depredations declined significantly (Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4-5, 
12), indicating that active management with public harvests and 
targeted lethal depredation controls could reduce conflicts without 
causing significant declines in wolf numbers (Wydeven 2019a, in litt.).
    Regardless of the methods used to manage wolves in the State, WI 
DNR is committed to maintaining a wolf population of 350 wolves outside 
of Indian reservations, which translates to a statewide population of 
361 to 385 wolves in late winter. No harvest will be allowed if the 
wolf population falls below this goal (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15, 16). Also, 
the fact that the Wisconsin Plan calls for State relisting of the wolf 
as a threatened species if the population falls to fewer than 250 for 3 
years provides a strong assurance that any public harvest is not likely 
to threaten the persistence of the population (WI DNR 1999, pp. 15-17). 
Based on wolf population data, the current Wisconsin Plan and the 2006 
updates, we conclude that any public harvest plan will continue to 
maintain the State wolf population well above the Federal recovery goal 
of 100 wolves.
    The Michigan Wolf Management Plan--The 2015 updated Michigan Plan 
describes the wolf recovery goals and management actions needed to 
maintain a viable wolf population in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 
while facilitating wolf-related benefits and minimizing conflicts. The 
updated Michigan Plan contains new scientific information related to 
wolf management, updated information on the legal status of wolves, 
clarifications related to management authorities and decisionmaking, 
and updated strategic goals, objectives, and management actions 
informed by internal evaluation and responses and comments received 
from stakeholders. The updated plan retains the four principal goals of 
the 2008 plan, which are to ``(1) maintain a viable Michigan wolf 
population above a level that would warrant its classification as 
threatened or endangered (more than 200 wolves); (2) facilitate wolf-
related benefits; (3) minimize wolf-related conflicts; and (4) conduct 
science-based wolf management with socially acceptable methods'' (MI 
DNR 2015, p. 16). The Michigan Plan details wolf-management actions, 
including public education and outreach activities, biennial wolf 
population and health monitoring, research, depredation control, 
ensuring adequate legal protection for wolves, and prey and habitat 
management. The Michigan Plan does not address wolf management within 
Isle Royale National Park, where the wolf population is fully protected 
by the National Park Service.
    As with the Wisconsin Plan, the MI DNR has chosen to manage the 
State's wolves as though they are an isolated

[[Page 69833]]

population that receives no genetic or demographic benefits from 
immigrating wolves, even though their population will continue to be 
connected with populations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. The 
Michigan wolf population must exceed 200 wolves in order to achieve the 
Plan's first goal of maintaining a viable wolf population in the Upper 
Peninsula. This number is consistent with the Federal Revised Recovery 
Plan's definition of a viable, isolated wolf population (USFWS 1992, p. 
25). The Michigan Plan, however, clearly states that 200 wolves is not 
the target population size, and that a larger population may be 
necessary to meet the other goals of the Plan. Therefore, the State 
will maintain a wolf population that will ``provide all of the 
ecological and social benefits valued by the public'' while 
``minimizing and resolving conflicts where they occur'' (MI DNR 2015, 
p. 17). We strongly support this approach, as it provides assurance 
that a viable wolf population will remain in the Upper Peninsula 
regardless of the future fate of wolves in Wisconsin or Ontario.
    The Michigan plan also addresses the need for wolf recovery and the 
strategic management direction in the Lower Peninsula. The plan states 
wolves will not be prevented from colonizing the Lower Peninsula, but 
their presence is not necessary to maintain a viable population in the 
State (Ml DNR 2015, p. 39). Additionally, if wolves occupy the Lower 
Peninsula, the higher density of human residences and livestock 
operations in that area relative to the Upper Peninsula would create a 
greater potential for wolf-related conflicts. The severity, immediacy, 
and frequency of conflicts would guide management responses in the 
Lower Peninsula (Ml DNR 2015, p. 39).
    The Michigan Plan identifies wolf population monitoring as a 
priority activity, and specifically states that the MI DNR will monitor 
wolf abundance every other year for at least 5 years post-delisting (MI 
DNR 2015, p. 26). This includes monitoring to assess wolf presence in 
the northern Lower Peninsula. From 1989 through 2006, the MI DNR 
attempted to count wolves throughout the entire Upper Peninsula. As the 
wolf population increased, this method became more difficult. In the 
winter of 2006-2007, the MI DNR implemented a new sampling approach 
based on an analysis by Potvin et al. (2005, p. 1668) to increase the 
efficiency of the State survey. The new approach is based on a 
geographically based stratified random sample and produces an unbiased, 
regional estimate of wolf abundance. The Upper Peninsula was stratified 
into 21 sampling units; each sampling unit was assigned to one of three 
strata based on geographic location and relative wolf density. The MI 
DNR intensively surveys roughly 60 percent of the Upper Peninsula every 
other year. Computer simulations have shown that such a geographically 
stratified monitoring program would produce unbiased and precise 
estimates of the total wolf population (Beyer in litt. 2006, see 
attachment by Drummer; Lederle in litt. 2006; Roell et al. 2009, p. 3).
    Another component of wolf population monitoring is monitoring wolf 
health. The MI DNR will continue to monitor the impact of parasites and 
disease on the viability of wolf populations in the State through 
necropsies of dead wolves and analyzing biological samples from 
captured live wolves. Prior to 2004, MI DNR vaccinated all captured 
wolves for canine distemper and parvovirus and treated them for mange. 
These inoculations were discontinued to provide more natural biotic 
conditions and to provide biologists with an unbiased estimate of 
disease-caused mortality rates in the population (Roell in litt. 2005). 
Since diseases and parasites are not currently a significant threat to 
the Michigan wolf population, the MI DNR is continuing the practice of 
not actively managing disease. If monitoring indicates that diseases or 
parasites may pose a threat to the wolf population, the MI DNR would 
again consider more active management similar to that conducted prior 
to 2004 (MI DNR 2015, p. 35).
    The Michigan Plan includes maintaining habitat and prey necessary 
to sustain a viable wolf population in the State as a management 
component. This includes maintaining prey populations required for a 
viable wolf population while providing for sustainable human uses, 
maintaining habitat linkages to allow for wolf dispersal, and 
minimizing disturbance at known, active wolf dens (MI DNR 2015, pp. 32-
34).
    To minimize illegal take, the Michigan Plan calls for enacting and 
enforcing regulations to ensure adequate legal protection for wolves in 
the State. Under State regulations, wolves could be classified as a 
threatened, endangered, game, or protected animal, all of which 
prohibit killing (or harming) the species except under a permit, 
license, or specific conditions. Michigan removed gray wolves from the 
State's threatened and endangered species list in 2009 and classified 
the species as a game animal in 2016. Game-animal status allows but 
does not require the establishment of a regulated harvest season. The 
Michigan Plan states that regulations would be reviewed, modified, or 
enacted as necessary to provide the wolf population with appropriate 
levels of protection with the following possible actions: (1) 
Reclassify wolves as endangered or threatened under State regulations 
if population size declines to 200 or fewer wolves; (2) review, modify, 
recommend, and/or enact regulations, as necessary, to ensure 
appropriate levels of protection for the wolf population; and (3) if 
necessary to avoid a lapse in legal protection, amend the Wildlife 
Conservation Order to designate wolves as a protected animal (MI DNR 
2015, p. 28).
    The Michigan Plan emphasizes the need for public information and 
education efforts that focus on living with a recovered wolf population 
and ways to manage wolves and wolf-human interaction (both positive and 
negative) (MI DNR 2015, pp. 22-25). The Plan also recommends continuing 
important research efforts, continuing reimbursement for depredation 
losses, minimizing the impacts of captive wolves and wolf-dog hybrids 
on the wild wolf population, and citizen stakeholder involvement in the 
wolf-management program (MI DNR 2015, pp. 27, 52-53, 55-56, 60).
    The Michigan Plan calls for establishing a wolf-management 
stakeholder group that will meet annually to monitor the progress made 
toward implementing the Plan. Furthermore, the Plan will be reviewed 
and updated at 5-year intervals to address ``ecological, social, and 
regulatory'' changes (MI DNR 2015, pp. 60-61). The plan also addresses 
currently available and potential new sources of funding to offset 
costs associated with wolf management (MI DNR 2015, pp. 61-62). The MI 
DNR has long been an innovative leader in wolf-recovery efforts, 
exemplified by its initiation of the nation's first attempt to 
reintroduce wild wolves to vacant historical wolf habitat in 1974 
(Weise et al. 1975). The MI DNR's history of leadership in wolf 
recovery and its repeated written commitments to ensure the continued 
viability of a Michigan wolf population above a level that would 
trigger State or Federal listing as threatened or endangered further 
reinforces that the 2015 Michigan Wolf Management Plan will provide 
adequate regulatory mechanisms for Michigan wolves. The DNR's primary 
goal remains to conduct management to maintain the wolf population in 
Michigan above the minimum size that is biologically required for a 
viable,

[[Page 69834]]

isolated population and to provide for ecological and social benefits 
valued by the public while resolving conflicts where they occur (MI DNR 
2015, p. 16).
    Depredation Control in Michigan--Data from Michigan show a general 
increase in confirmed events of wolf depredations on livestock over the 
past two decades, with an average of 2.5 events annually from 1998 
through 2002, an average of 8 annually in 2003-2007; an average of 25 
annually in 2008-2012; and an average of 14 annually in 2013-2017. 
Eighty-six percent of the depredation events were on cattle, with the 
rest on sheep, poultry, rabbits, goats, horses, swine, and captive deer 
(Roell et al. 2009, pp. 9, 11; Beyer in litt. 2018).
    Michigan has not experienced as high a level of attacks on dogs by 
wolves as Wisconsin, although a slight increase in such attacks has 
occurred over the last decade (Ruid et al. 2009, pp. 284-285; Bump et 
al. 2013, pp. 1-2). Yearly losses vary, and actions of a single pack of 
wolves can be an important influence. In Michigan, there is not a 
strong relationship between wolf depredation on dogs and wolf abundance 
(Roell et al. 2010, p. 7). The number of dogs killed in the State 
during the 15 years from 1996 to 2010 totaled 34; that number increased 
to 55 during the 7-year period from 2011 through 2017 (Beyer in litt. 
2018). The majority of the wolf-related dog deaths involved hounds used 
to hunt bears. The MI DNR guidelines for its depredation control 
program allow for lethal control as a management option on free-ranging 
hunting dogs when nonlethal methods are determined to be ineffective in 
specific areas where a wolf attack has been verified (MI DNR 2017, pp. 
9-10). Lethal control of wolves will also be considered if wolves have 
killed confined pets and remain in the area where more pets are being 
held (MI DNR 2017, p. 10). In 2008, the Michigan Legislature passed a 
law that will allow dog owners or their designated agents to remove, 
capture, or, if deemed necessary, use lethal means to destroy a gray 
wolf that is in the act of preying upon the owner's dog, which includes 
dogs free roaming or hunting on public lands.
    During the several years that lethal control of depredating wolves 
had been conducted in Michigan, there was no evidence of resulting 
adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf population in the 
Upper Peninsula. MI DNR and Wildlife Services killed 50 wolves in 
response to depredation events during the time period when permits or 
special rules were in effect or while wolves were not on the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Roell et al. 2010, p. 8). 
In 2008, Michigan passed two House bills that will become effective 
after Federal delisting. These bills authorize a livestock or dog owner 
(or a designated agent) to ``remove, capture, or use lethal means to 
destroy a wolf that is in the act of preying upon'' the owner's 
livestock or dog. During the 2 months that wolves were federally and 
State delisted in 2009, no wolves were killed under these 
authorizations; 15 wolves were killed under these authorities from 2012 
through 2014 (Beyer in litt. 2018). The numbers of wolves killed each 
year for depredation control (livestock and dogs) are as follows: 4 
(2003), 5 (2004), 2 (2005), 7 (2006), 14 (2007), 8 (2008), 1 (during 2 
months in 2009), 18 (2012), 10 (2013), and 13 (2014) (Beyer et al. 
2006, p. 88; Roell in litt. 2006, p. 1; Roell et al. 2010, p. 19; Beyer 
in litt. 2018). This represents 0.2 percent (2009) to 2.8 percent 
(2007) of the Upper Peninsula's late-winter population of wolves during 
the previous winter. During the years where depredation control took 
place absent a regulated public harvest, the wolf population increased 
from 2 percent (2007-2008) to 17 percent (2006-2007) despite the level 
of depredation control, demonstrating that the wolf population 
continues to increase at a healthy rate (Huntzinger et al. 2005, p. 6; 
MI DNR 2006, Roell et al. 2009, p. 4).
    Post-delisting Depredation Control in Michigan--Following Federal 
delisting, wolf depredation control in Michigan will be carried out 
according to the 2015 Michigan Wolf Recovery and Management Plan (MI 
DNR 2015) and any Tribal wolf-management plans that may be developed in 
the future for reservations in occupied wolf range.
    To provide depredation-control guidance when lethal control is an 
option, MI DNR has developed detailed instructions for incident 
investigation and response (MI DNR 2017). Verification of wolf 
depredation incidents will be conducted by MI DNR or Wildlife Services 
personnel (working under a Cooperative Service Agreement or at the 
request of a Tribe, depending on the location) who have been trained in 
depredation investigation techniques. The MI DNR specifies that the 
verification process will use the investigative techniques that have 
been developed and successfully used in Minnesota by Wildlife Services 
(MI DNR 2017, Append. B, pp. 13-14). Following verification, one or 
more of several options will be implemented to address the depredation 
problem. Technical assistance, consisting of advice or recommendations 
to reduce wolf conflicts, will be provided. Technical assistance may 
also include providing to the landowner various forms of noninjurious 
behavior modification materials, such as flashing lights, noise makers, 
temporary fencing, and fladry.
    Trapping and translocating depredating wolves has been used in the 
past, resulting in the translocation of 23 Upper Peninsula wolves 
during 1998-2003 (Beyer et al. 2006, p. 88), but as with Wisconsin, 
suitable relocation sites are becoming rarer, and there is local 
opposition to the release of translocated depredators. Furthermore, 
none of the past translocated depredators have remained near their 
release sites, making this a questionable method to end the depredation 
behaviors of these wolves (MI DNR 2005a, pp. 3-4). Therefore, reducing 
depredation problems by relocation is no longer recommended as a 
management tool in Michigan (MI DNR 2008, p. 57).
    Lethal control of depredating wolves is likely to be the most 
common future response in situations when improved livestock husbandry 
and wolf-behavior-modification techniques (for example, flashing 
lights, noisemaking devices) are judged to be inadequate. In a previous 
application for a lethal take permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 
Act, MI DNR received authority to euthanize up to 10 percent of the 
late-winter wolf population annually (MI DNR 2005b, p. 1). However, 
when Michigan had the authority to use lethal means to manage 
depredations, not more than 3 percent of the population was removed in 
any year, indicating that it is likely that significantly less than 10 
percent of the population will be removed annually over the next 
several years.
    The Michigan Plan provides recommendations to guide management of 
various conflicts caused by wolf recovery, including depredation on 
livestock and pets, human safety, and public concerns regarding wolf 
impacts on other wildlife. We view the Michigan Plan's depredation and 
conflict control strategies to be conservative, in that they commit to 
nonlethal depredation management whenever possible, oppose preventative 
wolf removal where problems have not yet occurred, encourage incentives 
for best management practices that decrease wolf-livestock conflicts 
without affecting wolves, and support closely monitored and enforced 
take by landowners of wolves ``in the act of livestock depredation'' or 
under limited permits if depredation is confirmed and nonlethal methods 
are determined to be ineffective. Based on these components of the 
revised Michigan Plan and the stated goal for maintaining wolf

[[Page 69835]]

populations at or above recovery goals, the Service concludes that any 
wolf-management changes implemented following delisting will not be 
implemented in a manner that results in significant reductions in 
Michigan wolf populations. The MI DNR remains committed to ensuring a 
viable wolf population above a level that would trigger relisting as 
either threatened or endangered in the future (MI DNR 2015, p. 8).
    Michigan livestock owners are compensated when they lose livestock 
as a result of a confirmed wolf depredation. The Michigan Wildlife 
Depredations Indemnification Act (Public Act 487 of 2012) provides 
payment to livestock owners, but it may do so only if the MI DNR or its 
designated agent (Wildlife Services) verifies the depredation was 
caused by wolves, coyotes, or cougars. If the investigator cannot rule 
out wolves as the cause for the missing animals and the farm has had 
``verified'' wolf depredation in the past, the owner is eligible to 
receive indemnification payment from the Michigan Department of 
Agriculture and Rural Development (MI DNR 2017, p. 2). Compensation 
payments are made for livestock included in the claim at 100 percent of 
the fair market value not to exceed $4,000 for each animal. Livestock 
includes, but is not limited to, cattle, sheep, new world camelids, 
goats, bison, privately owned cervids, ratites, swine, equine, poultry, 
aquaculture, and rabbits. Livestock does not include dogs and cats (MI 
DNR 2017, pp. 2, 8).
    Funding for depredation payments and, more recently, missing animal 
claims has changed over time. From 2001 through 2010 a supplemental 
fund provided by Defenders of Wildlife was used to make up the 
difference between State compensation and fair market value. This fund 
paid $10,053 to Michigan farmers. Currently, the State uses a general 
fund appropriate to pay depredation and missing animal claims. From 
1998 through 2018, the State has paid $179,486 to Michigan farmers for 
losses due to wolves.
    Post-delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan--Although the Michigan 
Plan itself does not determine whether a public harvest will be used as 
a management strategy, it does discuss developing ``socially and 
biologically responsible management recommendations regarding public 
harvest of wolves'' (MI DNR 2015, p. 56). The Michigan Plan discusses 
developing recommendations regarding public harvest for two separate 
purposes: To reduce wolf-related conflicts and for reasons other than 
managing wolf-related conflicts (e.g., recreational and utilitarian 
purposes). With regard to implementing a public harvest for 
recreational or utilitarian purposes, the Michigan Plan identifies the 
need to gather and evaluate biological and social information, 
including the biological effects and the public acceptability of a 
general wolf harvest (MI DNR 2015, p. 60). A public harvest during a 
regulated season requires that wolves be classified as game animals in 
Michigan (they were classified as such in 2016). With wolves classified 
as game animals, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has 
the exclusive authority to enact regulations pertaining to the methods 
and manner of public harvest. Although any decisions regarding 
establishment of a harvest season will be made by the NRC, the MI DNR 
would be called upon to make recommendations regarding socially and 
biologically responsible public harvest of wolves. Michigan held a 
regulated public hunting season in 2013 that took into consideration 
the recommendations of the MI DNR, which were based on the State 
management plan. From those recommendations, the Michigan NRC 
established quotas for that season based on zones in the Upper 
Peninsula, with a quota of 16 wolves in the far western part of the 
peninsula, 19 in 4 central counties, and 8 in the eastern part of the 
peninsula. Twenty-two wolves were taken during that 2013 season.
State Management in the West Coast States
    Wolves are classified as endangered under the Washington State 
Endangered Species Act (WAC 220-610-010). Unlawful taking (when a 
person hunts, fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses, or kills 
endangered fish or wildlife, and the taking has not been authorized by 
rule of the commission) of endangered fish or wildlife is prohibited in 
Washington (RCW 77.15.120). Wolves in California are similarly 
classified as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act 
(CESA; California Fish and Game Commission 2014, entire). Under CESA, 
take (defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempts to 
hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of listed wildlife species is 
prohibited (California Fish and Game Codes section 86 and section 
2080). Wolves in Oregon have achieved recovery objectives and were 
delisted from the State Endangered Species Act in 2015. Wolves in 
Oregon remain protected by the State Plan and its associated regulation 
(Oregon Administrative Rule 665-110), and Oregon's wildlife policy. The 
wildlife policy guides long-term management and states ``that wildlife 
shall be managed to prevent the serious depletion of any indigenous 
species'' and includes seven management goals (ODFW 2019, p. 6, 
referencing ORS 496.012). There are no current plans to initiate a 
hunting season, and regulatory mechanisms remain in place through the 
State Plan and Oregon statute to ensure a sustainable wolf population. 
Controlled take of wolves, including a future hunting season, by the 
State of Oregon would require Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission 
approval through a public rulemaking process (ODFW 2019, p. 31).
    Oregon, Washington, and California also have adopted wolf-
management plans intended to provide for the conservation and 
reestablishment of wolves in these States (ODFW 2019, entire; Wiles et 
al. 2011, entire; CDFW 2016a, entire; 2016b, entire). These plans 
include population objectives, education and public outreach goals, 
damage-management strategies, and monitoring and research plans. Wolves 
will remain on State endangered species lists in Washington and 
California until recovery objectives have been reached. Once recovery 
objectives have been achieved, we anticipate that the States will 
initiate processes for delisting wolves. Once the species is removed 
from State endangered species lists, the States will have the authority 
to consider the use of regulated harvest to manage wolf populations. 
All three State plans recognize that management of livestock conflicts 
is a necessary component of wolf management (ODFW 2019, pp. 33-55; 
Wiles et al. 2011, p. 72; CDFW 2016a, p. 4). Control options are 
currently limited to preventative and nonlethal methods within the 
federally listed portions of Oregon, Washington, and California. 
Following Federal delisting, guidelines outlined in each State's plan, 
or developed through a collaborative stakeholder process, will define 
the conditions under which depredating wolves can be lethally removed 
by agency officials (CDFW 2016b, pp. 278-285; ODFW 2019, pp. 41-54; 
Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 72-94).
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan--The Oregon Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan was developed prior to wolves becoming established in 
Oregon. The plan, first finalized in 2005, contains provisions that 
require it to be updated every 5 years. The first revision occurred in 
2010, and a second revision was recently completed in June of 2019. The 
ODFW is required by State regulations to follow the Oregon Wolf 
Conservation and Management Plan. The Plan includes program direction,

[[Page 69836]]

objectives, and strategies to manage gray wolves in Oregon and defines 
the gray wolf's special status game mammal designation (Oregon 
Administrative Rule 635-110). The Plan defines the following objectives 
for continued conservation of the gray wolf in Oregon:
     Continue to promote a naturally reproducing wolf 
population in suitable habitat within Oregon, which is connected to a 
larger source population of wolves, allowing for continued expansion 
into other areas of the State.
     Maintain a conservation population objective for both East 
and West Wolf Management Zones (WMZs) of four breeding pairs of wolves 
present for 3 consecutive years.
     Maintain a management population objective for each zone 
of a minimum of seven breeding pairs of wolves present for 3 
consecutive years.
     Maintain a management regime in the West WMZ that 
simulates Oregon Endangered Species Act protections until the 
conservation population objective is met.
     Identify and monitor potential conservation threats to 
Oregon wolves and, if feasible, implement measures to reduce threats 
that can negatively affect Oregon's wolf population.
     Effectively and responsibly address conflict with 
competing human values while using management measures that are 
consistent with long-term wolf conservation in all phases of wolf 
management status under the Plan.
     Maintain accurate information on the population status and 
distribution of wolves in Oregon through a comprehensive monitoring 
program.
     Continue to coordinate with other agencies and 
organizations to achieve wolf conservation and management objectives.
    The Oregon plan includes two management zones that roughly divide 
the State into western and eastern halves. This division line is 
further to the west of the line that delineates the listed and non-
listed portions of Oregon. Each zone has a separate ``management 
population objective'' of seven breeding pairs (ODFW 2019, p. 8). 
Within each zone, management phases (Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III) 
are used to assess population objectives, which in turn influence 
conservation and management objectives.
    Phase I includes a conservation population objective of obtaining 
four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years; upon reaching this 
objective, delisting of wolves statewide may be initiated. The ODFW 
defines a breeding pair as a pack of wolves with an adult male, an 
adult female, and at least two pups surviving to the end of December 
(ODFW 2019, p. 1). This population objective was met in 2014 in the 
eastern WMZ, and wolves were State delisted in Oregon in 2015. Wolves 
in the eastern WMZ were then managed under Phase II (ODFW 2019, p. 6). 
Wolves in the western WMZ have yet to reach this conservation 
objective. Despite State delisting, wolves in the western WMZ 
(currently in Phase I) are still managed with a level of protection 
comparable to that of Oregon Endangered Species Act protections for 
wolves.
    Phase II management actions work towards a management population 
objective of seven breeding pairs in the eastern management zone for 3 
consecutive years. During this phase, populations are managed to 
prevent declines that could result in relisting under the Oregon ESA. 
This Phase II management population objective was met in 2016, which 
resulted in the transition of management to Phase III for the eastern 
WMZ in 2018 (ODFW 2019, p. 11).
    Phase III acts to set a balance such that populations do not 
decline below Phase II objectives, but also do not reach unmanageable 
levels resulting in conflicts with other land uses. Phase III is a 
maintenance phase. While the 2019 plan does not include a minimum or 
maximum population level for wolves in Oregon, the plan leaves room for 
development of population thresholds in future planning efforts (ODFW 
2019, pp. 10, 15-17). Phase III of the 2019 plan provides management 
flexibility in the case of depredating wolves (ODFW 2019, pp. 31-32). 
Currently, hunting of wolves is not permitted in Oregon and, as noted 
above, would require a public rulemaking process conducted by the 
Oregon Fish and Game Commission.
    The Washington Wolf Management Plan--The 2011 Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan for Washington was developed in response to the State 
endangered status for the species, and the expectations that the wolf 
population in Washington would continue to increase through natural 
dispersal of wolves from adjacent populations, and anticipation of the 
return of wolf management to the State after Federal delisting. The 
purpose of the plan is to facilitate reestablishment of a self-
sustaining population of gray wolves in Washington and to encourage 
social tolerance for the species by addressing and reducing conflicts. 
An advisory Wolf Working Group was appointed at the outset to give 
recommendations on the plan. In addition, the plan underwent extensive 
peer and public review prior to finalization.
    The Washington Plan provides recovery goals for downlisting and 
delisting the species under Washington State law, and identifies 
strategies to achieve recovery and manage conflicts with livestock and 
ungulates. Recovery objectives are defined as numbers of successful 
breeding pairs that are maintained on the landscape for 3 consecutive 
years, with a set geographic distribution within three specified 
recovery regions: (1) Eastern Washington; (2) Northern Cascades; and 
(3) Southern Cascades and Northwest Coast (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 60 
figure 9). A successful breeding pair of wolves is defined in the 
Washington Plan as an adult male and an adult female with at least two 
pups surviving to December 31 in a given year (Wiles et al. 2011, p. 
58). Specific target numbers and distribution for downlisting and 
delisting within the three recovery regions identified in the 
Washington Plan are as follows:
     To reclassify from State endangered to State threatened 
status: A minimum of six successful breeding pairs with a minimum of 
two successful breeding pairs in each of the three recovery regions 
documented for 3 consecutive years.
     To reclassify from State threatened to State sensitive 
status: A minimum of 12 successful breeding pairs with a minimum of 4 
successful breeding pairs in each of the 3 recovery regions documented 
for 3 consecutive years.
     To delist from State sensitive status: Four successful 
breeding pairs documented for 3 consecutive years in each of the three 
recovery regions plus an additional three successful breeding pairs 
anywhere in the State.
    In addition to the delisting objective of 15 successful breeding 
pairs distributed in the 3 geographic regions for 3 consecutive years, 
an alternative delisting objective was also established whereby the 
gray wolf will be considered for delisting when 18 successful breeding 
pairs are present, with 4 successful breeding pairs in the Eastern 
Washington region, 4 successful breeding pairs in the Northern Cascades 
region, 4 successful breeding pairs distributed in the Southern 
Cascades and Northwest Coast region, plus an additional 6 successful 
breeding pairs anywhere in the State in a single year.
    The WDFW recently initiated work to develop a post-recovery wolf 
management plan that would guide the long-term conservation and 
management of the species in the State. After wolves have reached 
recovery levels and are delisted at the State level, wolves could be 
reclassified as a game animal through the Washington Fish and Wildlife 
Commission's public

[[Page 69837]]

process (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 70-71). Any proposals to initiate a 
hunting season for wolves in Washington after State delisting would be 
consistent with maintaining a recovered wolf population in the State 
and would go through a public process with the Fish and Wildlife 
Commission (Wiles et al. 2011, pp. 70-71).
    The California Wolf Management Plan--The 2016 Conservation Plan for 
Gray Wolves in California was developed in anticipation of the return 
of wolves to California (CDFW 2016a, p. 2). The CDFW worked with 
stakeholder groups in 2014 and 2015 during plan development (CDFW 
2016a, pp. 2-3). Stakeholders included local government, 
nongovernmental organizations, State agencies and organizations, and 
Federal agencies. During the planning process, CDFW and the 
stakeholders identified sideboards (e.g., guidelines) and plan goals to 
direct development of the State plan (CDFW 2016a, p. 3). The sideboards 
included direction to develop alternatives for wolf management, 
specified that CDFW would not reintroduce wolves to California, and 
acknowledged that historical distribution and abundance are not 
achievable (CDFW 2016a, pp. 3-4). The goals include the conservation of 
biologically sustainable populations, management of wolf distribution, 
management of native ungulates for wolf and human uses, management of 
wolves to minimize livestock depredations, and public outreach (CDFW 
2016a, p. 4).
    The California Plan recognizes that wolf numbers in the State will 
increase with time, and that the plan needs to be flexible to account 
for information that is gained during the expansion of wolves into the 
State (CDFW 2016a, pp. 19-24). Similar to plans for other States, the 
California Plan uses a three-phase strategy for wolf conservation and 
management.
    Phase I is a conservation-based strategy to account for the 
reestablishment of wolves under both State and Federal Endangered 
Species Acts (CDFW 2016a, pp. 21-22). Phase I will end when there are 
four breeding pairs for 2 consecutive years in California. The CDFW 
defines a breeding pair as at least one adult male, one adult female, 
and at least two pups that survive to the end of December (CDFW 2016a, 
p. 21). California is currently in Phase I of the plan, with the Lassen 
Pack as the only breeding pair present for 2 consecutive years.
    Phase II is expected to represent a point at which California's 
wolf population is growing more through reproduction of resident wolves 
than by dispersal of wolves from other States (CDFW 2016a, p. 22). This 
phase will conclude when there are eight breeding pairs for 2 
consecutive years. During Phase II, CDFW anticipates gaining additional 
information and experience with wolf management, which will help inform 
future revisions to the State plan. During Phase II, managing wolves 
for depredation response or predation on wild ungulates may be 
initiated.
    Phase III is less specific due to the limited information available 
to CDFW at the time of plan development (CDFW 2016a, p. 22). This phase 
moves toward longer term management of wolves in California. Specific 
aspects of Phase III are more likely to be developed during Phase II 
when more information on wolf distribution and abundance in the State 
are available. Towards the end of Phase II and the beginning of Phase 
III, information should be available to inform a status review of 
wolves in California to determine if continued State listing as 
endangered is warranted (CDFW 2016a, p. 22). Currently, hunting of 
wolves is not permitted in California.
State Management in the Central Rocky Mountains
    Post-Delisting Management in Colorado--Gray wolves are listed as an 
endangered species by the State of Colorado and receive protection 
under Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 33-6-109), thereby making it 
illegal for any person to hunt, take, or possess a gray wolf in the 
State. Wolves in Colorado will remain listed at the State level after 
they are federally delisted.
    Recognizing the potential for increasing numbers of wolves to enter 
Colorado from growing populations in neighboring States, Colorado Parks 
and Wildlife convened a multidisciplinary Wolf Management Working Group 
in 2004 to formulate management recommendations for wolves that 
naturally enter and possibly begin to recolonize the State. The working 
group did not evaluate what would constitute wolf recovery in Colorado; 
thus, no recovery objectives or thresholds were defined. The working 
group recommended that wolves that enter or begin to recolonize the 
State should be free to occupy available suitable habitat, but that 
wolf distribution should ultimately be defined by balancing the 
ecological needs of the wolf with the social aspects of wolf management 
(Colorado Wolf Management Working Group 2004, pp. 1, 3-5). The working 
group's recommendations provided information on all aspects of wolf 
management including monitoring, enforcement, research, information and 
education, the conservation and management of prey populations, and 
funding. Although the working group's recommendations are not a formal 
management plan, in 2005 they were adopted by the Colorado Parks and 
Wildlife Commission, a citizen board appointed by the Governor which 
develops regulations and policies for State parks and wildlife 
programs. The working group's recommendations were reaffirmed in 2016 
(CPWC, PWCR 16-01-2016) and will be used to guide management of wolves 
that occur in or naturally enter Colorado post-delisting until a wolf 
conservation and management plan is developed.
    In 2019, wolf proponents collected signatures in the hopes of 
getting an initiative on the 2020 ballot to reintroduce wolves into 
Colorado. Over 210,000 signatures were submitted to the Secretary of 
State in December 2019, and in January 2020, the Secretary of State 
determined that enough valid signatures were collected to place 
initiative 107 on the 2020 ballot. If passed, the Colorado Gray Wolf 
Reintroduction Initiative would require the Colorado Parks and Wildlife 
Commission to create and implement a plan to reintroduce gray wolves 
into Colorado west of the Continental Divide by December 2023. As a 
result of the pending ballot initiative and the fact that, until 
recently, no groups of wolves had been confirmed in Colorado, the 
Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission chose not to initiate 
development of a wolf management plan until after the 2020 election, 
when it expects to have clearer management direction.
    Under Title 35 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Colorado 
Department of Agriculture is responsible for the control of depredating 
animals in the State, with the exception of at-risk species such as 
gray wolves. Before the Colorado Department of Agriculture adopts any 
rules concerning the take of depredating, at-risk species, the rules 
must be approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission.
    There are currently no plans to initiate a wolf hunting season in 
Colorado after wolves are federally delisted. Regulated harvest may be 
considered during the future development of a wolf conservation and 
management plan. However, prior to implementing any hunting seasons, 
the State of Colorado would require Colorado Parks and Wildlife 
Commission approval through a public rulemaking process.
    Post-Delisting Management in Utah--Gray wolves are considered a 
Tier 1 sensitive species under Utah

[[Page 69838]]

Administrative Rule (Rule R657-48) and receive protections under Utah 
Code (Section 23-20-3) that prohibits the taking of protected wildlife, 
except as authorized by the Wildlife Board. Wolves are also classified 
as furbearers and Utah Code (Section 23-18-2) prohibits furbearer take 
without a license or otherwise in violation of rules promulgated by the 
Wildlife Board. At present, there is no season or take authorized for 
wolves in the federally listed portion of Utah. However, authorized 
personnel may lethally control wolves to mitigate wolf conflicts with 
livestock in the federally delisted portion of the State.
    In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 12, 
which directed UDWR to draft a wolf management plan for 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 Wolf Working 
Group in the summer of 2003. The Wolf Working Group was composed of 13 
members that represented diverse public interests regarding wolves in 
Utah.
    On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife Board formally approved the Utah 
Wolf Management Plan (UDWR and Utah Wolf Working Group 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. In 
2010, to prevent the establishment of wolves in the federally listed 
portion of Utah, the Utah Legislature directed the UDWR to prevent the 
establishment of any packs of wolves in the delisted portion of Utah 
until wolves are federally delisted in the entirety of the State (S.B. 
36, Wolf Management Act). This law supersedes Utah's Wolf Management 
Plan. To comply with S.B. 36, the UDWR is tasked with preventing wolves 
from becoming established in the delisted portion of the State. The 
State of Utah intends to fully implement the Utah Wolf Management Plan 
when wolves are delisted across all of Utah (S.B. 36; UDWR and Utah 
Wolf Working Group 2005, p. 28).
    Wolves were federally delisted in a small portion of north-central 
Utah, along with the remainder of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf 
population (with the exception of Wyoming), in 2011 (76 FR 25590, May 
5, 2011). In 2015, the Utah Wildlife Board extended the Plan through 
2020 and it recently reapproved the Plan through 2030. However, the 
Plan will not be implemented until wolves are federally delisted 
statewide, at which time the Plan will guide management of wolves until 
2030; until wolves become established (defined as at least two breeding 
pairs for two consecutive years) in Utah; or until the political, 
social, biological, or legal assumptions of the plan change, whichever 
occurs first.
    The Utah Plan recognizes that concerns about livestock depredation 
by wolves can effectively be addressed using both nonlethal and lethal 
management tools (UDWR and Utah Wolf Working Group 2005, pp. 35-39). 
The Plan recommends a compensation program for livestock owners who 
experience loss due to wolves (UDWR and Utah Wolf Working Group 2005, 
pp. 35-39). At present, the UDWR may consider lethal control to 
mitigate wolf conflicts with livestock only in the federally delisted 
portion of the State. Under Utah Administrative Code (Rule R657-24), 
the State may compensate livestock producers for confirmed losses 
caused by wolves in those areas of the State where wolves are federally 
delisted.
    Post-delisting, the provisions of Utah's Wolf Management Plan will 
be fully implemented. Gray wolves will be removed from the sensitive 
species list, but will remain classified as a furbearer species with a 
closed season. Regulated take of gray wolves may be considered when 
wolves have established themselves in the State (i.e., when there are 
at least two breeding pairs for two consecutive years). Any harvest 
recommendations will be vetted through the public process via the 
Regional Advisory Councils and must be approved by the Wildlife Board. 
Lethal control may be considered statewide to mitigate wolf conflicts 
with livestock and all livestock producers in the State that experience 
confirmed wolf-caused livestock losses would be eligible for 
compensation.
Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves
    In the western Great Lakes area, Native American Tribes and inter-
Tribal resource-management organizations have indicated to the Service 
that they will continue to conserve wolves on most, and probably all, 
Native American reservations in the primary wolf areas. The wolf 
retains great cultural significance and traditional value to many 
Tribes and their members, and to retain and strengthen cultural 
connections, many Tribes oppose unnecessary killing of wolves on 
reservations and on ceded lands, even following any Federal delisting 
(Hunt in litt. 1998; Schrage in litt. 1998a; Schlender in litt. 1998). 
Some Native Americans view wolves as competitors for deer and moose, 
whereas others are interested in harvesting wolves as furbearers 
(Schrage in litt. 1998a). Many Tribes intend to sustainably manage 
their natural resources, wolves among them, to ensure that they are 
available to their descendants. The Red Lake Band of Chippewa 
(Minnesota), the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), 
the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (Wisconsin), the Little 
Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians (Michigan), the Fond du Lac Band of 
Lake Superior Chippewa (Minnesota), and the Keweenaw Bay Indian 
Community (Michigan) have developed wolf monitoring and/or management 
plans. The Service has also awarded a grant to the Ho-Chunk Nation to 
identify wolf habitat on Tribal lands. Although not all Tribes with 
wolves that visit or reside on their reservations have completed 
management plans specific to the wolf, several Tribes have passed 
resolutions or otherwise informed us that they have no plans or 
intentions to allow commercial or recreational hunting or trapping of 
the species on their lands after Federal delisting.
    As a result of many contacts with, and recent and previous written 
comments from, the Midwestern Tribes and their inter-Tribal natural-
resource-management agencies--the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 
Commission, the 1854 Authority, and the Chippewa Ottawa Treaty 
Authority--it is clear that their predominant sentiment is strong 
support for the continued protection of wolves at a level that ensures 
occupancy of wolves on reservations and throughout the treaty-ceded 
lands surrounding the reservations. While several Tribes stated that 
their members may be interested in killing small numbers of wolves for 
spiritual or other purposes, we expect that these activities would have 
a negligible effect on reservation or ceded-territory wolf populations.
    The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (Minnesota) completed a wolf-
management plan in 2010 (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 2010). A 
primary goal of the management plan is to maintain wolf numbers at a 
level that will ensure the long-term survival of wolves on Red Lake 
lands. Key components of the plan are habitat management, public 
education, and law enforcement. To address human-wolf interactions, the 
plan outlines how

[[Page 69839]]

wolves may be taken on Red Lake lands. Wolves thought to be a threat to 
public safety may be harassed at any time, and if they must be killed, 
the incident must be reported to Tribal law enforcement. Livestock are 
not common on Red Lake lands, and wolf-related depredation on livestock 
or pets is unlikely to be a significant management issue. If such 
events do occur, Tribal members may protect their livestock or pets by 
lethal means, but ``all reasonable efforts should be made to deter 
wolves using non-lethal means'' (Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians 
2010, p. 15). Hunting or trapping of wolves on Tribal lands will be 
prohibited.
    The Red Cliff Band (Wisconsin) has strongly opposed State and 
Federal delisting of the gray wolf. Red Cliff implemented a Wolf 
Protection Plan in 2015 (Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 2015, 
entire). The plan guides management of wolves on the Reservation and 
prohibits any hunting of wolves during any future harvests. The plan 
calls for increased research and monitoring of wolves on the Bayfield 
Peninsula, which may help guide the management and protection of gray 
wolves when delisted. The plan includes a 6-mile (9.7-km) buffer 
outside of Reservation boundaries, in which Red Cliff will work 
cooperatively to mitigate human-wolf conflicts. Implementation of the 
plan includes: Collaring and monitoring local packs, seeking Federal 
grants for prevention and compensation for wolf depredation events on 
the Bayfield Peninsula, education, and outreach.
    The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa established a 
Ma'iingan (Wolf) Management Plan for the Reservation in 2013 (Bad River 
Band of Chippewa Indians Natural Resource Department 2013, entire). The 
Bad River Band has been involved in wolf monitoring on the Reservation 
since 1997. During the period of 2010-2018, from 5 to 17 wolves were 
counted on the reservation in 2 or 3 packs (Bad River Band Natural 
Resource Department). The Tribe acknowledges the cultural significance 
of the Ma'iingan to the Anishinabe in all wolf management activities, 
and wolves (Ma'iingan) will be listed as a ``Tribally Protected 
Species'' on the Bad River Reservation after Federal delisting. The 
Tribe set a minimum wolf population goal of two packs of at least three 
wolves on the Reservation and will manage wolves in a way that 
minimizes human-wildlife conflicts on and around the Reservation.
    In 2009, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians (LTBB) 
finalized a management plan for the 1855 Reservation and portions of 
the 1836 ceded territory in the northern Lower Peninsula of Michigan 
(Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Natural Resource Department 
2009). The plan provides the framework for managing wolves on the LTBB 
Reservation with the goal of maintaining a viable wolf presence on the 
LTBB Reservation or within the northern Lower Peninsula should a 
population become established by (1) prescribing scientifically sound 
biological strategies for wolf management, research, and monitoring; 
(2) addressing wolf-related conflicts; (3) facilitating wolf-related 
benefits; and (4) developing and implementing wolf-related education 
and public information.
    The Fond du Lac Band (Minnesota) of Lake Superior Chippewa believes 
that the ``well-being of the wolf is intimately connected to the well-
being of the Chippewa People'' (Schrage in litt. 2003). In 1998, the 
Band passed a resolution opposing Federal delisting and any other 
measure that would permit trapping, hunting, or poisoning of the wolf 
(Schrage in litt. 1998b; in litt. 2003; 2009, pers. comm.). If the 
prohibition of trapping, hunting, or poisoning is rescinded, the Band's 
Resource Management Division would coordinate with State and Federal 
agencies to ensure that any wolf hunting or trapping would be 
``conducted in a biologically sustainable manner'' (Schrage in litt. 
2003). The band finalized a wolf management plan for the Fond du Lac 
Reservation in 2012. A primary goal of the management plan is to 
maintain gray wolf numbers at levels that will contribute to the long-
term survival of the species. The plan expresses the Tribe's belief 
that humans and wolves need to coexist, in accordance with the Band's 
traditions and customs and, thus, also recognizes that a system must be 
developed to deal with concerns for human safety and instances of 
depredation by wolves on livestock and pets.
    The Tribal Council of the Leech Lake Band of Minnesota Ojibwe 
(Council) approved a resolution that describes the sport and 
recreational harvest of wolves as an inappropriate use of the animal. 
That resolution supports limited harvest of wolves to be used for 
traditional or spiritual uses by enrolled tribal members if the harvest 
is done in a respectful manner and would not negatively affect the wolf 
population. The Leech Lake Reservation was home to an estimated 60 
wolves (http://www.llojibwe.org/drm/fpw/wolf.html, accessed 12/17/
2019), although more recent survey data are not available.
    The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin is committed to 
establishing a self-sustaining wolf population, continuing restoration 
efforts, ensuring the long-term survival of the wolf in Menominee, 
placing emphasis on the cultural significance of the wolf as a clan 
member, and resolving conflicts between wolves and humans. The Tribe 
has shown a great deal of interest in wolf recovery and protection. In 
2002, the Tribe offered their Reservation lands as a site for 
translocating seven depredating wolves that had been trapped by WI DNR 
and Wildlife Services. Tribal natural resources staff participated in 
the soft release of the wolves on the Reservation and helped with the 
subsequent radio-tracking of the wolves. Although by early 2005 the 
last of these wolves died on the reservation, the tribal conservation 
department continued to monitor another pair that had moved onto the 
Reservation, as well as other wolves near the reservation (Wydeven in 
litt. 2006). When the female of that pair was killed in 2006, 
Reservation biologists and staff worked diligently to raise the 
orphaned pups in captivity with the WI DNR and the Wildlife Science 
Center (Forest Lake, Minnesota) in the hope that they could later be 
released to the care of the adult male. However, the adult male died 
prior to pup release, and they were moved back to the Wildlife Science 
Center (Pioneer Press 2006). In 2010-2018 the reservation generally 
supported 7 to 16 wolves in 3 or 4 packs (Menominee Tribal Conservation 
Department). The Menominee Tribe continues to support wolf conservation 
and monitoring activities in Wisconsin.
    The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Michigan) will continue to list 
the wolf as a protected animal under the Tribal Code following any 
Federal delisting, with hunting and trapping prohibited (Keweenaw Bay 
Indian Community 2019, in litt.). Furthermore, the Keweenaw Bay 
Community developed a management plan in 2013 that ``provides a course 
of action that will ensure the long-term survival of a self-sustaining, 
wild gray wolf (Canis lupus) population in the 1842 ceded territory in 
the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan'' (Keweenaw Bay Indian 
Community Tribal Council 2013, p. 1). The plan is written to encourage 
cooperation among agencies, communities, private and corporate 
landowners, special interest groups, and Michigan residents (Keweenaw 
Bay Indian Community 2019, in litt.). Several Midwestern Tribes have 
expressed concern that Federal delisting

[[Page 69840]]

would result in increased mortality of wolves on reservation lands, in 
the areas immediately surrounding the reservations, and in lands ceded 
by treaty to the Federal Government by the Tribes. In 2006, a 
cooperative effort among Tribal natural resource departments of several 
Tribes in Wisconsin, WI DNR, the Service, and Wildlife Services led to 
a wolf-management agreement for lands adjacent to several reservations 
in Wisconsin. The goal is to reduce the threats to reservation wolf 
packs when they are temporarily off the reservation. Other Tribes have 
expressed interest in such an agreement. This agreement, and additional 
agreements if they are implemented, provides supplementary protection 
to certain wolf packs in the Great Lakes area.
    The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission has stated its 
intent to work closely with the States to cooperatively manage wolves 
in the ceded territories in the core areas, and will not develop a 
separate wolf-management plan (Schlender in litt. 1998). Furthermore, 
the Voigt Intertribal Task Force of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 
Wildlife Commission has expressed its support for strong protections 
for the wolf, stating ``[delisting] hinges on whether wolves are 
sufficiently restored and will be sufficiently protected to ensure a 
healthy and abundant future for our brother and ourselves'' (Schlender 
in litt. 2004).
    According to the 1854 Authority, ``attitudes toward wolf management 
in the 1854 Ceded Territory run the gamut from a desire to see total 
protection to unlimited harvest opportunity.'' However, the 1854 
Authority would not ``implement a harvest system that would have any 
long-term negative impacts to wolf populations'' (Edwards in litt. 
2003). In comments submitted for our 2004 delisting proposal for a 
larger Eastern DPS of the gray wolf, the 1854 Authority stated that the 
Authority is ``confident that under the control of state and tribal 
management, wolves will continue to exist at a self-sustaining level in 
the 1854 Ceded Territory. Sustainable populations of wolves, their prey 
and other resources within the 1854 Ceded Territory are goals to which 
the 1854 Authority remains committed. As such, we intend to work with 
the state of Minnesota and other tribes to ensure successful state and 
tribal management of healthy wolf populations in the 1854 Ceded 
Territory'' (Myers in litt. 2004).
    While there are few written tribal protections currently in place 
for wolves in the Great Lakes area, the highly protective and 
reverential attitudes held by tribal authorities and members have 
assured us that any post-delisting harvest of reservation wolves will 
be very limited and will not adversely affect the delisted wolf 
populations. Furthermore, any off-reservation harvest of wolves by 
Tribal members in the ceded territories will be limited to a portion of 
the harvestable surplus at some future time. Such a harvestable surplus 
will be determined and monitored jointly by State and Tribal 
biologists, and will be conducted in coordination with the Service and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as is being successfully done for the 
ceded territory harvest of inland and Great Lakes fish, deer, bear, 
moose, and furbearers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Therefore, 
we conclude that any future Native American take of delisted wolves 
will not significantly affect the viability of the wolf population, 
either locally or across the Great Lakes area.
    In the Western United States, Native American Tribes have played a 
key role in the recovery of gray wolves. We specifically acknowledge 
the profound contributions of the Nez Perce Tribe in the recovery of 
the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountains. The Nez Perce Tribe 
devoted substantial biological expertise and resources to support gray 
wolf reintroduction and monitoring that assisted in the recovery of 
this species. We also acknowledge other Tribes in the Western United 
States that have developed, and are implementing, wolf management 
plans, including the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes in 
Wyoming, the Blackfeet Tribe and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes in Montana, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 
and the Spokane Tribe in Washington, and the Confederated Tribes of the 
Umatilla Indian Reservation in Oregon. We are not aware of any Tribal 
wolf management plans, beyond those already being implemented in the 
Western United States (see Management in the NRM section). However, 
Tribal biologists from the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are 
actively participating in radio-collaring and monitoring wolves on the 
Warm Springs Reservation in western Oregon.
    The Service and the Department of the Interior recognize the unique 
status of the federally recognized Tribes, their right to self-
governance, and their inherent sovereign powers over their members and 
territory. Therefore, the Department of the Interior, the Service, the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other Federal agencies, as appropriate, 
will take the needed steps to ensure that Tribal authority and 
sovereignty within reservation boundaries are respected as the States 
implement their wolf-management plans and revise those plans in the 
future. Furthermore, there may be Tribal activities or interests 
associated with wolves encompassed within the Tribes' retained rights 
to hunt, fish, and gather in treaty-ceded territories. The Department 
of the Interior is available to assist in the exercise of any such 
rights. If biological assistance is needed, the Service will provide it 
via our field offices. Upon delisting, the Service will remain involved 
in the post-delisting monitoring of wolves in the Great Lakes area, but 
all Service management and protection authority under the Act will end.
    Consistent with our responsibilities to Tribes and our goal to have 
the most comprehensive data available for our post-delisting 
monitoring, we will annually contact Tribes and their designated 
intertribal natural resource agencies during the 5-year post-delisting 
monitoring period to obtain any information they wish to share 
regarding wolf populations, the health of those populations, or changes 
in their management and protection. Reservations that may have 
significant wolf data to provide during the post-delisting period 
include Bois Forte, Bad River, Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, Keweenaw Bay 
Indian Community, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Leech Lake, 
Menominee, Oneida, Red Lake, Stockbridge-Munsee Community, and White 
Earth. Throughout the 5-year post-delisting monitoring period, the 
Service will annually contact the natural resource agencies of each of 
these reservations and that of the 1854 Treaty Authority and Great 
Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Management on Federal Lands
    Great Lakes Area--The five national forests with resident wolves in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan (Superior, Chippewa, Chequamegon-
Nicolet, Hiawatha, and Ottawa National Forests) have operated in 
conformance with standards and guidelines in their management plans 
that follow the Revised Recovery Plan's recommendations for the eastern 
timber wolf (USDA Forest Service (FS) 2004a, chapter 2, p. 31; USDA FS 
2004b, chapter 2, p. 28; USDA FS 2004c, chapter 2, p. 19; USDA FS 
2006a, chapter 2, p. 17; USDA FS 2006b, chapter 2, pp. 28-29). The 
Regional Forester for U.S. Forest Service Region 9 may maintain the 
classification of the wolf as a Sensitive Species, however, the 
Regional Foresters have the

[[Page 69841]]

authority to recommend classification or declassification of species as 
Sensitive Species. Under these standards and guidelines, a relatively 
high prey base would be maintained, and road densities would either be 
limited to current levels or decreased. For example, on the 
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin, the standards and 
guidelines specifically include the protection of den sites and key 
rendezvous sites, and management of road densities in existing and 
potential wolf habitat (USDA 2004c, chap. 2, p. 19).
    The trapping of depredating wolves may be allowed on national 
forest lands under the guidelines and conditions specified in the 
respective State wolf-management plans. However, there are relatively 
few livestock raised within the boundaries of national forests in the 
upper Midwest, so wolf depredation and lethal control of wolves is not 
likely to be a frequent occurrence, or to constitute a significant 
mortality factor, for the wolves in the Great Lakes area. Similarly, in 
keeping with the practice for other State-managed game species, any 
public hunting or trapping season for wolves that might be opened in 
the future by the States may include hunting and trapping within the 
national forests.
    Wolves regularly use four units of the National Park System in the 
Great Lakes area and may occasionally use an additional three or four 
units. Although the National Park Service (NPS) has participated in the 
development of some of the State wolf-management plans in this area, 
NPS is not bound by States' plans. Instead, the NPS Organic Act and the 
NPS Management Policy on Wildlife generally require the agency to 
conserve natural and cultural resources and the wildlife present within 
the parks. NPS management policies require that native species be 
protected against harvest, removal, destruction, harassment, or harm 
through human action, although certain parks may allow some harvest in 
accordance with State management plans. Management emphasis in National 
Parks after delisting will continue to minimize the human impacts on 
wolf populations. Thus, because of their responsibility to preserve all 
native wildlife, units of the National Park System are often the most 
protective of wildlife. In the case of the wolf, the NPS Organic Act 
and NPS policies will continue to provide protection following Federal 
delisting.
    Management and protection of wolves in Voyageurs National Park, 
along Minnesota's northern border, is not likely to change after 
delisting. The park's management policies require that ``native animals 
will be protected against harvest, removal, destruction, harassment, or 
harm through human action.'' No population targets for wolves will be 
established for the National Park (Holbeck in litt. 2005). To reduce 
human disturbance, temporary closures around wolf denning and 
rendezvous sites will be enacted whenever they are discovered in the 
park. Hunting is already prohibited on park lands, regardless of what 
may be allowed beyond park boundaries (West in litt. 2004). A radio-
telemetry study conducted between 1987 and 1991 of wolves living in and 
adjacent to the park found that all mortality inside the park was due 
to natural causes (for example, killing by other wolves or starvation), 
whereas the majority (60-80 percent) of mortality outside the park was 
human-induced (for example, shooting and trapping) (Gogan et al. 2004, 
p. 22). If there is a need to control depredating wolves outside the 
park, staff will work with the State to conduct control activities 
where necessary (West in litt. 2004). However, such control is unlikely 
to be needed because presently there are no agricultural activities 
occurring adjacent to the park.
    The wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is 
small, isolated, and lacks unique genetic diversity (Wayne et al. 
1991). For these reasons, and due to constraints on expansion because 
of the island's small size, this wolf population does not contribute 
significantly towards meeting numerical recovery criteria. However, 
long-term research on this wolf population has added a great deal to 
our knowledge of the species. The wolf population on Isle Royale has 
typically varied from 18 to 27 wolves in 3 packs, but was down to just 
2 wolves (a father-daughter pair) from the winter of 2015-2016 until 
2018 (Peterson et al. 2018). In 2018, the NPS announced plans to move 
additional wolves to Isle Royale in an effort to restore a viable wolf 
population (83 FR 11787, March 16, 2018). Four wolves from Minnesota 
were released on the island in the fall of 2018, and 11 were relocated 
from Ontario in March 2019. One of the Minnesota wolves died later that 
fall; one of the Ontario wolves died in the winter; and one returned to 
the mainland during the winter. As of late May 2019, 14 wolves occurred 
on Isle Royale National Park: 12 successfully translocated from 
Minnesota and Canada plus the 2 wolves that remained on Isle Royale 
before the initiation of wolf reintroduction efforts (https://https://www.nps.gov/isro/learn/news/presskit.htm).
    Two other units of the National Park System, Pictured Rocks 
National Lakeshore and St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, are 
regularly used by wolves. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is a narrow 
strip of land along Michigan's Lake Superior shoreline. Lone wolves 
periodically use, but do not appear to be year-round residents of, the 
Lakeshore. If denning occurs after delisting, the Lakeshore will 
protect denning and rendezvous sites at least as strictly as the 
Michigan Plan recommends (Gustin in litt. 2003). Harvesting wolves on 
the Lakeshore may be allowed (if the Michigan DNR allows for harvest in 
the State), but trapping is not allowed. The St. Croix National Scenic 
Riverway, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, is also a mostly linear 
ownership. The Riverway is likely to limit public access to denning and 
rendezvous sites and to follow other management and protective 
practices outlined in the respective State wolf-management plans, 
although trapping is not allowed on NPS lands except possibly by Native 
Americans (Maercklein in litt. 2003).
    At least one pack of 4-5 wolves used the shoreline areas of the 
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, with a major deer yard area (a 
place where deer congregate in the winter) occurring on portions of the 
Park Service land. Wolf tracks have been detected on Sand Island, and a 
wolf was photographed by a trail camera on the island in September 
2009. A gray wolf was also detected on Stockton Island (Allen et al. 
2018, p. 277). It is not known if wolves periodically swim to these and 
other islands, or if they travel to islands only on ice in winter.
    Wolves occurring on National Wildlife Refuges in the Great Lakes 
area will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years after delisting (USFWS 
2008, p. 9). Trapping or hunting by government trappers for depredation 
control will not be authorized on National Wildlife Refuges. Because of 
the relatively small size of these Refuges, however, most or all wolf 
packs or individual wolves in these Refuges also spend significant 
amounts of time off these Refuges.
    Wolves also occupy the Fort McCoy military installation in 
Wisconsin. Management and protection of wolves on the installation will 
not change significantly after Federal or State delisting. Den and 
rendezvous sites will continue to be protected, hunting seasons for 
other species (coyote) will be closed during the gun deer season, and 
current surveys will continue, if resources are available. Fort McCoy 
has no plans to allow a public harvest of wolves on the installation 
(Nobles in

[[Page 69842]]

litt. 2004; Wydeven et al. 2005, p. 25; 2006a, p. 25).
    Minnesota National Guard's Camp Ripley contains parts of 2 pack 
territories, which typically include 10 to 20 wolves. Minnesota 
National Guard wildlife managers try to have at least one wolf in each 
pack radio-collared and to fit an additional one or two wolves in each 
pack with satellite transmitters that record long-distance movements. 
There have been no significant conflicts with military training or with 
the permit-only public deer-hunting program at the camp, and no new 
conflicts are expected following delisting. Long-term and intensive 
monitoring has detected only two wolf mortalities within the camp 
boundaries--both were of natural causes (Dirks 2009, pers. comm.).
    The protection afforded to resident and transient wolves, their den 
and rendezvous sites, and their prey by five national forests, four 
National Parks, two military facilities, and numerous National Wildlife 
Refuges in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will further ensure the 
conservation of wolves in the three States after delisting. In 
addition, wolves that disperse to other units of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System or the National Park System within the Great Lakes area 
will also receive the protection afforded by these Federal agencies.
    West Coast States--The West Coast States generally contain a 
greater proportion of public land than the Great Lakes area. Public 
lands here include many National Parks, National Forests, National 
Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, and lands managed by the Bureau 
of Land Management. These areas are largely unavailable and/or 
unsuitable for intensive development and contain abundant ungulate 
populations. Public lands in the West contain relatively expansive 
blocks of potentially suitable habitat for wolves. On some of these 
public lands the presence of livestock grazing allotments increases the 
likelihood of wolf-livestock conflict, which increases the chances of 
wolf mortality from lethal removal of chronically depredating wolf 
packs. In areas occupied by wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, the 
overall wolf population has been remarkably resilient--in terms of 
population numbers and distribution--despite lethal control of 
depredating wolves.
    In the listed portions of California, Oregon, and Washington, 
wolves are resident on portions of the Lassen, Plumas, Fremont-Winema, 
Rogue-Siskiyou, Mount Hood, Okanogan-Wenatchee, and Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forests (Forests) and portions of Bureau of Land 
Management Districts in those States. Forest Service Land and Resource 
Management Plans (LRMPs) and Bureau of Land Management Resource 
Management Plans (RMPs) for these areas pre-date the reestablishment of 
wolf packs and, therefore, do not contain standards and guidelines 
specific to wolf management. The LRMPs and RMPs do, however, recognize 
that these agencies have obligations under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) 
of the Act to proactively conserve and avoid adverse effects to 
federally listed species. When federally delisted, the Regional 
Foresters for U.S. Forest Service Region 6 will include the gray wolf 
as a Sensitive Species in their region (BLM 2019, p. 4). U.S. Forest 
Service Region 5 may do the same. As a Sensitive Species, conservation 
objectives for the gray wolf and its habitat would continue to be 
addressed during planning and implementation of projects. BLM requires 
the designation of federally delisted species as sensitive species for 
5 years following delisting (BLM 2008, p. 36). BLM sensitive species 
are managed consistent with species and habitat management objectives 
in land use and implementation plans to promote their conservation and 
minimize the likelihood and need for listing under the Act (BLM 2008, 
p. 8).
    Gray wolves disperse through, but are not necessarily residents of, 
National Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges in the listed 
portions of all three West Coast States. Wolves are also known to 
disperse through National Parks, and one territory in Washington 
overlaps a small portion of the North Cascades National Park. Similar 
to these types of lands in the Great Lakes areas, management plans 
provide for the conservation of natural and cultural resources and 
wildlife. The gray wolf and its habitat are expected to persist on 
these lands once federally delisted.
    Central Rocky Mountains--Similar to other western States, a large 
proportion of Colorado and Utah is composed of publicly owned Federal 
lands (approximately 36 percent in Colorado and approximately 63 
percent in Utah) (Congressional Research Service 2020). Public lands 
include National Forests, National Parks, National Monuments, and 
National Wildlife Refuges, which comprise approximately 63 percent of 
the public lands in Colorado and 30 percent in Utah. In addition, the 
Bureau of Land Management manages approximately 35 percent of public 
land in Colorado, much of which is located in the western portion of 
the State, and approximately 67 percent of Utah public lands. Although 
much of this public land is largely unavailable and/or unsuitable for 
intensive development and contains an abundance of ungulates, livestock 
grazing does occur on some public lands in both Colorado and Utah, 
which may increase the potential for wolf mortality from lethal control 
of chronically depredating packs. However, in both Minnesota and the 
northern Rocky Mountains, lethal control of depredating wolves has had 
little effect on wolf distribution and abundance (see Human-Caused 
Mortality section above).
    At present, the group of at least six wolves that were confirmed in 
January 2020 in northwest Colorado have been documented primarily on 
lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, but likely use some State and private land in the 
area as well. Although very close to the Utah border, this group of 
wolves has not been confirmed in Utah. The lone disperser that 
continues to reside in the North Park area of north-central Colorado 
has been documented on the Medicine-Bow/Routt National Forest and 
likely uses adjacent State and private lands.
Summary of Post-Delisting Management
    In summary, upon delisting, there will be varying State and Tribal 
classifications and protections provided to wolves. The State wolf-
management plans currently in place for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan will maintain viable wolf populations in each State. Each of 
those plans contains management goals that will maintain healthy 
populations of wolves in the State by establishing a minimum population 
threshold of 1,600 in Minnesota, 250 in Wisconsin, and 200 in Michigan, 
and each State intends to manage for numbers above these levels. 
Furthermore, both the Wisconsin and Michigan Wolf Management Plans are 
designed to manage and ensure the existence of wolf populations in the 
States as if they are isolated populations and are not dependent upon 
immigration of wolves from an adjacent State or Canada, while still 
maintaining connections to those other populations. This approach 
provides strong assurances that wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan will 
remain a viable component of the wolf population in the Great Lakes 
area and the lower 48 United States. Each of the three Great Lakes 
States has a longstanding history of leadership in wolf conservation. 
All of the State management plans provide a high level of assurance of 
the persistence of healthy wolf populations

[[Page 69843]]

and demonstrate the States' commitment to wolf conservation.
    Furthermore, when federally delisted, wolves in Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan will continue to receive protection from human-
caused mortality by State laws and regulations. Wolves are protected as 
game species in each of those States, and lethal take is prohibited 
without a permit, license, or authorization, except under a few limited 
situations (as described under the management plans above). Each of the 
three States will consider population-management measures, including 
public hunting and trapping, after Federal delisting. However, 
regardless of the methods used to manage wolves, each State has 
committed to maintaining wolf populations at levels that ensure healthy 
wolf populations will remain.
    Similarly, State management plans developed for Washington, Oregon, 
and California contain objectives to conserve and recover gray wolves. 
To maintain healthy populations, each State will monitor population 
abundance and trends, habitat and prey availability, and impacts of 
disease and take actions as needed to maintain populations. They are 
also committed to continuing necessary biological and social research, 
as well as outreach and education, to maintain healthy wolf 
populations. Wolves in Washington, Oregon, and California will also be 
protected by State laws and regulations when federally delisted. 
Currently, wolves in Washington and California are protected under 
State statutes as endangered species, and under their respective State 
management plans. Wolves in Oregon are State-delisted but still receive 
protection under its State management plan. Each plan contains various 
phases outlining objectives for conservation and recovery. As 
recolonization of the West Coast States continues, different phases of 
management will be enacted. All phases within the various State 
management plans are designed to achieve and maintain healthy wolf 
populations.
    In the central Rocky Mountains, wolves will remain listed as an 
endangered species at the State level in Colorado and will continue to 
receive protection under the Colorado Revised Statutes. In Utah, the 
State management plan will guide management of wolves until 2030; until 
at least two breeding pairs are documented in the State for two 
consecutive years; or until the political, social, biological, or legal 
assumptions of the plan change, whichever occurs first.
    Finally, based on our review of the completed Tribal management 
plans and communications with Tribes and Tribal organizations, we 
anticipate that federally delisted wolves will be adequately protected 
on Tribal lands. Furthermore, the minimum population levels defined in 
the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan State management plans can be 
maintained (based on the population and range of off-reservation 
wolves) even without Tribal protection of wolves on reservation lands. 
In addition, on the basis of information received from other Federal 
land-management agencies, we expect that National Forests, National 
Parks, military bases, and National Wildlife Refuges will provide 
protections to wolves in the areas they manage that will match, and in 
some cases exceed, the protections provided by State wolf-management 
plans and State regulations.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Based on our review of all public and peer reviewer comments we 
received on our March 15, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15, 
2019), and new information they provided or that otherwise became 
available since the publication of the proposed rule, we reevaluated 
the information in the proposed rule and made changes as appropriate. 
As indicated in this rule (see Determination of Species Status), our 
analyses are based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available. Thus, we include in this final rule new information received 
in response to the March 19, 2019, proposed rule that meets this 
standard.
    We received many comments related to our approach to the proposed 
rule. While commenters presented a broad range of positions regarding 
our approach, many of them focused on several common issues. Some 
commenters questioned our decision to combine the two listed gray wolf 
entities for analysis rather than analyze each of the listed entities 
separately. Others pointed out that we did not include the analyses to 
support our conclusion that, even if we had analyzed the listed 
entities separately, neither would meet the Act's definitions of a 
threatened species or an endangered species (84 FR 9686, March 15, 
2019). Still others expressed disagreement with our treatment of gray 
wolves in the West Coast States, opining that we could not adequately 
consider the status of gray wolves in the West Coast States without 
also assessing threats to the recovered and delisted gray wolf 
population in the NRM DPS. Finally, a few commenters reasoned that the 
Act allows us to analyze the status of only valid listable entities, 
and, because we acknowledge the two gray wolf listed entities do not 
qualify as valid species, subspecies, or DPSs under the Act, the 
entities should be delisted on that basis alone.
    In light of the peer review and numerous comments received during 
the public comment period, we have reexamined the approach we took in 
the proposed rule. Our proposal clearly articulated the reasoning 
behind combining the listed entities for analysis and, as this final 
rule illustrates, we continue to find it a reasonable approach. 
However, we agree with commenters who suggested that we should include 
a separate determination for each of the currently listed gray wolf 
entities. Thus, we added the analysis to this final rule to support our 
statement in the proposed rule that, when analyzed separately, the 
entities do not meet the definition of a threatened or an endangered 
species.
    We have also reconsidered our approach to the NRM wolves in light 
of public comments. The biological report we prepared to support our 
proposal included detailed information related to gray wolf abundance 
and distribution throughout the lower 48 United States, including the 
NRM DPS. However, we did not include the delisted NRM DPS in the 
threats analysis of our proposed rule because wolves in that DPS are 
not currently listed under the Act. Nonetheless, because we considered 
wolves in the West Coast States to be an extension of the population of 
wolves in the delisted NRM DPS, we included information about the NRM 
DPS in our proposal to provide context for our discussion of wolves 
comprising the combined listed entity.
    Commenters remarked that this approach was inconsistent, and one 
commenter opined that we could not delist wolves in the West Coast 
States without also including the NRM DPS in our analysis. In this 
final rule, we include NRM wolves in the analysis because we conclude 
that it makes sense, biologically, to consider those wolves because of 
their connection to the west coast wolves that are part of the listed 
44-State entity. As we concluded in our proposed rule, west coast 
wolves are not discrete from the NRM DPS (84 FR 9654, March 15, 2019; 
see also The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the 
Statutory Definition of a ``Species''). Because most west coast wolves 
are dispersers from the NRM, or are descended from dispersers, wolves 
in the NRM are relevant to our analysis of whether the west coast 
wolves are ``significant'' to the entities that we evaluate in this 
rule. Thus, in this final rule we include an evaluation of the

[[Page 69844]]

status of the two currently listed gray wolf entities combined with the 
recovered NRM DPS. However, although we consider the NRM wolves due to 
their connection to currently listed wolves, we reiterate that wolves 
in the NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not reconsidering or 
reexamining our 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 
2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).
    Finally, while our proposed rule already articulated that neither 
of the two gray wolf listed entities constitute valid listable entities 
under the Act and should, therefore, be removed from the List (84 FR 
9686, March 15, 2019), we added a more complete discussion in this 
final rule to support our conclusion (see The Currently Listed C. lupus 
Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a ``Species''). We 
also clarify that, while the currently listed entities could be removed 
from the List on that basis, we elected not to act solely on that basis 
in this final rule. Instead, we elected to consider whether the gray 
wolves within the currently listed entities meet the definition of a 
threatened or an endangered species, in this case whether they are 
recovered.
    In addition to the items discussed above, we made the following 
changes in this final rule:
    (1) We updated distribution information for the gray wolf;
    (2) we added a Definition and Treatment of Range section to 
Approach for this Rule (see Our Response to Comments 5, 7, 8, 10, 63);
    (3) we added a Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding section to Summary 
of Factors Affecting the Species (see Our Response to Comments 2, 41, 
57, 116, 117);
    (4) we incorporated information regarding gray wolves in the 
central Rocky Mountains into the Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species section as well as incorporated a consideration of these wolves 
into our Determination of Species Status section;
    (5) we incorporated new information as appropriate; and
    (6) we made efforts to improve clarity and correct typographical or 
other minor errors.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on March 15, 2019 (84 FR 9648), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by May 14, 2019. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in USA 
TODAY on March 22, 2019. Subsequently, on May 14, 2019, we extended the 
public comment period until July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We received 
several requests for public hearings. A public information open house 
and public hearing was held in Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019 
(84 FR 26393).
    In addition, in accordance with our joint policy on peer review 
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and 
updated guidance issued on August 22, 2016 (USFWS 2016, entire), we 
solicited expert opinion from five knowledgeable individuals with 
scientific expertise that included experience with large carnivore 
management, especially wolves, expert knowledge of conservation 
biology, wildlife management, demographic management of mammals, 
genetics, population modeling, mammalian taxonomy, or systematics. We 
received responses from all five peer reviewers. The peer review 
process, including the selection of peer reviewers, was conducted and 
managed by an independent third party (USFWS 2018, entire; Atkins 2019, 
pp. 1-6).
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the 
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
delisting of the gray wolf, inclusive of comments on the proposed rule 
and the supporting biological report. Multiple respondents provided 
technical edits and editorial comments and corrections on the proposed 
rule and biological report, or recommended additional citations to 
consider. We made recommended edits and corrections to the rule and 
biological report, where appropriate. We also reviewed and considered 
all additional citations provided by peer reviewers and others, and 
incorporated information from them, as appropriate, into this final 
rule and the biological report.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    Overall, three of the reviewers found the biological report 
represented an accurate overview of the changes in the biological 
status (range, distribution, abundance) of the gray wolf in the lower 
48 United States over the last several decades, and provided 
recommended revisions and updates. Although one of those reviewers 
found our taxonomic treatment of wolves to be somewhat arbitrary, a 
fourth reviewer found the taxonomy section adequate and recommended 
additional information on biology, ecology, and biological status of 
the gray wolf for inclusion in the report. A fifth reviewer found the 
biological report inadequate because the reviewer believed that there 
were other sources of information that should be included, which the 
reviewer provided and we considered.
    With respect to our proposed rule, 2 peer reviewers found our 
analysis of the factors relating to the persistence of gray wolves in 
the lower 48 United States to be adequate; 1 peer review provided 
corrections and updates. Three reviewers found our analysis of these 
factors inadequate, mainly because they found our treatment of genetic 
threats, human-caused mortality, or habitat suitability insufficient, 
or because they disagreed with Service policy.
    Three reviewers found it reasonable to conclude that the approach 
of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to wolf management is likely to 
maintain a viable wolf population in the Great Lakes area into the 
future, while two did not. One of these two found that the proposed 
rule did not provide adequate support for either the conclusion that 
the metapopulation in the Great Lakes area contained sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain populations 
within the combined listed entity into the future or that wolves 
outside this metapopulation are not necessary to maintain its recovered 
status. All provided additional information and literature for 
inclusion in the rule, which we reviewed. Comments received are 
addressed in the following summary, and our responses are incorporated 
into this final rule as appropriate.
    Finally, although we did not request peer review on matters related 
to policy application, we received a number of policy-related comments 
from four of the five reviewers. Issues raised included: How we applied 
certain terms defined in Service policies (e.g., species ``range''); 
our application of the SPR policy; and our approach to the rule. 
Although these comments are outside of the scope of the requested 
scientific peer review (USFWS 2018, entire; Atkins 2019, pp. 1-6), we 
address them in the summary below.
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Comment 1: Several reviewers stated that the biological report and 
proposed rule oversimplified the genetic structure of gray wolves and 
requested additional information about population or metapopulation 
structure in wolves.
    Our Response: We modified both the biological report and the rule 
to better reflect the various factors that have been shown to impact 
the population genetic structure of wolves in North America,

[[Page 69845]]

including consideration and addition of citations recommended by the 
reviewer.
    Comment 2: Several reviewers noted that there should be a more 
detailed discussion of potential genetic impacts of delisting and 
provided additional citations for our consideration. These comments 
included requests for further consideration of the impacts of delisting 
on connectivity between populations, particularly in western States.
    Our Response: We revised the biological report to provide greater 
detail on existing genetic structure in wolves as a background for 
potential genetic issues that may result from the rule. In addition, we 
added a section to this rule (Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding) that 
provides a more in-depth analysis of the potential genetic impacts of 
delisting, including consideration of inbreeding and effects to 
metapopulation structure and connectivity.
    Comment 3: Peer reviewers raised concerns about our description of 
the historical range of gray wolves, pointing out that the scientific 
evidence indicates that either eastern or red wolves were present in 
the Northeastern United States historically, not the gray wolf.
    Our Response: As we discuss in the rule and the biological report, 
the taxonomy of wolves, particularly in the Eastern United States, is 
not settled. Along with the morphological data presented by authors 
such as Nowak (1995, entire; 2002, entire; 2003, entire; 2009, entire), 
there is now significant genetic and genomic research that has 
contributed to the ongoing debate over the correct taxonomic 
relationship between eastern wolves, red wolves, and western gray 
wolves. This debate includes considerable uncertainty about the 
potential historical ranges of those groups, including questions about 
the degree to which they did or did not overlap, which can be difficult 
to ascertain based on limited available samples. In presenting 
information on historical range, we sought to acknowledge this 
uncertainty while considering the taxa that were covered by the 
original listing rule we are addressing. As a result, we explicitly 
include eastern wolves, but not red wolves, in the gray wolf entities 
evaluated for this rule, meaning that the historical range of the gray 
wolf in the lower 48 United States does not attempt to distinguish 
between the ranges of western gray wolf and eastern wolf and instead 
considers them as a single range. The area of ``uncertainty'' in our 
map of the historical range in the biological report, therefore, 
reflects the fact that there is evidence that the Northeastern United 
States may have been inhabited by wolves included in our analysis. We 
revised the text of the biological report to clarify the information 
pertaining to historical range and to address the reviewers' concerns.
    Comment 4: One peer reviewer sought clarification of information 
presented in the figures depicting historical range and current 
distribution of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the lower 48 United 
States (figure 2 of the proposed rule and figure 1 of the biological 
report). Specifically, the reviewer asked us to explain the basis for 
the current distribution and provide citations for data used to develop 
the current distribution so that he could determine whether we included 
data for all wolves or some subset of wolves, how the polygons were 
delineated, and if there is a time period associated with the data 
used.
    Our Response: The current distribution (i.e., range) shown in 
figure 2 of the proposed rule and figure 1 of the biological report 
includes State data for packs and groups of wolves. The distribution is 
current as of winter 2019-2020. We revised these figures and associated 
text to address the concerns raised by the peer reviewer. Also see Our 
Response to Comment 6.
    Comment 5: One peer reviewer requested additional detail regarding 
figure 1 in the biological report (same as figure 2 in proposed rule). 
Specifically, the reviewer questioned whether current distribution is 
also current range and noted that the figure does not provide a spatial 
reference describing the area included in the threats analysis, nor is 
it described in associated paragraphs.
    Our Response: The figure depicts the current distribution of known 
wolves in the lower 48 United States. The figure was not meant to 
indicate a specific spatial extent for our threats analysis, rather it 
was to provide a representation of the approximate locations of wolves 
within the listed wolf entities relative to wolves in the remainder of 
the lower 48 United States. The threats analyses have been completed 
for the two listed entities assessed separately, in combination 
(combined listed entity), and in combination with the NRM DPS (lower 48 
United States entity), all of which are encompassed by the current 
distribution indicated in figure 1 of the biological report. We 
endeavored to match our threats analysis to the spatial scale of the 
gray wolf's distribution. However, some data on threats and 
conservation measures and management of wolves were provided at 
regional or State-wide scales, and we did not want to constrain our 
analysis to the dynamic smaller polygons in the West Coast States and 
Central Rockies where wolves continue to recolonize. Therefore, our 
threats analysis encompasses relevant threats to wolves, as well as 
conservation and management, in the following geographic areas: West 
Coast States (western Washington, western Oregon, and California), 
Northern Rocky Mountains (represented in the figure), Central Rocky 
Mountains (Colorado and Utah [outside of the NRM DPS]), and the Great 
Lakes Area (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). See Our Response to 
Comment 37 and Definition and Treatment of Range in this final rule.
    Comment 6: One peer reviewer recommended that including marks on 
States in which dispersing gray wolves have appeared in figure 1 in the 
biological report (figure 2 in the proposed rule) may further 
demonstrate the level of recovery gray wolves have attained.
    Our Response: As indicated in our response to Comment 5, the 
purpose of this figure is to show the current distribution of gray 
wolves to provide information about where wolves are currently known to 
occur (see Definition and Treatment of Range). We acknowledge that 
dispersing wolves have been documented outside of the known, current 
distribution and present this information in the text of this final 
rule and the biological report.
    Comment 7: One peer reviewer assumed our analysis of threats for 
wolves in the Great Lakes area was in the area of current distribution 
and indicated that this made sense, as it is a single large area 
supporting thousands of wolves. Similarly, the peer reviewer questioned 
whether our threats analysis for wolves in Washington, Oregon, and 
California included only the small, isolated patches of occupied wolf 
habitat or also included the intervening areas.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer is correct regarding the scope of 
the threats analysis for the Great Lakes area wolves. In areas where 
the saturation of wolves is denser, polygons delineated around occupied 
habitats are larger and also incorporate corridors connecting occupied 
habitats to one another. The opposite is true in the West, where wolves 
are less saturated due to more recent recolonization from resident 
packs, the NRM, and Canada. Connecting these smaller occupied patches 
to the larger metapopulation would be speculative at best given the 
level of information currently available about corridors that may 
connect occupied habitats. We describe the current condition of wolves 
in

[[Page 69846]]

Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado (not limited to small 
polygons) and how these wolves would be managed post-delisting (also 
see Our Responses to Comments 8 and 37 and Definition and Treatment of 
Range in this final rule).
    Comment 8: One peer reviewer noted that the apparent current range 
of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, under a metapopulation 
structure, should include portions of the historical range because the 
historical range provides connectivity between known occurrences. 
Additionally, the peer reviewer advised that sink areas of 
metapopulations (e.g., dispersal end points in various western and 
midwestern States) should be considered current range as they provide 
viability and connectivity to metapopulations (citing Howe et al. 1991 
and Heinrichs et al. 2015).
    Our Response: As described in the Definition and Treatment of Range 
section of this final rule, we define current range to be the area 
occupied by the species at the time we make a status determination. The 
current range of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States is based 
on data provided by the States on the locations of groups or packs of 
wolves. Individual dispersing wolves do not have a defined territory or 
consistently use any one area and, therefore, are not included in the 
current range of the gray wolf. Also see Our Response to Comment 37 and 
Definition and Treatment of Range in this final rule.
    Comment 9: One peer reviewer questioned why we include listed and 
delisted wolves in figure 2 of the biological report, when we state 
that we are not including the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the 
listed entity under analysis.
    Our Response: As explained above, we are including wolves in the 
delisted NRM DPS in our analysis of the status of the lower 48 United 
States entity for this final rule. We provided information from the NRM 
DPS in our biological report and the proposed rule because the NRM 
wolves are biologically connected to wolves in the West Coast States, 
and to illustrate how wolf populations have responded post-delisting 
when they are managed under State authority. We also included NRM 
wolves in figure 2 of the biological report, which provides information 
on changes in distribution and abundance since the original listing in 
1978 (see USFWS 2020, p. 14).
    Comment 10: One peer reviewer sought clarification on whether our 
description of the public lands available for expansion of west coast 
wolves includes areas outside of the current range or current 
distribution.
    Our Response: We have clarified, in this final rule, that our 
findings are based on the current range of the gray wolf and do not 
rely on further range expansion of west coast wolves. Also see 
Definition and Treatment of Range in this final rule.
    Comment 11: One peer reviewer requested inclusion of 2018 minimum 
wolf counts for Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as for the 
Mexican gray wolf. Similarly, another peer reviewer noted an 
inconsistency in our discussion of whether the Mexican gray wolf 
population was growing or stable.
    Our Response: The requested data were not available at the time the 
biological report and proposed rule were completed. The 2018 data, as 
well as data from winter 2019-2020, are now included in this final rule 
and revised biological report. We also clarified that the Mexican gray 
wolf population continues to grow.
    Comment 12: One peer reviewer noted that Appendix 1 of the 
biological report contained minimum annual counts of wolves only for 
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Similar information was requested 
for Washington, Oregon, and California.
    Our Response: We have added another table, Appendix 2, to the 
biological report that provides minimum end of year counts for wolves 
in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, and California.
    Comment 13: One reviewer recommended that we clarify in the 
biological report differences between minimum wolf counts versus patch 
occupancy modeling when discussing wolf population estimates in Montana 
and proposed specific language.
    Our Response: The paragraph in question has been revised and 
updated using similar concepts, rather than the exact terminology 
provided by the reviewer. Updated information is also included in the 
Human-caused Mortality section of this final rule.
Human-Caused Mortality
    Comment 14: One peer reviewer expressed their view that illegal 
take is underestimated by State monitoring programs and would be much 
higher than it is today if wolves were to be delisted. This reviewer 
expressed concerns about a ``catastrophic decline'' in the Minnesota 
wolf population post-delisting as well as ``unwarranted assurances 
about the safety of wolves in the Western Great Lakes'' post-delisting 
in both the proposed rule and biological report. One peer reviewer 
recommended that we add State-by-State estimates of mortality rates and 
include additional mortality factors to table 4 in the rule (to include 
all forms of mortality aside from lethal control and legal public 
harvest). The reviewer created a new table and provided new information 
about the percent of the population removed annually through agency 
control efforts. Other commenters also expressed concern that State 
monitoring programs underestimate mortality rates, including the 
effects of legal depredation control and other sources of mortality.
    Our Response: In most instances, State and Tribal wildlife agencies 
have been the primary agencies responsible for monitoring wolf 
populations while they were federally listed. As a result, the Service 
has relied upon data provided by partner wildlife agencies to evaluate 
population metrics related to recovery. We do not expect that wolf 
monitoring will significantly change or become less precise post-
delisting. To evaluate the population status of wolves, biologists used 
a variety of monitoring techniques to evaluate pack size and 
reproductive success, identify pack territories, monitor movements and 
dispersal events, and identify new areas of possible wolf activity. In 
addition to direct counts that provide a minimum known number each 
year, managers attempt to use similar survey techniques annually so 
that accurate assessments of historical trends may be used to further 
evaluate wolf population status and changes over time. However, 
traditional techniques used to monitor wolves (e.g., capture and radio-
collar animals, monitor from the ground or air) can be dangerous to the 
animal and wildlife personnel, are costly and time-consuming, and 
become less precise as wolf abundance and distribution increase; thus, 
these techniques underestimate the true population size (Gude et al. 
2012, p. 116).
    As a result, State management agencies have been at the forefront 
in developing more accurate, cost-efficient monitoring techniques to 
assess wolf population status in their respective States. For example, 
Montana incorporates hunter surveys, along with other variables, into a 
patch occupancy modeling framework to estimate wolf abundance and 
distribution across the State. Idaho experimented with multiple 
noninvasive monitoring techniques to assess reproductive success and 
the number of packs in the State and most recently used camera surveys 
and a modeling framework to provide a population estimate for 2019. 
Michigan inventories wolves using a geographically based, stratified, 
random sample that produces an unbiased,

[[Page 69847]]

regional estimate of wolf abundance. Minnesota radio-collars a relative 
few individuals in a number of packs Statewide and uses metrics 
obtained from those packs to evaluate occupied range and abundance. In 
addition to using similar techniques as Minnesota, Wisconsin also uses 
citizen science volunteers who are trained and qualified through a 
tracking program to assist agency personnel in documenting wolf 
presence and number across survey blocks in winter. California, Oregon, 
Washington, and Wyoming continue to use traditional monitoring 
approaches that provide minimum counts.
    Most State management agencies within occupied wolf range in the 
lower 48 United States publish a report that summarizes the results of 
wolf monitoring and management activities each year they are conducted. 
The Service reviewed these reports to complete the biological report 
and the proposed and final rules. These reports also provide 
information about the number and type of known causes of mortality that 
occurred in each State. Wolves may go missing for a variety of reasons, 
and removing these animals from survival analyses has the potential to 
bias survival estimates high (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; Stenglein et 
al. 2015c, p. 374; O'Neil 2017, p. 202; Treves et al. 2017b, pp. 7-8). 
However, it is not reasonable to assume that all, or even most, wolves 
with unknown fates have died, particularly through illegal means. For 
example, a wolf captured in northeast Oregon in 2011 went missing later 
that same year until it was rediscovered again in 2015 in southwestern 
Oregon (ODFW 2016, p. 8), where it became the breeder in a newly formed 
pack (ODFW 2017, p. 5). An integrated population model for Wisconsin's 
wolf population indicated that up to an additional 4 percent of missing 
wolves may have actually died between 2003 and 2011 (Stenglein et al. 
2015c, pp. 372-374).
    Managers use empirical data from monitoring efforts and reports 
from the public to provide accurate information about the number and 
causes of known wolf mortalities, but are cautious about drawing 
conclusions from those data regarding the fates of missing animals. 
Most managers acknowledge that information related to the number and 
cause of wolf mortalities are likely biased because not every wolf is 
fitted with a radio collar and not every wolf that dies is recovered so 
their fates are unknown. In the NRM, it was estimated that 10 percent 
of the population was illegally killed annually. Although some research 
has indicated that rates of illegal take may be biased low (Liberg et 
al. 2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 2017b, pp. 7-8), other studies have 
supported the estimate that between 6 and 10 percent of the known 
population may be illegally killed each year in both the NRM and the 
Great Lakes area wolf populations (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; Ausband 
et al. 2017a, p. 7; O'Neil 2017, p. 214, Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 
104). Wolves die for a variety of reasons and the mechanisms they have 
to compensate for these mortalities have made wolf populations very 
adaptable and resilient to perturbations. Table 4 in the rule provides 
information about the average annual number and percent of the total 
estimated population removed in 5-year increments (with the exception 
of the period between 2015 and 2017) via agency-directed lethal control 
of depredating wolves in Minnesota. This table relates only to 
depredation control in Minnesota; other forms of mortality are 
addressed elsewhere in the rule. While the Service appreciates the 
reviewer's efforts to create a new table, we find the table that was 
originally published in the proposed rule is an appropriate way to 
provide information about the average number and percentage of the 
population removed through lethal control actions in Minnesota.
    Refer to the Human-caused Mortality section of the rule and Our 
Response to Comment 16 for further information related to discussions 
about illegal take.
    Comment 15: One reviewer noted that we did not analyze human-caused 
mortality for western wolves--specifically, how human-caused mortality 
in the core of the western United States metapopulation could affect 
the viability of outlying western listed wolves. The same reviewer also 
noted a lack of discussion regarding the potential for high levels of 
human-caused mortality in one western listed area to affect the 
viability of other western listed areas.
    Our Response: Aside from large protected areas such as Yellowstone 
and Isle Royale National Parks, human-caused mortality has been, and 
continues to be, the primary source of known wolf mortality in the 
lower 48 United States, including wolves in the West Coast States. 
Wolves in the core of the western United States metapopulation (e.g., 
NRM DPS) are managed under State authority and following an initial 
population decline post-delisting, wolf populations appear to have 
stabilized in Idaho and Montana, whereas they continue to increase in 
Oregon and Washington (see table 3). Wolf populations in Wyoming were 
delisted in 2017 and may be following a similar pattern to that 
observed in Idaho and Montana (see table 3).
    While it is possible that increased levels of human-caused 
mortality due to public harvest could affect peripheral populations of 
wolves by creating isolated pockets that may result in reduced genetic 
diversity and increased potential for inbreeding in outlying areas, 
there is no empirical evidence to indicate that this has occurred or is 
likely to occur in the future. Genetic diversity was limited for wolves 
on Isle Royale National Park, but the cause was their location on an 
isolated island rather than the effects of human-caused mortality. 
Dispersal is innate to the biology of the wolf and moderate increases 
in human-caused mortality in core areas may reduce the overall number 
of dispersers due to slight reductions in the total number of wolves on 
the landscape. Increased human-caused mortality also has the potential 
to create additional vacant habitats and social openings within packs, 
which may result in an overall reduction in dispersal distance for 
wolves in the core of the western United States metapopulation. 
Nonetheless, short- and long-distance dispersal events, as well as 
effective dispersal in which the disperser became a breeder, continue 
to be documented in hunted populations, as well as high- and low-
density wolf populations, which contributes to the maintenance of high 
levels of genetic diversity. Furthermore, resident packs in California, 
Oregon, and Washington contribute annually to the number of dispersing 
wolves that are available to fill social openings or to recolonize 
vacant suitable habitat both within and outside of each State. This 
supports the continued viability of wolves and enhances the resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation of wolves in the gray wolf entities 
evaluated in this rule. For further information, refer to the Human-
caused Mortality and Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding sections of this 
final rule.
    Comment 16: One reviewer and one commenter stated that the 
biological report and the proposed rule did not review the scientific 
debate concerning the effects of current levels of illegal take and the 
potential increase in legal take (i.e., ``tolerance hunting'') on wolf 
populations.
    Our Response: We reviewed the citations provided by the reviewer 
and have updated the rule accordingly. We acknowledge in the Human-
caused Mortality section of the rule that human-caused mortality is 
likely to increase post-delisting as some States (primarily the Great 
Lakes States) begin to manage wolves under the guidance of their

[[Page 69848]]

respective State management plans. This may include increased use of 
lethal control to mitigate depredations on livestock and the 
implementation of public harvest to stabilize or reduce wolf population 
growth rates. Post-delisting, gray wolves in Washington and California 
will continue to be classified as endangered at the State level until 
they are State-downlisted or State-delisted based on population 
performance and recovery metrics specific to each State. Wolves in 
Oregon were State-delisted in 2016; however, they continue to receive 
protection under a State statute and the Oregon Wolf Conservation and 
Management Plan, which mandates a public rulemaking process prior to 
authorizing legal hunting of wolves. In Colorado, wolves will continue 
to be classified as endangered at the State level after delisting, and 
management will be guided by the wolf management recommendations 
developed by the Colorado Wolf Management Working Group. Based on past 
delisting efforts in the Great Lakes area, and as demonstrated by 
current State management of wolves in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, we 
conclude it is unlikely that moderate increases in human-caused 
mortality will cause dramatic declines in wolf populations across the 
lower 48 United States.
    We do not agree that increased take through lethal depredation 
control and legal harvest will cause a corresponding increase in 
illegal take. Although some have indicated that estimates of illegal 
take are underestimated (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; Treves et al. 
2017b, pp. 7-8), multiple, independent studies from different areas of 
the lower 48 United States indicate that illegal take removes 
approximately 10 percent of populations annually (Smith et al. 2010, p. 
625; Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7; O'Neil 2017, p. 214, Stenglein et al. 
2018, p. 104). There are also indications that documented illegal take 
of wolves was higher during periods of Federal management compared to 
State management (Olson et al. 2014, entire). Based on empirical 
information compiled by wildlife management agencies, illegal mortality 
did not increase following previous delisting efforts in the Great 
Lakes area or the NRM States. See the Human-caused Mortality section of 
the rule for further information related to illegal take and wolf 
survival as well as the Post-delisting Management section of the rule 
for information related to how States intend to adaptively manage wolf 
populations to ensure the continued existence of a recovered, viable 
population.
    Comment 17: One peer reviewer objected to the use of lethal control 
by States to mitigate wolf conflicts with livestock and humans post-
delisting. The peer reviewer also asserted that the proposed rule made 
assumptions that lethal control was self-limiting and inferred that 
agency control only leads to more wolf killing.
    Our Response: We recognize and respect that some people may find 
some or all forms of human-caused wolf mortality morally or ethically 
objectionable, particularly the use of lethal removal of wolves to 
mitigate conflicts with livestock. However, the Act requires that we 
make our determination based on whether the entity under analysis meets 
the Act's definition of a threatened species or an endangered species 
(in this case, is it recovered and will State management retain that 
recovered status if the Act's protections are removed). We may not 
consider the reasons why individual wolves may be killed after the 
species is delisted unless it would affect our analysis of the 
statutory threat factors.
    Conflicts occur wherever wolves and livestock coexist, often 
regardless of what methods are used to prevent or mitigate those 
conflicts. Both nonlethal and lethal methods are often temporary 
solutions to resolve conflicts and seldom provide long-term 
effectiveness. Under certain circumstances, preventative and nonlethal 
techniques have been shown to be effective. These include the 
effectiveness of proactive methods to curb learned behaviors associated 
with food rewards in wolves (Much et al. 2018, p. 76), the inferred 
effectiveness of human presence at reducing recurrent depredations in 
Minnesota (Harper et al. 2008, pp. 782-783), and the adaptive use of 
multiple preventative and nonlethal methods to minimize sheep 
depredations in Idaho (Stone et al. 2017, entire). Conversely, lethal 
control has been demonstrated to be effective at minimizing recurrent 
depredations through an overall reduction in pack size if conducted 
shortly after a depredation occurred; however, complete pack removal 
was most effective (Bradley et al. 2015, pp. 6-9). In addition to the 
targeted removal of wolves to minimize the potential of recurrent 
depredations on sheep (Harper et al. 2008, p. 783), the targeted 
removal of a relatively high number of individuals relative to pack 
size significantly reduced the probability of recurrent cattle 
depredations the following year (DeCesare et al. 2018, pp. 8, 10-11). 
In a review of both nonlethal and lethal methods to mitigate carnivore 
conflicts, the effectiveness of nonlethal methods to reduce livestock 
losses ranged between 0 and 100 percent, whereas the effectiveness of 
targeted, lethal control ranged between 67 and 83 percent (Miller et 
al. 2016, pp. 3-8). In contrast, another review indicated that lethal 
control was just as, if not more, effective than most nonlethal methods 
at mitigating conflict, but that success was more variable when 
compared to nonlethal methods (van Eeden et al. 2017, p. 29). This 
indicates that no single method or technique is consistently effective 
under all conditions to minimize conflict risk. Although continued 
research is needed (Treves et al. 2016, entire; Eklund et al. 2017, 
entire; van Eeden et al. 2018, entire), we acknowledge that a 
depredation management plan that is adaptive and includes a combination 
of multiple nonlethal and lethal methods may improve its overall 
effectiveness at minimizing depredation risk (Bangs et al. 2006, 
entire; Treves and Naughton-Treves 2005, p. 106; Wielgus and Peebles 
2014, pp. 1, 14; Miller et al. 2016, p. 7; Stone et al. 2017, entire; 
DeCesare et al. 2018, p. 11).
    Lethal control of depredating wolves is used reactively rather than 
proactively, often after other techniques to prevent depredations were 
unsuccessful, to stop current depredations and minimize the potential 
for recurrence at the local scale while continuing to promote wolf 
population growth, recovery, sustainability, and/or viability at the 
landscape scale. As wolf populations have continued to increase in 
number and expand their range into more agriculturally oriented and 
human-dominated landscapes, more wolf territories overlap with 
livestock and humans. This outcome increases both interaction rates and 
the potential for conflict, which in turn reduces the probability that 
wolves will persist in these areas long term (Mech et al. 2019, 
entire). Even so, overall, few wolf packs are implicated in livestock 
or pet depredations on an annual basis (for example, approximately 20 
percent of known packs in the NRM; also see Olson et al. 2015, entire). 
Thus, how depredating wolves are managed will influence where non-
depredating wolves may persist because the removal of the small number 
that cause conflict may increase tolerance for the remaining wolves 
that do not (Musiani et al. 2005, p. 884).
    The use of lethal control to mitigate wolf conflicts with livestock 
has been criticized for lacking long-term effectiveness and being too 
costly (Wielgus and Peebles 2014, entire;

[[Page 69849]]

McManus et al. 2015, entire; Lennox et al. 2018, entire; Santiago-Avila 
et al. 2018, entire). However, lethal control of depredating wolves is 
not intended to resolve long-term depredation management issues across 
a large spatial scale (Musiani et al. 2005, p. 885). Rather, it has 
consistently been used by managers as a short-term response to mitigate 
recurrent depredations of livestock on a relatively small scale that 
could not be resolved using other methods. Wielgus and Peebles (2014, 
pp. 7-14) argued that lethal removal of wolves in one year exacerbated 
the conflict cycle, which resulted in an increased number of livestock 
killed by wolves the following year. Subsequent studies have refuted 
this assertion and found that, when the same data were reanalyzed, the 
use of lethal control was effective at reducing livestock depredations 
the following year (Poudyal et al. 2016, entire), and an increasing 
wolf population was the primary cause of the observed increases in the 
number of livestock depredations (Kompaniyets and Evans 2017, entire). 
Others have documented the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain 
lethal control prescriptions used to minimize depredation risk within 
the same year the control actions were conducted or the year following 
the control actions (Bradley et al. 2015, entire; DeCesare et al. 2018, 
pp. 8, 10). As long as wolves and domestic livestock share the 
landscape, conflict will occur, and depredation management programs 
that use a combination of proactive and reactive tools are often most 
effective at minimizing depredation risk.
    Although DeCesare et al. (2018, pp. 9-11) concluded that public 
harvest alone had little effect on the annual recurrence of livestock 
depredations in Montana, there is some evidence to indicate that the 
combination of lethal control and public harvest has the potential to 
reduce the number of confirmed livestock depredations caused by wolves 
without having a significant impact on wolf populations. For example, 
the Wisconsin wolf population declined slightly from 815 to 746 animals 
(an 8 percent decrease) between 2012 and 2015 (wolves were federally 
delisted between 2012 and 2014). However, during that same time period, 
verified wolf kills on cattle and the number of farms with verified 
depredations declined significantly (Wiedenhoeft et al. 2015, pp. 4-5, 
12). A similar trend was observed in the NRM when it was delisted in 
2011, with the exception of Wyoming. Between 2006 and 2011, an average 
of approximately 190 cattle depredations was confirmed per year, while 
between the years of 2012 to 2015, the number of confirmed cattle 
depredations decreased to an average of about 151 per year (see USFWS 
et al. 2016, table 7b). Although the number of confirmed cattle 
depredations in Montana trended slightly upward in 2017 and 2018, the 
number of reported depredations declined significantly in Montana from 
a high of 233 in 2009, to approximately 100 or fewer between 2014 and 
2018 (Inman et al. 2019, p. 11). Similarly, the number of livestock 
killed by wolves in Wyoming has declined since wolves were federally 
delisted in 2017 (WGFD et al. 2020, p. 19).
    As a result of the overall reduction in livestock depredations, the 
number of wolves lethally removed to mitigate conflicts has also 
generally declined in the NRM States. The Service does not expect 
confirmed livestock depredations to cease altogether post-delisting, 
even though States will have the ability to use targeted lethal control 
and public harvest to manage wolf conflicts and populations, 
respectively. Rather, we expect there may be a slight decrease in the 
number of livestock depredations post-delisting, followed by 
fluctuations around a lower long-term average in subsequent years as 
managers learn how best to manage wolf populations and conflicts to 
ensure the long-term survival of the species. Furthermore, if wolves 
are causing less conflict, it could lead to improved tolerance for 
wolves and, although annual fluctuations are likely, an overall 
reduction in the number of wolves lethally removed annually as a 
result.
    For information on the percent of the wolf population removed 
through agency-directed lethal control as well as wolves taken in 
defense of property by private individuals and its effect on wolf 
populations in the Great Lakes area, refer to the Post-delisting 
Management section of this rule. Also refer to the Human-caused 
Mortality section of this rule for information related to the effects 
of human-caused mortality, including lethal control, on wolf 
populations in the NRM post delisting.
    Comment 18: One peer reviewer asserted the biological report lacked 
information on human-caused mortality, human attitudes, and behavior as 
they relate to human-caused mortality, as well as cumulative effects of 
mortality and reproductive failure in wolves. As a result, the reviewer 
believed the threats assessment in the proposal was uninformed by a 
scientific analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on human-caused 
mortality. The reviewer recommended the biological report be revised to 
include scientific information on the patterns and processes of human-
caused mortality in wolves.
    Our Response: The purpose of the biological report is to provide a 
concise overview of the changes in the biological status (range, 
distribution, abundance) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the lower 48 
United States over the last several decades. A full discussion of 
human-caused wolf mortality (including human attitudes and behaviors 
and the effects of take on wolf social structure) and a complete 
analysis of potential threats facing wolves was included in the 
proposed rule and has been updated and revised as appropriate in this 
final rule. Refer to Comments 36 and 19 and revisions made in response 
to those comments for additional information.
    Comment 19: Two reviewers critiqued the discussion related to human 
behaviors and the inclination to poach wolves post-delisting. Both 
reviewers provided references for an updated discussion regarding this 
topic in the proposed rule. One reviewer stated the rule misinterpreted 
the review by Treves and Bruskotter (2014) regarding tolerance for 
predators.
    Our Response: The Role of Public Attitudes section of this final 
rule has been updated and revised to include references recommended by 
both peer reviewers as well as other references that inform the 
discussion of human behaviors related to wolves and wolf management. As 
the reviewers recommended, we expanded the discussion in the rule 
related to human behaviors, how those behaviors are correlated with 
management, and the inclination to illegally take a wolf based on the 
listing status of wolves. We also added a section related to overall 
tolerance for wolves and, we conclude, appropriately reinterpreted the 
review by Treves and Bruskotter (2014).
    We conclude that public tolerance of wolves is likely to improve as 
wolves are delisted and local residents feel they have input in 
management of wolf populations. This process has already begun in the 
NRM States; however, it will likely take time for this increased 
control over wolf management, and the related sense of ownership, to 
translate into tangible benefits in improved public opinion. Public 
acceptance is highest where wolves were not extirpated and where 
residents have had longer periods of exposure to wolves (Houston et al. 
2010, pp. 399-401). However, it is unclear whether this is due to 
increased knowledge and experience dealing with wolves or to less 
stringent local management policies

[[Page 69850]]

(including public harvest and defense of property regulations).
    Comment 20: One peer reviewer and several other commenters 
recommended that we conduct a population viability analysis (PVA) or 
other additional modeling exercises or analysis before delisting. The 
peer reviewer and some of the other commenters further stated that we 
should provide more support, via a PVA, that a population of 1,251 to 
1,440 wolves in Minnesota would be viable.
    Our Response: The Act requires that we use the best scientific data 
available when we make decisions to list, reclassify, or delist a 
species. However, it does not require that we produce new science to 
fill knowledge gaps. PVAs can be a valuable tool to help us understand 
the population dynamics of rare species (White 2000, entire). They can 
also be useful in identifying gaps in our knowledge of the demographic 
parameters that are most important to a species' survival. However, the 
difficulty of applying PVA techniques to wolves has been discussed by 
Fritts and Carbyn (1995, pp. 28-29) and Boitani (2003, pp. 332-333). 
Problems include our inability to: (1) 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); (2) incorporate all the complexities and feedback loops 
inherent in wild systems and agency adaptive management strategies; (3) 
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); (4) account for temporal 
variation, selective outbreeding, and individual heterogeneity; and (5) 
address 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.
    The revised recovery plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf indicated 
recovery would be achieved when: (1) The survival of the wolf in 
Minnesota is assured, and (2) at least one viable population (as 
defined below) of eastern timber wolves outside Minnesota and Isle 
Royale in the lower 48 United States is reestablished. The recovery 
plan did not establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota 
wolf population. While the plan did identify a goal ``for planning 
purposes only'' of 1,251 to 1,400 wolves for the Minnesota population 
(USFWS 1992, p. 28), the plan explicitly states that the region's total 
goals, ``exceed what is required for recovery and delisting of the 
eastern timber wolf'' (USFWS 1992, p. 27). This planning goal was 
driven not by minimum estimates of viability, but instead by: Existing 
populations of 1,550 to 1,750 wolves in Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 4), 
the plan's objective to maintain existing populations (USFWS 1992, p. 
24), and existing planning goals by other land managers within 
Minnesota (USFWS 1992, p. 27). Population viability and sustainability 
are explicitly discussed in the plan. The plan states a ``viable 
population'' includes either: (1) An isolated, self-sustaining 
population of 200 wolves for 5 successive years; or (2) a self-
sustaining population of 100 wolves within 100 miles of the Minnesota 
population (USFWS 1992, pp. 4, 25-26). Furthermore, the plan stated 
that ``a healthy, self-sustaining wolf population should include at 
least 100 interbreeding wolves [that would] maintain an acceptable 
level of genetic diversity'' (USFWS 1992, p. 26). After evaluating all 
available information, we determine that the best scientific and 
commercial information available continues to support our conclusion 
that these recovery goals will ensure that the population does not 
again become in danger of extinction.
Habitat and Prey Availability
    Comment 21: One peer reviewer provided information from Smith et 
al. (2016) regarding habitat suitability for the gray wolf in the 
central United States. In particular, the peer reviewer pointed out 
that while there appears to be suitable habitat in South Dakota and 
wolves dispersing to that area, breeding has not been documented. They 
also pointed out that the model used in Smith et al. (2016) did not 
account for forest cover as an attribute of wolf habitat, which was an 
important attribute in the Great Lakes area (Mladenoff et al. 2009) and 
the Rocky Mountains (Oakleaf et al. 2006).
    Our Response: We acknowledge that not all wolf habitat models 
incorporate the same predictor variables. We have updated this final 
rule to explain that, despite model results of Smith et al. (2016), 
relatively high densities of livestock and limited hiding cover for 
wolves (forests) in large portions of the Midwest are likely reasons 
that wolves have failed to recolonize this area (Smith et al. 2016, pp. 
560-561). As indicated in the Habitat and Prey Availability section, 
predictions of suitable habitat generally depict areas with sufficient 
prey where human-caused mortality is likely to be relatively low due to 
limited human access, high amounts of escape cover, or relatively low 
numbers of wolf-livestock conflicts. Models that fail to account for 
the potential for wolf-livestock conflicts or other conflicts with 
humans are likely to overestimate the availability of suitable habitat.
    Comment 22: One peer reviewer asserted that defining a human 
behavior (wolf-killing) as a habitat feature is contrary to 
longstanding ecological practice and not all humans kill gray wolves or 
even want to kill gray wolves (e.g., Treves et al. 2013). The reviewer 
stated that human density is a weak correlate of threat to wolves and 
that the proposed rule should not define a habitat as unsuitable 
because people live there; rather, an area should be classified as 
unsuitable only when mortality or failed reproduction are recurrent 
phenomena.
    Our Response: We have clarified that our definition of suitable 
habitat generally refers to areas with sufficient prey where human-
caused mortality is likely to be relatively low due to limited human 
access, high amounts of escape-cover, or a low probability of conflict 
with humans and livestock. The standard practice in the development of 
wolf habitat models is to include the potential for wolf-human conflict 
(e.g., areas with high human and livestock densities) and areas of 
higher human-caused wolf mortality (e.g., areas closer to roads and 
areas without forest cover). Because wolves can occur nearly anywhere 
with high enough prey densities (including semideveloped landscapes) 
and low enough human-caused mortality, the inclusion of information on 
wolf-human conflict is essential to identifying where wolves are likely 
to persist over time (see Mech 2017).
    Comment 23: One reviewer commented that habitat suitability should 
be measured only at the individual level rather than the population 
level and further commented that habitat suitability should be defined 
by observing where reproduction and survival occur. The reviewer 
pointed to language in the proposed rule that indicated an area of 
Minnesota was not suitable habitat even though 450 wolves live there, 
and the reviewer questioned how this area could be unsuitable given the 
presence of such a large number of wolves.
    Our Response: We have clarified our definition of suitable habitat 
in this final rule. We define suitability to include areas where wolf-
human conflict is low enough to allow wolf populations to persist. 
Wolves are habitat generalists and can reproduce and survive nearly 
anywhere given sufficient food resources and low enough human-

[[Page 69851]]

caused mortality. Therefore, we find that development of a definition 
that factors in wolf-human conflict is necessary to identify areas 
where wolf persistence is likely. The reference in our proposed rule to 
an area in Minnesota containing 450 wolves as being ``not suitable for 
wolves'' originated from our Revised Recovery Plan. The statement, as 
written, was not intended to convey that wolves were not capable of 
surviving there but instead that it was not desirable for wolves to 
occur there due to greater human density, including a high proportion 
of intensively farmed areas (USFWS 1992, p. 15). We have edited this 
final rule for clarity.
Disease and Parasites
    Comment 24: One peer reviewer recommended we consider the impacts 
of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk, as they are primary 
prey species for wolves. They noted that CWD is not currently found in 
areas with wolf packs, and included a reference to evaluate.
    Our Response: We added a discussion of CWD and what we know about 
its impacts to wolf prey (see the Habitat and Prey Availability 
section).
Post-Delisting Management
    Comment 25: One peer reviewer stated that the Service should openly 
discuss the changes in wolf monitoring methods used by the State of 
Wisconsin over time (e.g., use of volunteer trackers) and how those 
changing methods may affect the State's population and growth rate 
estimates (including differences in standard deviation).
    Our Response: Survey methods in Wisconsin have not changed 
significantly since the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources began 
producing annual counts of the State's gray wolf population in winter 
1979-1980 (Wydeven 2019b, in litt.).
    Comment 26: One peer reviewer proposed changes to the Wisconsin 
Wolf Management Plan, such as alternative hypotheses about population 
growth and further analysis and rationale for the population goal.
    Our Response: Wisconsin's plan provides for maintaining a 
population of wolves, which in combination with wolves in Michigan, 
will comprise a viable population that is not in danger of extinction 
in the foreseeable future. We conclude that Wisconsin's management 
plan, as currently written, will accomplish that goal. We recommend 
that recommendations for ways to improve the States' management 
following delisting should be discussed with the State management 
agency.
General
    Comment 27: One peer reviewer stated that we did not consider many 
relevant published articles and did not adequately assess the quality 
of the evidence we used in reaching our conclusions. The reviewer 
maintained that we did not adequately consider disagreements within the 
scientific literature, and that some of the evidence does not meet 
long-established standards of evidence.
    Our Response: In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are 
required to make our determinations on a species' status based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the 
determination. We prepare status assessments and associated reports 
summarizing the best available information that is relevant to our 
consideration of whether a species meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species or an endangered species. The evidentiary standards 
we apply are found in our Policy on Information Standards under the Act 
(published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the 
Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; 
H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/informationquality/). These provide criteria and guidance 
and establish procedures to ensure that our decisions are based on the 
best scientific and commercial data available. They require us, to the 
extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific 
and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of 
information as the basis for our status determinations. Primary or 
original information sources are those that are closest to the subject 
being studied, as opposed to those that cite, comment on, or build upon 
primary sources.
    The Act and our regulations do not require us to use only peer-
reviewed literature. Rather, we may exercise our expert judgment in 
determining what information constitutes the ``best scientific and 
commercial data available.'' We use information from many sources, 
including but not limited to: Articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
scientific status surveys and studies completed by qualified 
individuals, Master's thesis research that has been reviewed but not 
published in a journal, other unpublished governmental and 
nongovernmental reports, reports prepared by industry, personal 
communication about management or other relevant topics, conservation 
plans developed by States and counties, and biological assessments.
    Our proposed rule and draft biological report were based on sources 
that we concluded are: (1) The best scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of the determination and (2) relevant to a 
determination of the status of the gray wolf entity under analysis. We 
evaluated all additional information provided during the public comment 
period by peer reviewers, governmental agencies, Native American 
Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other interested 
parties, and we considered the information in developing this final 
rule and the final biological report, as appropriate.
Biological Report
    Comment 28: One peer reviewer recommended the biological report 
include data on wolf immigration from Canada to support the claim that 
wolves from Canada will repopulate the Great Lakes area or West Coast 
States.
    Our Response: The biological report references wolves from Canada 
recolonizing portions of northern Montana beginning in the early 1980s. 
Long-distance dispersal has also been critical to wolf recolonization 
in the Great Lakes area (Treves et al. 2009, entire). Furthermore, 
wolves from British Columbia, along with wolves from the Northern Rocky 
Mountains are in the process of recolonizing suitable habitats in the 
West Coast States (Hendricks et al. 2019, entire). We have updated the 
biological report to cite multiple studies showing that, if human-
caused mortality is regulated, wolves have a remarkable ability to 
recolonize areas with a sufficient prey-base (e.g., Mech 1995, Boyd and 
Pletcher 1999, Treves et al. 2009, Mech 2017, Hendricks et al. 2019). 
The discussion of connectivity and immigration from Canada in the 
biological report is provided to illustrate that wolves in the Great 
Lakes area and the West Coast States do not function as isolated 
populations, and that their connectivity with even larger populations 
in Canada increases their resiliency. We do not anticipate that wolves 
in the Great Lakes area or West Coast States will be eliminated or 
reduced such that repopulation will be necessary.
    Comment 29: One peer reviewer provided additional information on 
pack territory sizes, recommending we include more detailed information 
on territories in the Great Lakes region.
    Our Response: In the biological report, we provided the known range 
of

[[Page 69852]]

pack territory sizes (12.7 to 1,003.9 mi\2\ (33 to 2,600 km\2\)) to 
show their variability. We do not view the detailed information on pack 
sizes from individual studies cited by the reviewer to be necessary to 
our analysis, which relies only on the proposition that territory sizes 
are variable.
    Comment 30: One peer reviewer stated that our biological report 
misreported human-caused wolf mortality rates from Fuller et al. 
(2003). The reviewer also recommended citing Stenglein et al. (2015b), 
stating that their model of the Wisconsin wolf population demonstrates 
that a 30 percent annual harvest would, on average, reduce the wolf 
population by 65 percent over 20 years.
    Our Response: The percentages provided in the biological report 
refer to the data analyzed by Fuller et al. (2003). While Fuller et al. 
(2003) also provides a review of other studies that have investigated 
sustainable human-caused wolf mortality rates, these rates are within 
the overall range of sustainable mortality rates provided in the 
biological report (17 to 48 percent). We added the information from 
Stenglein et al. (2015b) regarding harvest rates and wolf population 
reduction.
    Comment 31: One peer reviewer advised that we include additional 
information on source-sink dynamics and provided citations to consider. 
The reviewer noted that source-sink dynamics have been notable in the 
Northern Rocky Mountains, especially in northwest Montana and the 
Greater Yellowstone region, where much ungulate winter range lies 
outside of protected areas (Fritts and Carbyn 1995). The reviewer also 
provided several citations on source-sink dynamics in mountain lion 
populations that they indicated were relevant to wolves. The reviewer 
also recommended indicating that broad[hyphen]scale source[hyphen]sink 
dynamics over areas larger than many demographic study areas can cause 
high local mortality rates to appear sustainable because the population 
is being sustained by immigration from source habitat.
    Our Response: We reviewed the citations provided by the reviewer 
and updated the biological report to include a brief discussion of the 
role of dispersal and source-sink dynamics in wolf population 
regulation. Regarding broad-scale source-sink dynamics, we have updated 
the biological report accordingly.
    Comment 32: One peer reviewer stated that the biological report 
omitted a thorough discussion of suitable habitat in some unoccupied 
but suitable habitats in parts of the lower 48 United States (e.g., 
parts of the Pacific Northwest, Colorado, Utah, and the Northeast). 
They found this omission to be at odds with previous iterations of 
listing and delisting rules for the gray wolf. The reviewer recommended 
a more complete analysis of potentially suitable habitat in the lower 
48 United States, including a map compiling existing information 
regarding potentially suitable habitat.
    Our Response: We updated the biological report to reflect that 
suitable, but unoccupied, habitat occurs in parts of the West Coast 
States, the central Rocky Mountains (inclusive of Colorado and Utah), 
and the Northeast. However, unoccupied areas were not a focus for our 
analysis, and this final rule does not rely on recolonization of these 
areas to support the determination that gray wolves are recovered. 
Because we are not relying on suitable habitat that is unoccupied for 
our delisting determination, we find it unnecessary to compile a map of 
suitable habitat outside the current range. The publications cited in 
the biological report provide additional information regarding habitat 
models in specific areas.
    Comment 33: One peer reviewer indicated that notable dispersal 
events should be mentioned in the biological report, as they are 
relevant to a discussion on metapopulation structure and the 
recolonization of potential wolf habitat (e.g., northern Rockies to 
Arizona, dispersal of wolves from Quebec to the Northeastern United 
States).
    Our Response: The biological report references dispersal events of 
several hundred kilometers. We have added language to the Biology and 
Ecology section of the report to describe how long-distance dispersal 
distances relate to recolonization of suitable habitat. We also 
clarified our discussion of dispersal of wolves from Quebec to the 
Northeastern United States. While dispersal plays an important role in 
recolonization of suitable habitat, individual dispersers that do not 
settle in an area, survive, and reproduce do not substantively 
contribute to the wolf's metapopulation structure or dynamics.
    Comment 34: One peer reviewer sought clarification on the 
Washington and Oregon section of the biological report. The reviewer 
asked us to more clearly distinguish population information on listed 
and delisted wolves and how population management in delisted areas 
affects population growth rates in listed areas.
    Our Response: We updated the biological report with additional 
information on the distribution of wolves with respect to the listed/
delisted boundary in Washington and Oregon. We are not aware of any 
specific studies that have looked at the effect of wolf management in 
delisted areas on the population growth rates of federally listed 
wolves adjacent to those delisted areas. However, we have updated the 
biological report to acknowledge the role source-sink dynamics can play 
in peripheral, recolonizing wolf populations. We also address potential 
impacts to dispersal rates in harvested populations. Finally, we cite 
the latest annual reports from each State as the authority on 
population growth and distribution of wolves in those States.
    Comment 35: One peer reviewer objected to our characterization, in 
the biological report, of wolf colonization of nearby areas as 
happening ``quickly.'' They found the term to be ambiguous and 
recommended replacing it with something more quantitative (e.g., within 
decades). They also recommended the report acknowledge that the 
rapidity of population establishment in new areas varies with the 
extent of intervening unsuitable habitat between the source population 
and newly colonized area, as evidenced by the delay between initial 
dispersals and pack establishment in the Cascade Range of the West 
Coast States.
    Our Response: While some recolonization happens within decades, 
other recolonization events happen even more rapidly depending on the 
specific circumstances. Therefore, we conclude that it is not 
appropriate to add a more specific time period. We have added a 
sentence to the Biology and Ecology section of the biological report to 
address the comment regarding the rate of recolonization being affected 
by the extent of intervening unsuitable habitat.
    Comment 36: One peer reviewer commented that, in order to allow for 
a scientific evaluation of the likelihood of a decline in gray wolf 
populations after delisting, the biological report should include: (1) 
A comprehensive analysis of all mortality causes within each 
subpopulation deemed essential to the combined listed entity and (2) a 
``thorough examination of cumulative effects across all 
subpopulations.'' The reviewer further contended that those assessments 
should be based on peer-reviewed evidence about current and anticipated 
future (following delisting) causes of mortality.
    Our Response: We conducted a thorough analysis, based on the best 
available scientific data, of the threat factors currently facing the 
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States and those

[[Page 69853]]

that are reasonably likely to have a negative effect on the viability 
of wolf populations without the protections of the Act. See Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species, above. We considered the effects of 
these factors individually and cumulatively. For clarification 
purposes, we have added a reference to the discussion in the rule to 
the biological report.
Policy
    Comment 37: Three peer reviewers questioned our definition or use 
of the term ``range,'' either on its own or in the context of the SPR 
phrase (or both). One considered our description of the gray wolf's 
range in the lower 48 United States to be illogical and unclear with 
respect to distinguishing current range from unoccupied historical 
range. This reviewer argued that the distinction is necessary to 
understand what areas are included in the threats analysis and why. 
Another argued that our definition of ``range'' is problematic because 
it does not account for the temporal dynamics (changes over time) of a 
species' range or the difficulties of scale inherent to the ecological 
concept of ``range.'' In addition, one peer reviewer stated that a 
``significant portion'' of range must mean more than half and that, 
therefore, the gray wolf has not recolonized enough of its range in the 
lower 48 United States to meet that standard. Another, citing Desert 
Survivors v. Dep't of the Interior, F. Supp. 3d 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2018), 
stated that the central Rocky Mountains (i.e., Colorado and Utah) and 
the Northeastern United States merit evaluation as significant portions 
of the range.
    Our Response: The ecological concept of ``range'' is complex. 
Because of these complexities, the Service and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a legally binding interpretation of 
the term ``range,'' as used in the Act's definitions of ``threatened 
species'' and ``endangered species,'' in our SPR policy (79 FR 37578, 
July 1, 2014). Several courts have upheld this interpretation (Humane 
Society v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (DC Cir. 2017); Ctr. for Biological 
Diversity v. Zinke, 900 F.3d 1053, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2018); Desert 
Survivors F. Supp. 3d 1131). The Services interpret the term ``range'' 
in these statutory definitions as the general geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time USFWS or NMFS makes a status 
determination under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). 
In other words, we interpret ``range'' in these definitions to be 
current range, i.e., range at the time of our analysis (see Definition 
and Treatment of Range). We have revised this final rule to clarify how 
we interpret range and what we consider to be the current range of the 
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States.
    The opinion that the gray wolf has not recolonized enough of its 
range in the lower 48 United States to reach the standard of a 
significant portion is inconsistent with Service policy because it 
equates the term ``range'' in the Act's definitions of ``threatened 
species'' and ``endangered species'' with historical range. In our 
status assessments, we assess threats to the species where the species 
exists. In other words, we assess threats to the species in its current 
range, including the effects of lost historical range on the species 
(see Historical Context of Our Analysis and Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species). We also consider whether the threats that 
caused the loss of historical range are still affecting the species 
within its current range.
    Under our SPR policy, the Northeastern United States does not merit 
evaluation as a significant portion of the species' range because the 
best available science indicates that this area is unoccupied. However, 
given the recent report of a group of six wolves in the central Rocky 
Mountains, we agree with the reviewer that this area merits 
consideration as a significant portion of the range of the entities 
evaluated in this rule. We have revised this rule accordingly.
    Comment 38: One reviewer considered our treatment of ``range'' and 
``significance'' to be inconsistent with Desert Survivors v. Dep't of 
the Interior and our treatment of recovery in other species, such as 
bald eagle and grizzly bear, where we considered geographic 
distribution in multiple regions. The reviewer indicated that we should 
present information evaluating the significance of historical range 
loss on the genetic and demographic structure of the wolf 
metapopulation as a whole and within specific ecotypes and subspecies. 
The reviewer also indicated that we should assess the significance of 
range loss to the broader suite of values (``esthetic, educational, 
historical, recreational, and scientific'') discussed in the Act's 
preamble.
    Our Response: Our approach in this rule is consistent with Desert 
Survivors and our approach to recovery for other species. The Act 
requires that we recover listed species such that they no longer meet 
the definitions of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' 
i.e., are no longer in danger of extinction or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their 
range. As explained in our proposed rule and this final rule, there is 
no uniform definition for recovery or standard methodology regarding 
how recovery must be achieved (see Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and 
Recovery Implementation). Gray wolves are a prolific, highly adaptable 
species capable of dispersing long distances and recolonizing most 
habitat types, provided those habitats contain sufficient prey and 
human-caused mortality is managed. Consequently, our recovery strategy 
for gray wolves in the lower 48 United States consists of recovery of 
the species in three broad regions (NRM, Southwestern United States, 
and Eastern United States) that capture different subspecies and 
habitats. For decades, we have demonstrated a consistent commitment to 
this strategy.
    Additionally, when we evaluate the status of a species, we evaluate 
the impacts of any loss of historical range on the viability of the 
species in its current range (see Historical Context of Our Analysis 
and Determination of Species Status). In other words, we thoroughly 
assessed the effects of historical range loss on the current and, to 
the extent it is foreseeable, future viability of the gray wolf 
entities addressed in this rule based on the best available scientific 
and commercial data available, consistent with both the Act and case 
law.
    Finally, the Act instructs us to determine whether any species is 
an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the 
five factors identified in the Act. Thus, we may not determine the 
status of a species based on an assessment of the esthetic, 
educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value of that 
particular species to society. Also, lost historical range cannot be a 
significant portion of the range of any of the gray wolf entities 
addressed in this rule because, under our SPR policy, ``range'' is 
interpreted as current range (for additional information, see 79 FR 
37578, July 1, 2014).
    Comment 39: One reviewer claimed that our consideration of 
``significance'' as used in the phrase ``significant portion of its 
range'' is duplicative of our assessment of whether the combined listed 
entity is at risk throughout its range, contrary to recent court 
opinions. The reviewer recommended a definition for ``significance'' 
that is based on the criteria used to determine significance under the 
DPS policy. They stated that such a definition would meet the 
requirements of Desert Survivors v. Dep't of the Interior and provided 
an

[[Page 69854]]

example of a DPS analysis done for the red wolf (Waples et al. 2018).
    Our Response: Our approach to analyzing significance in this rule 
is consistent with the Act and case law. For the gray wolf entities 
addressed in this rule, we assessed ``significance'' based on whether 
portions of the range contribute meaningfully to the resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation of the gray wolf entity being evaluated 
without prescribing a specific ``threshold.'' This approach is 
substantively different from the way we defined ``significance'' in our 
SPR policy and, therefore, different from the approach evaluated and 
overturned by the courts.
    Further, in developing that SPR policy, we considered using the 
definition of significance in the DPS policy as a threshold for 
significant in the SPR phrase. However, we rejected this option because 
``it would result in all DPSs being SPRs, rendering the DPS language in 
the Act meaningless'' (79 FR 37581, July 1, 2014). Thus, we concluded 
that the threshold for significance must be higher for evaluating SPR 
than for purposes of the DPS policy (for more information on this 
topic, see 79 FR 76997-76998, July 1, 2014).
    There are several important differences between DPSs and SPRs. 
First, Congress intended for the DPS authority to be used sparingly 
(Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). If we find that a 
species is endangered or threatened in a DPS, we list only the DPS. By 
contrast, if we find that the species is endangered or threatened in an 
SPR, we list the entire species (79 FR 37609, July 1, 2014). Second, 
the significance of a DPS is assessed relative to the taxon to which it 
belongs (i.e., the DPS must be significant to the taxon as a whole) (61 
FR 4725, February 7, 1996), whereas, under our SPR policy, the 
significance of a portion is assessed in relation to the ``species'' 
(species, subspecies, or DPS) under analysis. Third, SPRs need not 
discrete. In other words, SPRs can be biologically connected to and 
influenced by other populations that, collectively with the portion 
being evaluated, are not endangered species or threatened species. 
Consequently, we do not consider the DPS criteria for significance to 
be a reasonable definition of ``significant'' in the SPR analysis.
    Comment 40: One reviewer maintained that we misinterpreted Shaffer 
and Stein (2000). The reviewer argued that representation applies to a 
population itself rather than to a population's contribution to the 
entire species. In other words, that the appropriate question to ask in 
our SPR analysis is whether a population's absence in a portion of its 
range would have significant ecological consequences or whether a 
portion of the species' range includes ecosystems not found elsewhere 
in the species' range.
    Our Response: We view representation as the ability of a species to 
adapt to changing environmental conditions over time (i.e., the 
species' adaptive capacity) (Smith et al. 2018, p. 304). While Shaffer 
and Stein (2000) introduced the concept of representation in the broad 
context of conserving biodiversity across ecosystems, we apply their 
concept at the species level, consistent with Smith et al. (2018). We 
use Smith et al.'s (2018) definition of representation in relation to 
the Act's definitions of endangered species and threatened species by 
asking whether the species has sufficient adaptive diversity such that 
it is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. Adequate representation does not require 
preservation of all adaptive diversity to meet this standard under the 
Act. As indicated in Our Response to Comment 39, we assessed the 
significance of portions of the gray wolf entities addressed in this 
rule based on whether the portions contribute meaningfully to the 
resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the gray wolf entity being 
evaluated, and we consider this approach to be consistent with the Act 
and case law. We revised this final rule to clarify that we use the 
concepts introduced by Shaffer and Stein (2000), as refined by Smith et 
al. (2018) and considered in the context of the Act.
    Comment 41: One reviewer questioned our conclusions that the Great 
Lakes metapopulation contains sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to sustain populations within the combined listed entity 
over time, and that the relatively few wolves that occur outside the 
Great Lakes area are not necessary for the recovered status of the 
combined listed entity. The reviewer argued that these conclusions are 
contingent on factual omissions and misinterpretations of wolf ecology 
and genetics. While the reviewer refers to the combined listed entity, 
their comment could apply to the analysis of other entities now 
included in this final rule.
    Our Response: Our conclusions are based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, including information and 
interpretations provided by this and other peer reviewers. We have 
revised the discussions in the final biological report and this final 
rule regarding gray wolf ecology and genetics in order to clarify the 
basis for our conclusions. Specifically, we have added additional 
information on these topics, and added a section to the rule (Genetic 
Diversity and Inbreeding) that provides a more in-depth analysis of the 
potential impacts of delisting on gray wolf genetic diversity. Based on 
this information, we conclude that the gray wolf entities evaluated in 
this rule do not meet the definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species, nor are they likely to meet either definition 
absent the protections of the Act.
    Comment 42: Most peer reviewers questioned the entity we evaluated. 
One asserted that we could add or remove only species, subspecies, or 
DPSs from the List and noted that we did not include a DPS analysis of 
the combined listed entity to determine whether it was a valid entity. 
Some argued that our treatment of DPSs or ``discreteness'' (or both) 
was inconsistent, illogical, or unclear, or recommended we conduct DPS 
analyses on specific populations or areas within the listed entities. 
One maintained that our DPS analysis of Pacific Northwest wolves was 
flawed. This same reviewer argued that our approach is inconsistent 
with previous wolf rulemakings and recovery planning with respect to 
treatment of the central Rocky Mountains and the Northeastern United 
States because we did not consider or treat these areas as DPSs or 
include a substantive discussion of either area as potential habitat. 
Another peer reviewer stated that regions considered in-depth in 
previous rulemakings and other documents (e.g., the central Rocky 
Mountains and Northeast) were only mentioned in passing in the proposed 
rule.
    Our Response: In our March 15, 2019, proposed rule, we explained 
that neither of the currently listed entities qualifies as a DPS. In 
this final rule we expand on that discussion and also explain why we 
are considering the status of gray wolves in several different 
configurations. (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet 
the Statutory Definition of a ``Species'' and Why and How We Address 
Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities). We did not conduct a DPS 
analysis of Pacific Northwest wolves (or wolves in any other subset of 
the entities we assessed) in our proposed rule or this final rule. 
Rather, we discuss the Pacific Northwest DPS analysis we conducted in 
2013, in the context of summarizing background information about 
actions we have undertaken relevant to our

[[Page 69855]]

national wolf strategy (see National Wolf Strategy). We also reference 
this 2013 DPS analysis when we discuss the lack of discreteness of 
these wolves and NRM wolves (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities 
Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a ``Species'').
    Our approach is consistent with previous wolf recovery planning 
efforts, which have consistently focused on three areas--the NRM, 
Eastern United States, and Southwestern United States--as reflected in 
our past actions. As shown in table 1, since 1978 our wolf recovery 
plans, reintroduction efforts, and reclassification or delisting rules 
have focused on these three areas. We have revised the language in this 
final rule and, where appropriate, provided more detailed information 
in our biological report to help clarify our approach in this rule. 
With respect to potential habitat in the Northeastern United States, we 
also clarify that our approach is to focus our assessment of suitable 
habitat and prey availability on areas currently occupied by wolves. 
New information on wolves in the central Rocky Mountains since 
publication of our proposed rule indicates the presence of a group of 
six or more wolves and the long-term presence of an individual radio-
collared wolf. Thus, new information indicates that gray wolves 
currently occupy Colorado. Therefore, we have added an analysis of 
habitat in the central Rocky Mountains to this final rule. We 
acknowledge the existence of suitable habitat in areas outside of gray 
wolf current range, but we do not consider them in-depth because we are 
not relying on those areas for our status determinations.
    Comment 43: One peer reviewer contended that, in not evaluating the 
status of subspecies, we are sidestepping the commitment made in our 
1978 reclassification rule to ``continue to recognize valid biological 
subspecies for purposes of . . . research and conservation programs,'' 
and that we are delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States 
based on the recovery of one subspecies, C. l. nubilis. Citing 
Hendricks et al. 2018, they argued that, for example, our approach does 
not consider threats to the coastal rainforest ecotype that has 
colonized the U.S. Pacific Northwest and overlaps with the distribution 
of C. l. fuscus.
    Our Response: Delisting the currently listed gray wolf entities 
based on the status of gray wolves in any of the three configurations 
we analyzed is consistent with our 1978 commitment to conserve 
subspecies. The 1978 reclassification was undertaken because of 
uncertainty about the taxonomic validity of some of the previously 
listed subspecies, and because we recognized that wolf populations were 
historically connected and that subspecies boundaries were thus 
malleable and populations admixed. The rule predated the November 1978 
amendments to the Act (which replaced the ability to list 
``populations'' with the ability to list ``distinct population 
segments'') and, therefore, at the time of the 1978 rule, listable 
entities included ``populations.'' The 1978 rule stated that 
``biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with 
as separate entities'' (43 FR 9609, March 9, 1978), i.e., subspecies or 
populations. Subsequent recovery plans and all gray wolf rulemakings 
since then have focused on units that are consistent with the stated 
intent of the 1978 rule to manage and recover the different gray wolf 
groups covered by the 1978 listings as ``separate entities'' (43 FR 
9609, March 9, 1978). Within 4 years of the 1978 rule, we developed 
recovery plans for wolf populations in the following regions of the 
United States: The northern Rocky Mountains, the East, and the 
Southwest (table 1). Since then, the NRM wolf population (now 
metapopulation) has recovered (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, entire; 77 
FR 55530, September 10, 2012, entire), the southwest wolf population is 
protected under a separate subspecies listing as endangered (80 FR 
2488, January 16, 2015, entire), and the Great Lakes wolf population 
(now metapopulation) is recovered. It was never our intent to recover 
wolves throughout the entire geographic area encompassed by the 1978 
listings. Instead, we have focused on recovering the different gray 
wolf groups covered by the 1978 listings as ``separate entities.''
    With respect to Pacific coastal rainforest wolves, wolves that 
recolonized Washington and Oregon originate primarily from the interior 
forest ecotype, which is more indicative of wolves from southeastern 
British Columbia, southwestern Alberta, or the NRM (Hendricks et al. 
2019, p. 138, Supplemental table S2). Of the 54 wolves from Washington 
and Oregon that Hendricks et al. (2018) sampled, 2 possessed 
mitochondrial DNA haplotypes only known from wolf populations in 
coastal British Columbia. Only one of the two wolves with the coastal 
haplotype resided in the west coast portion of the entity currently 
listed as endangered (44-State entity) and, consequently, the combined 
listed entity, in an area considered highly suitable for coastal 
wolves. The other resided within the boundary of the NRM DPS in the 
interior of northeast Washington. Furthermore, based on an assessment 
of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), three of the five wolves 
from Washington were intermediate between NRM wolves and coastal 
wolves, indicating that Washington was an admixture zone for coastal 
and inland wolf ecotypes (Hendricks et al. 2018, p. 8). Thus, rather 
than dispersal and recolonization of wolves from a specific ecotype to 
that same ecotype, these results demonstrate the ability of wolves to 
disperse to, inhabit, and survive in a variety of habitats that may be 
very different from where they or their parents originated. It also 
indicates that wolves from coastal and inland ecotypes interbreed in 
admixture zones (Hendricks et al. 2018, entire). We analyzed threats to 
the gray wolves inhabiting Pacific coastal rainforest ecosystems in our 
2016 assessment of the status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf and 
found that these wolves are not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future (81 FR 435, January 6, 2016, 
entire).
    Comment 44: Referring to the combined listed entity, one reviewer 
stated that, while the Act does not require species to be restored 
everywhere, recovery in one region (the Great Lakes area) is not 
sufficient to delist a species formerly distributed across the 
continent. The reviewer asserted the rule is an effort to advance 
broader shifts in interpretation of the Act for widely distributed 
species.
    Our Response: As discussed in this final rule and the final 
biological report, gray wolves are recovered in each of the two 
currently listed entities, in the two currently listed entities 
combined into a single entity, and in the lower 48 United States 
entity. They currently exist in two large, growing or stable 
metapopulations--one in the Great Lakes area and one in the Western 
United States--that are interconnected with even larger populations of 
wolves in Canada. The core of the former occurs in the Great Lakes 
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the core of the 
latter occurs in the western States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The 
western United States metapopulation is currently recolonizing western 
Washington and western Oregon, has begun to recolonize California, and 
is in the early stages of recolonizing Colorado. Moreover, dispersing 
wolves have been detected in all the States in historical gray wolf 
range west of the Mississippi River except Oklahoma and Texas. 
Continued wolf dispersal across western States demonstrates that gray 
wolves could eventually find most large

[[Page 69856]]

patches of suitable habitat in the west as long as healthy core wolf 
populations are maintained on the landscape.
    In addition to the metapopulations of gray wolves in the Great 
Lakes area and the Western United States, the Mexican wolf (C. lupus 
baileyi) inhabits the Southwestern United States (Arizona and New 
Mexico) and Mexico. The population in Arizona and New Mexico is small 
but growing, and there is an establishing population in Mexico. These 
wolves are listed separately as an endangered species and are 
unaffected by this rule; they will remain on the List until the 
subspecies has recovered.
    The standard for listing or delisting a species under the Act is 
whether it meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an endangered species as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as ``any 
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Neither the Act nor our regulations require that a listed 
species be restored to any threshold amount of its historic range 
before it may be delisted. Based on our analysis of the best available 
scientific and commercial data, we have determined that each of the 
gray wolf entities evaluated in this rule is not in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (see Determination 
of Species Status).
    Comment 45: One peer reviewer considered our treatment of 
connectivity between wolves in the West Coast States portion of the 
combined listed entity (referred to by the reviewer as the Pacific 
Northwest) and the NRM to be inconsistent and problematic. According to 
the reviewer, we state in our proposed rule that we do not discuss 
management in the NRM because the NRM is legally a distinct entity but 
also find that West Coast States wolves are superfluous to the gray 
wolf entity because the NRM population provides demographic support to 
them.
    Our Response: We considered the comments of this peer reviewer, and 
other commenters, and we have modified our approach in this final rule 
(see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule). We evaluate the status 
of gray wolves in three different configurations, including a lower 48 
United States entity (see Why and How We Address Each Configuration of 
Gray Wolf Entities).
    Comment 46: One peer reviewer considered our use of the term 
``eastern wolf''--to denote wolves in the Great Lakes area or the 
Northeast--to be inappropriate. According to the reviewer, the term 
``eastern wolf'' should refer only to the genetically distinct wolves 
living in and around Algonquin Provincial Park in Canada. The same 
reviewer also indicated that our decision to consider eastern wolves to 
be members of the species C. lupus was arbitrary and disregards the 
precautionary principle. They stated that there is considerable 
evidence that a distinct eastern wolf originally existed in the Eastern 
United States and no solid evidence that gray wolves historically lived 
in the Eastern United States outside the Great Lakes region, though 
they noted that the historical occurrence of gray wolves in the eastern 
States is uncertain. The reviewer further stated that there is general 
scientific agreement that eastern wolves and red wolves deserve 
separate conservation consideration as unique ecotypes, ecological 
surrogates, DPSs, or species, and that Federal protection may be needed 
in the Eastern United States to protect and recover the endangered red 
wolf and the eastern wolves found in and around Algonquin National Park 
that are listed in Canada as threatened.
    Our Response: Many scientists have long considered eastern wolves 
to be distinct from coyotes and gray wolves in the Western United 
States. However, the correct taxonomic assignment and evolutionary 
origin of the eastern wolf is uncertain. Scientists have variously 
described the eastern wolf as a species, a subspecies of gray wolf, an 
ecotype of gray wolf, the product of hybridization between gray wolves 
and coyotes, the same species as the red wolf, or a hybrid between red 
wolves and gray wolves (see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America). 
We originally listed the gray wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern 
timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to recognize this subspecies--and 
the Northeastern United States as part of its historical range--for 
years, as evidenced by both our original (1978) and revised (1992) 
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed 
recognizing the species C. lycaon, occurring in southeastern Canada 
and, historically, the Northeastern United States, in our proposed rule 
to delist C. lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered (table 1). 
However, peer reviewers of that proposed rule considered the scientific 
basis for recognizing C. lycaon as a species to be insufficient. They 
noted that this is an area of active scientific research with frequent 
studies published yearly, and stated that the proposed recognition of 
these wolves as a species was premature (National Center for Ecological 
Analysis and Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). Debate on the subject in the 
scientific community and, consequently, the taxonomy and evolutionary 
history of eastern wolves remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. 1 
2012;3). Therefore, in this rule we continue to recognize wolves in the 
Northeastern United States as members of the species C. lupus. We 
conclude that this is appropriate based on our review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information. Our decision results 
in a much larger historical range to the gray wolf entities evaluated 
than if we considered eastern wolves to be a distinct entity or members 
of the red wolf species.
    The reviewer also argues that Federal protection may be needed for 
wolves in the Eastern United States, to protect dispersers or allow for 
reintroductions of the endangered red wolf and the eastern wolves found 
in and around Algonquin National Park that are listed in Canada as 
threatened. In 1967, we listed the red wolf as endangered wherever 
found, except where listed as an experimental population (32 FR 4001, 
March 11, 1967). The species remains on the List and, consequently, 
already receives the protections of the Act. The rest of the combined 
listed entity (and 44-State entity and lower 48 United States entity), 
which includes the Northeastern United States, does not warrant the 
protections of the Act because, as indicated in this rule, we have 
determined that it does not meet the Act's definition of a threatened 
species or endangered species (see Determination of Species Status).

State and Federal Agency Comments

Recovery and Delisting
    Comment 47: The Governor of Oregon indicated her belief that wolf 
recovery in Oregon is a success and that wolves are on the path to 
recovery. She also noted that the State of Oregon and other States can 
help lead to recovery of the species across a significant portion of 
its historical range. She expressed that wolves are wide-ranging, and 
as Oregon's wolves venture into California and return, they warrant the 
protection of the Federal Endangered Species Act during their travels.
    Our Response: Gray wolves (excluding Mexican wolves) are currently 
distributed in two large and expanding metapopulations in the lower 48 
United States. Based on our thorough review of the species' status, 
threats, and existing regulatory mechanisms, we

[[Page 69857]]

have determined that none of the gray wolf entities we evaluate in this 
rule (including either of the currently listed gray wolf entities) meet 
the definition of a threatened species or endangered species under the 
Act (see Determination of Species Status). Regarding wolves that move 
between California and Oregon after delisting, these individuals will 
still be afforded protections under the California Endangered Species 
Act and the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
    Comment 48: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
indicated that wolves in California are in the initial stages of 
reestablishment and that recovery in the State relies on conservation 
and management measures provided by Federal listing.
    Our Response: Consistent with the Act, we are removing the 
currently listed gray wolf entities from the List because we have 
determined that gray wolves in these entities do not meet the 
definition of threatened or endangered (see Determination of Species 
Status). However, we expect wolves will continue to recolonize suitable 
habitat in California under State management. See the Post-delisting 
Management section of this rule for additional information.
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Comment 49: The Arizona Game and Fish Department recommended that 
we add Arizona and New Mexico to the list of States with confirmed 
records of dispersing gray wolves, referencing information provided in 
Odell et al. 2018.
    Our Response: We did not recognize Arizona as a State having a 
confirmed record of a dispersing gray wolf because the wolf documented 
in Arizona subsequently died in Utah and was included in Utah's totals. 
We have updated our final rule and biological report to include Arizona 
as an additional State with a confirmed record of a dispersing gray 
wolf, noting that the wolf later died in Utah and was also included in 
their total. With respect to the report relating to New Mexico (Odell 
et al. 2018, p. 294), we agree it seems plausible that the animal 
observed was not a Mexican wolf based on its black pelage, which has 
not been reported in Mexican wolves. However, because this has not been 
confirmed as a gray wolf, we decline to add New Mexico to the list of 
States with ``confirmed'' gray wolf dispersal.
Taxonomy
    Comment 50: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources stated 
that we put too much emphasis on Mech and Paul (2008) in our discussion 
of taxonomy, and should instead rely on Heppenheimer et al. (2018).
    Our Response: As noted in the rule, canid taxonomy remains 
unsettled, despite being relatively well-studied, even using advanced 
molecular techniques. We reviewed and cited Heppenheimer et al. (2018), 
along with a number of other genetic studies, in conducting our 
assessment of wolf taxonomy.
Human-Caused Mortality
    Comment 51: The Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources, and one public commenter indicated 
that the discussion about additive and compensatory mortality relied 
too much on information provided by Creel and Rotella (2010) and failed 
to discuss a rebuttal by Gude et al. (2012) or use the best available 
information when discussing the effects of mortality on wolf 
populations. Additional references were provided for the discussion. 
Another public commenter supported the notion that human-caused 
mortality was super-additive and noted its effects on wolf population 
dynamics.
    Our Response: Based on the comments and information we received, we 
revised and updated the Human-caused Mortality section. In short, Creel 
and Rotella (2010) indicated that wolf populations can be harvested 
within limits, but that human-caused mortality was strongly additive to 
total mortality, and, based on their model predictions, population 
growth would decline as human-caused mortality increased. In contrast, 
using the same dataset, Gude et al. (2012) demonstrated that wolf 
population growth remained positive in Montana, which was also 
supported by field observations, and that variations in growth were 
strongly influenced by annual recruitment. Gude et al. (2012) also 
discussed the limitations of traditional monitoring techniques in 
addition to the need to create more efficient and accurate monitoring 
methods to improve population estimation techniques as wolf populations 
continue to increase and expand. For further information, see the 
Human-caused Mortality section of the rule.
    Comment 52: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
expressed views concerning the added value of the Act's protections in 
deterring illegal take of wolves under California law. In addition, the 
California Fish and Game Commission questioned the completeness of our 
discussion of the role of public attitudes as it relates to human-
caused mortality and recommended additional information for 
consideration.
    Our Response: While the Service respects the belief that continued 
Federal protections would provide an additional deterrence to illegal 
take under existing California law, the Act requires the Service to 
make status determinations based on whether the species meets the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of 
the five statutory factors. Gray wolves have been illegally killed both 
with and without the protection of the Act (i.e., illegal under other 
State or Federal rules or regulations), and, although some researchers 
(Treves et al. 2017b) and most wildlife managers would agree that known 
illegal take is likely biased low, several studies have estimated that 
around 10 percent of the known population is illegally taken annually 
in the NRM (Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; Ausband et al. 2017a, p. 7), 
Michigan (O'Neil 2017, p. 214), and Wisconsin (Stenglein et al. 2018, 
p. 104). However, wolf populations remain robust and recovered in these 
locations, and wolves continue to recolonize new areas of suitable 
habitat in the West Coast States and have begun to recolonize the 
central Rockies. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that illegal 
take was greater during periods of Federal protections in Wisconsin 
compared to periods when the wolf was delisted (see Olson et al. 2014). 
Surveys also indicate that members of the public are more trusting of 
their State fish and wildlife agencies than their State or Federal 
Government (Manfredo et al. 2018, pp. 8, 58-68). Thus, they may be less 
inclined to illegally take a wolf, and be more accepting of wolves on 
the landscape, if they perceive that State management provides more 
options to mitigate conflicts. For further information, see Our 
Responses to Comment 14, as well as Comment 19. Also see ``The Role of 
Public Attitudes'' in the Human-caused Mortality section of this final 
rule.
    Comment 53: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (Wildlife Services) 
commented that the ability to mitigate losses associated with wolves 
has contributed to wolf recovery in both the northern Rocky Mountains 
recovery area and Great Lakes region. Wildlife Services stated that in 
the Northern Rocky Mountains recovery area (Wyoming, Idaho, Montana), 
where

[[Page 69858]]

wolves have been delisted and State wildlife agencies have assumed 
management authority, populations continue to exceed recovery goals and 
wolf-livestock conflicts and associated management costs have declined 
in those States. They contended that these trends provide strong 
evidence that wolves and related conflicts can be managed under State 
authority without the Act's protections. They further stated that 
effective response to wolf conflicts is a key component to building and 
maintaining public value of wolves and that the Act's restrictions on 
methods for conflict management have led to frustration in communities 
where conflicts occur, especially in Michigan and Wisconsin, where 
limits on methods are most restrictive. They concluded that the 
increased management options associated with delisting will facilitate 
prompt, effective response to conflicts and enhance public acceptance 
of wolf populations.
    Our Response: The Service agrees that State wildlife agencies are 
fully capable of managing for sustainable wolf populations while 
concurrently working with Wildlife Services to minimize conflicts 
caused by wolves using the full suite of mitigation response techniques 
available post-delisting. For further information, see Our Responses to 
Comment 17 and Comment 52.
    Comment 54: Wildlife Services noted that the Great Lakes population 
of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is nearly four 
times that of the Northern Rockies population, and conflicts can be 
more effectively managed without the restrictions imposed by protection 
under the Act. Great Lakes wolf populations have exceeded recovery 
goals and continue to thrive. However, the region has also experienced 
an increase in the number, diversity, and distribution of wolf 
conflicts. Minnesota wolf populations have exceeded 2,600, nearly 
double Federal recovery goals and 1,000 more than State management 
goals. Wolf conflicts in Minnesota have increased 42 percent since 
wolves in Minnesota were returned to threatened status following a 2-
year period of State management from 2012 to 2014. In Michigan, wolf 
population growth has slowed and stabilized around 650 for the past few 
years following several hard winters that have depressed deer herds. 
However, the Michigan wolf population exceeds recovery goals by 343 
percent, and suitable habitat is saturated. Wolf populations also 
continue to grow in Wisconsin where the 2018-2019 overwinter minimum 
wolf count was 914 to 978 wolves in 243 packs, a 1 percent increase 
over the 2017-2018 winter count. In Wisconsin, issues associated with 
wolves have continued to increase since 2014, including: 12 percent 
increase in total verified wolf complaints, over 36 percent increase in 
attacks on domestic dogs, and a 24 percent increase in farms with 
verified livestock losses. Wisconsin noted more than a 24 percent 
increase in depredation payments from 2017 to 2018 that totaled over 
$134,000 in compensation. Suitable habitat in Wisconsin is occupied by 
wolves, and continued population growth will likely occur in areas 
where human-livestock-wolf conflicts will increase. Continued Federal 
listing of Great Lakes wolves will hamper effective management of wolf 
conflicts in that region.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates the role that Wildlife 
Services has played in the recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes 
area and elsewhere, as well as the expertise and assistance personnel 
from the agency provide to mitigate wolf-related conflicts using both 
nonlethal and lethal means. We concur with the points raised related to 
wolf populations and wolf-related conflicts in the Great Lakes area. 
For further information, see Our Responses to Comment 17 and Comment 
52.
    Comment 55: The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources pointed 
out that they have committed significant resources to ensure that 
decisions are based on sound science across the spectrum of ecological 
and social issues involved. The Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources contended that Holsman (2014) clearly summarized public 
attitudes regarding wolves in Wisconsin and importantly noted that, 
while the majority of residents have positive attitudes toward wolves, 
there is reduced tolerance for wolves living outside of heavily 
forested areas of the State and wide support for lethal wolf control as 
a response to livestock depredations and human safety concerns.
    Our Response: We greatly appreciate the commitment and longstanding 
contributions by Wisconsin to wolf conservation, recovery, and 
management in the State. We also understand the diversity of opinions 
that surround wolves and wolf management (also see Our Response to 
Comment 19 and the section titled ``The Role of Public Attitudes'' in 
the Human-caused Mortality section of this final rule) and conclude 
that Wisconsin is well-equipped to manage a recovered wolf population 
with a full understanding of these diverse opinions.
Effects of Climate Change
    Comment 56: The Arizona Game and Fish Department noted that while 
Hendricks et al. (2018) reports potential effects on wolf prey from 
increased risk of fire arising from climate change, fire can actually 
improve conditions such that areas are able to support higher densities 
of ungulate prey after fire. Additionally, the Arizona Game and Fish 
Department indicated that milder winter conditions in northern 
latitudes under climate change scenarios (citing Rivrud et al. 2019) 
will increase ungulate ranges and biomass available for wolves.
    Our Response: The referenced paper (Rivrud et al. 2019, entire) is 
based on a study of red deer (Cervus elaphus) use of winter and summer 
habitats in Norway. The authors found that reduced snow cover as a 
result of global warming would increase habitat suitability and ranges 
of ungulate prey at their northern distribution limits (Rivrud et al. 
2019, p. 1). While this study may not be directly applicable to the 
gray wolf entities addressed in this rule based on geographic locale, 
we understand the Arizona Game and Fish Department's view to be that 
there may be beneficial effects from fire on wolves due to changes in 
habitat suitability and localized expansion for ungulate prey and that 
there is potential for new areas to become accessible to ungulate prey 
via reduced snow cover. The degree and the future timeframe in which 
such effects might take place, however, are unknown. In addition, 
regulation of population dynamics in ungulates is complex and unlikely 
to be driven by climate factors alone. See Our Response to Comment 102 
for more discussion of ungulate populations. Moreover, wolves are 
highly adaptable and are expected to readily respond to climate-related 
changes in prey populations or other factors.
Genetics
    Comment 57: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
expressed concern about the potential risks inherent in small wolf 
populations within the State, including the risk of low or decreasing 
genetic diversity.
    Our Response: Expanding populations, including the wolves in 
California, may be exposed to different pressures than core 
populations, including the potential for reduced genetic diversity, 
Allee effects, or founder effects. To more thoroughly examine issues of 
genetic diversity and how they may impact wolf viability across the 
range, we added the section Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding to this

[[Page 69859]]

rule. As we note in that section, despite the potential for such 
genetic effects in California, the overall viability of the gray wolf 
entities addressed in this rule are unlikely to be significantly 
impacted. Also see the final biological report (USFWS 2020, pp. 18-19) 
for a discussion of the various locations from which California's 
wolves have descended.
Post-Delisting Management
    Comment 58: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 
expressed concern that hunting seasons would be initiated by a number 
of States if the proposed rule is finalized. They stated that lethal 
management has been used in response to suspected depredations in other 
States and that the ability of gray wolves to occupy their full 
historical range will be hindered by hunting and lethal management. 
They further stated that Federal protection of wolves from source 
populations outside of California is important for wolf recovery in the 
State. They stated they would like to see continued Federal protection 
of gray wolves to allow for continued expansion into California and 
other States.
    Our Response: As demonstrated by current State management of wolves 
in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, it is unlikely that moderate increases 
in human-caused mortality will cause dramatic declines in wolf 
populations across the ranges of the gray wolf entities addressed in 
this rule. Even if human-caused mortality increases after delisting, we 
expect dispersing wolves to continue to move into and out of the West 
Coast States and recolonize vacant suitable habitat. The effects of 
increased human-caused mortality on wolf dispersal is discussed in the 
Human-caused Mortality section of the rule. Also, see Our Responses to 
Comments 45, 16, and 15.
    Comment 59: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources commented 
that, since the 1980s, their agency has employed specific staff 
dedicated to wolf research and management, including implementation of 
the State's wolf management plan. Staff continues to contribute to the 
conservation of wolves in Minnesota through coordinating management, 
enforcing the prohibition against illegal take, investigating livestock 
depredation claims, and conducting population monitoring and research. 
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' conservation officers 
continue to enforce the requirements of the Wolf Management Act. 
Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture administers a 
compensation fund that provides payments in instances where wolves 
cause confirmed damage to livestock. Currently Minnesota spends 
approximately $250,000 per year on wolf depredation management, 
excluding staff time.
    Our Response: We thank the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources for this information supporting the fact that they have 
invested a significant amount of time and resources into managing the 
State's wolf population while wolves were federally listed and we fully 
support the State's ability and commitment to sustainable wolf 
management following delisting.
    Comment 60: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 
reconfirmed their commitment to the long-term conservation of wolves 
and affirmed that, should the gray wolf be delisted in Minnesota, they 
will manage the species for its long-term sustainability and for the 
benefit of both present and future generations of Minnesotans. 
Moreover, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources indicated they 
are further committed to managing gray wolves in Minnesota to 
contribute to the success of wolf recovery beyond the State.
    Our Response: We greatly appreciate the longstanding contributions 
of the State of Minnesota in wolf conservation and its commitment to 
continued sustainable wolf management following delisting.
    Comment 61: The North Dakota Game and Fish Department commented 
that wolves are listed as a ``fur-bearer'' with a closed season per 
State regulations. The status of wolves in North Dakota will remain 
such even after they are delisted, unless a significant change in the 
species distribution or population status is documented in the future. 
However, the removal of Federal protections for gray wolves would allow 
the North Dakota Game and Fish Department the ability to timely and 
responsibly manage transient wolves should they depredate livestock in 
the future. Additionally, it would alleviate public interpretation 
difficulties associated with having wolves federally protected in North 
Dakota even though their jurisdiction is not part of one of the 
recognized populations, nor is it a target for future recovery actions.
    Our Response: We appreciate the North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department's ability and commitment to manage wolves that enter the 
State via dispersal as a fur-bearer with a closed season and support 
their decisionmaking and ability to manage conflicts with wolves should 
they occur post-delisting.
    Comment 62: The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and one 
commenter indicated that the proposed rule failed to acknowledge or 
analyze wolf management plans for those States outside of the currently 
occupied range. They believed this analysis should be included to 
address concerns that States will not manage for wolves, once delisted. 
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources also described Utah's wolf 
management plan goals and objectives, and when certain phases of the 
plan will be implemented to manage wolves that naturally recolonize the 
State. They also described staff preparedness and monitoring efforts 
that would occur if wolves were to recolonize the State. Furthermore, 
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources stated that they have baseline 
information on big game populations that could be used to understand 
wolf-prey relationships in Utah, as well as programs to provide 
assistance to livestock producers.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes the preparation and 
willingness of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to responsibly 
manage and monitor wolves that naturally recolonize the State post-
delisting. We also appreciate their commitment to provide assistance to 
livestock producers to minimize conflict risk and to provide 
compensation for wolf-caused livestock losses, as well as their ability 
to evaluate the impact wolves may have on ungulate populations while 
continuing to adaptively manage for sustainable big game populations. 
An analysis of wolf management plans was conducted for States within 
the current range of the gray wolf and can be found in the Post-
delisting Management section of this rule. Due to recent information 
confirming the presence of a group of six wolves in extreme northwest 
Colorado, and their proximity to and potential use of habitats within 
Utah, we conducted an analysis of the Colorado Wolf Management 
Recommendations and the Utah Wolf Management Plan (see Post-delisting 
Management). We did not consider management in States outside of the 
current range, other than Utah, because wolves are not expected to 
persist long term in most of those States.
Policy
    Comment 63: The California Fish and Game Commission asserted that 
the proposed rule does not address the absence of gray wolf populations 
in most of the species' historical range. They expressed concern that 
we interpret ``range,'' within the Act's definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species,'' as current range.

[[Page 69860]]

They stated that this creates a shifting baseline, discounts historical 
habitats in California and elsewhere, and ignores science and the law. 
Also, the Michigan Attorney General indicated that, as a result of the 
court opinion issued in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 
336 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2018), the SPR phrase in the 
Act's definition of ``endangered species'' carries its ordinary 
meaning. Citing Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 21 
(D.D.C. 2002), the Michigan Attorney General asserted that the Service 
must explain its conclusion that an area in which a species can no 
longer live is not a significant portion of its range.
    Our Response: We describe our interpretation of range and our 
rationale for this interpretation in detail in our SPR policy, which is 
legally binding (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Per that policy, we 
interpret the term ``range'' in the Act's definitions of ``endangered 
species'' and ``threatened species'' to be the general geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service or National Marine Fisheries Service makes a status 
determination under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). 
In other words, we interpret ``range'' in these definitions to be the 
current range. Three recent court rulings have upheld our 
interpretation (see Our Response to Comment 37).
    We assume the Michigan Attorney General's statement that ``the 
Service must explain its conclusion that an area in which a species can 
no longer live is not a significant portion of its range'' refers to 
our conclusion that a species' unoccupied historical range cannot be a 
significant portion of its range. The cited case, Defenders of Wildlife 
v. Norton, pre-dates our SPR policy, which interprets the term 
``range'' in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and 
``threatened species'' as current range. Based on that interpretation, 
if a portion of historical range is not occupied, then it is not part 
of the species ``range'' (i.e., current range) and thus cannot be a 
portion (significant or not) of that range. In response to several 
comments related to our interpretation of ``range,'' we have clarified 
our definition and treatment of range in this final rule (see 
Definition and Treatment of Range).
    Comment 64: The California Fish and Game Commission indicated that 
establishing and maintaining robust gray wolf populations in suitable 
habitat across the species' historical range can help ensure long-term 
survival of the species and recovery success. They expressed concern 
that, if the species is delisted, populations could potentially stop 
growing or even decline due to hunting and lethal management.
    Our Response: We agree that broadly distributed, robust populations 
help ensure the long-term survival of a species. Gray wolves have 
recovered in two broad regions of their historical range in the lower 
48 United States (the Great Lakes States and the NRM region), and the 
Mexican wolf will remain listed in a third broad region. In the Great 
Lakes and the NRM, wolves occur as large metapopulations distributed in 
suitable habitat across several States. Based on an analysis of the 
best available data, we have determined that none of the gray wolf 
entities evaluated in this rule are in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (see Determination of Species Status). Although we 
acknowledge that human-caused mortality is likely to increase post-
delisting as some States with viable gray wolf populations begin to 
manage wolves under the guidance of their State management plans, it is 
unlikely that moderate increases in human-caused mortality will cause 
dramatic declines in wolf populations across the gray wolf entities 
evaluated in this rule (see Our Response to Comment 16).
    Comment 65: The California Fish and Game Commission asserted that 
Federal policy should reflect a greater commitment to active gray wolf 
recovery efforts, identifying and protecting critical habitat and 
movement corridors, maintaining a population level consistent with 
ecosystem functionality, and implementing innovative policy and 
guidance to reduce lethal control as a management strategy.
    Our Response: We have been strongly committed to gray wolf recovery 
since the 1970s. As a result of our commitment and the commitment and 
recovery efforts of our State, Federal, and Tribal partners, the gray 
wolf entities evaluated in this rule do not meet the Act's definition 
of an endangered species or of a threatened species. Therefore, we are 
removing the currently listed C. lupus entities from the List. (See Our 
Responses to Comments 44 and 42).
    Comment 66: Referring only to the gray wolf entity currently on the 
List as endangered (the 44-State entity), the Michigan Attorney General 
contended that the proposed delisting rule does not meet the Act's 
requirements because it does not include a complete five-factor 
analysis for the current range of the gray wolf in that entity. The 
Michigan Attorney General noted that we explain why gray wolves are no 
longer in danger of extinction in portions of Michigan and Wisconsin, 
but fail to analyze whether gray wolves currently living in other 
States are in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of the entity's range. For example, the Michigan Attorney 
General stated that we did not investigate the effects of human-caused 
mortality on gray wolves in North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Colorado, 
Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, or Kansas, and asserted 
that we withdraw the proposed rule and allow the Michigan Department of 
Natural Resources to lead other States, by example, in managing the 
gray wolves within their borders into recovery, instead of into 
extinction.
    Our Response: We appreciate the State of Michigan's significant 
contribution to gray wolf recovery. However, we do not make status 
determinations on a State-by-State basis. Rather, we determine whether 
a species (in this case, each of the gray wolf entities evaluated in 
this rule) meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or of a 
threatened species because of the five factors throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We interpret the term ``range'' as 
used in the Act's definitions of ``threatened species'' and 
``endangered species'' to refer to the area occupied by the species at 
the time we make a status determination (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). As 
a result, our analysis of the effects of threats under the five factors 
to the viability of each of the gray wolf entities evaluated in this 
rule focuses on its occupied range. Thus, we did not assess the effects 
of threats to gray wolves in States that are not currently occupied by 
gray wolves (see Our Response to Comment 37). However, we considered 
impacts arising from loss of each gray wolf entity's historical range 
on that entity's viability (see Historical Context of Our Analysis and 
Determination of Species Status). In other words, we thoroughly 
assessed the effects of threats and historical range loss on the 
viability of the gray wolf entities evaluated in this rule based on the 
best available scientific and commercial data available. In so doing, 
we have determined that each of the gray wolf entities evaluated is not 
in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future, throughout all or a significant portion of its range (see 
Determination of Species Status). Consequently, we are removing the 
currently listed C. lupus entities from the List. (See Our Response to 
Comment 42).
    Comment 67: Referring only to the gray wolf entity currently on the 
List as endangered (the 44-State entity), the Michigan Attorney General 
indicated

[[Page 69861]]

that the approach taken in our proposed rule is not in accordance with 
the Act because it is the same approach taken in our December 28, 2011, 
rule designating and delisting the western Great Lakes DPS (76 FR 
81666), which was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit (Humane Society, 865 F.3d at 603). The Michigan Attorney 
General stated that the approach in the proposed rule splits the 44-
State entity into a recovered subgroup (wolves in Wisconsin and 
Michigan) and an unrecovered subgroup (wolves in several other States 
in that listed entity) that will become extinct. Quoting the D.C. 
Circuit opinion, they indicate that the unrecovered subgroup is an 
``orphan to the law'' and that our ``failure to address the status of 
the remnant is fatal.''
    Our Response: In this rule, we evaluate the status of the entire 
44-State entity (as well as two larger entities that include the entire 
44-State entity). The western Great Lakes DPS that was designated and 
delisted in 2011 (see 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011) constitutes only 
a subset of the 44-State entity. Further, our approach in this rule is 
consistent with the Humane Society opinion because we assess the status 
of the entire 44-State entity, thus there are no subgroups of wolves 
that could be considered ``orphans to the law.''
    Comment 68: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stated 
that a blanket delisting of gray wolves across the United States may 
not be warranted. They also expressed concern that we may not be 
identifying and applying delisting criteria appropriately.
    Our Response: We appreciate the Department's perspective and the 
State of Minnesota's significant contribution to gray wolf recovery. 
While our past status reviews focused on DPSs and taxonomic units that 
align with our national wolf strategy, we have revised our approach in 
this rule in recognition of the unique listing history of the gray wolf 
and court opinions addressing rules in which we designated gray wolf 
DPSs (see table 1). Therefore, in this rule we do not designate and 
assess gray wolf DPSs. Rather, we assess the status of the two 
currently listed gray wolf entities themselves (separately, and 
combined into a single entity) and the lower 48 United States entity. 
Further, by ``delisting criteria'' we assume the Department is 
referring to recovery criteria. We do not base our status 
determinations on recovery criteria alone (see Our Response to Comment 
69). We make our determinations based on a species' (in this case, each 
of the gray wolf entities assessed in this rule) status throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range. (See Our Response to Comment 
66). Because we have determined that each of the gray wolf entities 
assessed in this rule is not in danger of extinction, or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range (see Determination of Species Status), we are 
removing the currently listed gray wolf entities from the List (see Our 
Response to Comment 42).
    Comment 69: The California Fish and Game Commission and several 
other commenters opined that much of the recovery analysis in the 
proposed rule is based on an outdated recovery plan using outdated 
science. They stated that the recovery criteria on which the rule is 
based do not factor in the best available science and, therefore, 
neither does any analysis in the rule that is based on the recovery 
criteria.
    Our Response: Our determination is based on analysis of the best 
available information regarding the threats to, and viability of, the 
gray wolf entities evaluated in this rule. Recovery plans and recovery 
criteria are 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. 
They are not regulatory documents and cannot substitute for the 
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. We use recovery criteria in concert with the best 
scientific and commercial data available at the time of the delisting 
determination, to determine whether threats have been minimized 
sufficiently and populations have achieved long-term viability to 
determine whether a species meets the Act's definition of an endangered 
species or of a threatened species and, therefore, can be reclassified 
from endangered to threatened or delisted.

Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments

    Comment 70: The Nez Perce Tribe expressed their interest in 
sustainable wolf populations outside of the NRM. Specifically, they 
commented that the expansion of wolves into areas of former occupation 
in the Pacific Northwest outside of the NRM would contribute to the 
persistence of wolves in their homeland as part of a broader 
metapopulation. The Tribe encouraged us to take no action that 
threatens, reduces, or hinders the reestablishment and persistence of 
wolves in all suitable habitat outside the NRM DPS. The Tribe further 
recommended that the Service support active, precise, and accurate 
monitoring of wolf pack locations, movements, and demographics to 
validate that goal.
    Our Response: We share the Tribe's interest in sustainable wolf 
populations, and we expect the wolf metapopulation in the Western 
United States to continue to expand into unoccupied suitable habitats 
in the West Coast States and central Rocky Mountains, as envisioned in 
State wolf conservation and management plans. We support State and 
Tribal-led efforts to use the best available scientific methods for 
tracking population trends and distribution, recognizing that in some 
cases tracking every wolf pack will not be feasible or necessary.
    Comment 71: The Makah Tribal Council indicated that the current 
legal framework in Washington, with Federal protection of wolves in the 
western two-thirds of Washington State and Tribal/State management 
responsibility in the eastern one-third of the State, makes overall 
management of wolves within the State extremely challenging.
    Our Response: We thank the Tribal Council for their comment and 
understand the challenges that have arisen from delimiting the NRM 
population, which has continued to expand beyond its legally designated 
boundaries. Although our final rule is based solely on the best 
available scientific and commercial information with respect to the 
status of each of the gray wolf entities we evaluated, one consequence 
of the delisting is that it will resolve the challenge raised by the 
Tribe.
    Comment 72: The Nez Perce Tribe expressed that the sustainability 
of habitat conditions for wolves, including their prey base, should be 
of high priority to the Service as it considers delisting. To avoid 
conflict, the Tribe recommends that the Service work closely with 
Tribes and States to monitor wild ungulate populations and adjust 
population objectives for those species as necessary to ensure the 
robust availability of prey for both wolves and humans.
    Our Response: Wolves can exist in nearly any habitat with 
sufficient food resources and limited human-caused mortality. We agree 
that a sustainable prey base is necessary for maintaining robust and 
resilient wolf populations, and we assessed the adequacy of the prey 
base following delisting in making our delisting determination (see 
Habitat and Prey Availability). We will work closely with the States 
and Tribes throughout the post-delisting monitoring period to gather 
and assess data on wolf status, including information on changes to 
protections for wolves, wolf prey, or wolf habitat.

[[Page 69862]]

    Comment 73: Several Tribes and multi-Tribal organizations commented 
that providing Tribes with an opportunity to participate in regular and 
meaningful consultation is an essential component of a productive 
Federal-Tribal relationship.
    Our Response: In accordance with the President's memorandum of 
April 29, 1994, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American 
Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we recognize our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes.
    We take seriously our government-to-government relationship with 
Tribes and respect Tribal sovereignty, and we coordinated with the 
affected Tribes when preparing the March 15, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 
9648). Furthermore, throughout several years of development of earlier 
related rules and the March 15, 2019, 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 changes, and (2) understand their concerns with 
those changes. As we were preparing this rule, we met with the Chippewa 
Ottawa Resources Authority Board and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 
Wildlife Commission's Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force to discuss the 
proposal. We also offered to meet individually and discuss the proposal 
with any Tribe that wanted to do so, and we met with the Fond du Lac 
Band of Chippewa Indians and the Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully 
considered all of the comments on the proposed rule submitted by Tribes 
and Tribal organizations, and we have attempted to address their 
concerns and considered any information they provided, incorporating it 
into the rule where appropriate. We invite Native American Tribes and 
multi-Tribal organizations to reach out to us after publication of this 
final rule so that we may engage in discussions aimed at facilitating 
the transition to State and Tribal management of wolves.
    Comment 74: Several commenters stated that the Service must ensure 
that State wolf management strategies accommodate Tribal interests 
within reservation boundaries as well as honor the Tribal role and 
authority in wolf management in the ceded territories. Furthermore, 
they also indicate that the Federal trust responsibility, as it 
pertains to wolf management, must be continued after delisting.
    Our Response: The Service and the Department of the Interior 
recognize the unique status of the federally recognized Tribes, their 
right to self-governance, and their inherent sovereign powers over 
their members and territory. Therefore, the Department, including the 
Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, will take all appropriate 
steps to ensure that Tribal authority and sovereignty within 
reservation boundaries are respected as the States implement their wolf 
management plans and revise those plans in the future. Furthermore, 
there may be Tribal activities or interests associated with wolves 
encompassed within the Tribes' retained rights to hunt, fish, and 
gather in treaty-ceded territories. The Department of the Interior is 
available to assist in the exercise of any such rights. If biological 
assistance is needed, the Service will provide it via our field 
offices. Upon delisting, all Service management, and protection 
authority under the Act, of the gray wolf entities will end, although 
the Service will remain involved in the post-delisting monitoring of 
gray wolves. Legal assistance will be provided to the Tribes by the 
Department of the Interior, with the involvement of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs as needed. We strongly encourage the States and Tribes 
to work cooperatively toward post-delisting wolf management.
    Comment 75: Two Tribal organizations and several commenters 
indicated that we did not adequately analyze the effects of increased 
human-caused mortality on wolf pack social structure, pack dynamics, 
and livestock depredations. Two commenters noted that wolf populations 
are self-regulating and are limited by prey availability. Some 
commenters felt that we needed to reassess regulatory mechanisms in 
State management plans that allow for ``substantial sport-hunting,'' 
which could affect wolf persistence and ecosystem health.
    Our Response: We acknowledge the importance group living has for a 
social animal such as the wolf. We are also aware that wolf populations 
may, under certain conditions, be regulated by density-dependent, 
intrinsic mechanisms. However, most wolves in the lower 48 United 
States live in human-dominated landscapes that are not free of human 
influences. As such, wolf populations are subject to varied levels of 
anthropogenic influences that can affect certain life-history 
characteristics.
    In general, the loss of a wolf or wolves from a pack, regardless of 
the cause, alters the social dynamics of the pack. This may, in turn, 
affect pack cohesion and persistence. However, the effects will vary 
depending upon the circumstances, including: The individual wolf that 
was lost, the time of year the loss occurred, the size of the pack, and 
the size of the wolf population in which the loss occurred. Wolves are 
resilient and adaptable and have evolved mechanisms to compensate for 
human-caused, or any other form of, mortality.
    The social structure of some packs are affected by increased human-
caused mortality, especially on the peripheries of occupied ranges 
where wolf survival is generally lower than in core areas. However, we 
conclude that regulatory mechanisms within occupied wolf range are 
adequate to maintain sufficient wolf population sizes after delisting 
such that increases in human-caused mortality will have a minimal 
effect on wolf populations. Refer to the Human-caused Mortality--
Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Dynamics section of this rule 
for further information regarding the effects of increased human-caused 
mortality on pack dynamics. Also, refer to the Human-caused Mortality 
and Post-delisting Monitoring sections of the rule and Our Response to 
Comment 120 for information related to regulatory mechanisms that will 
be in place post-delisting and the effects of harvest on wolf 
populations. See Our Response to Comment 17 for further information 
about lethal control.
    Comment 76: A few commenters stated that Tribal plans that address 
the management, protection, and/or stewardship of gray wolves should be 
considered to the same degree as State management plans.
    Our Response: We recognize the measures by Tribes to conserve 
wolves on their lands. We included additional available information on 
Tribal management in the delisted NRM (Management in the NRM DPS) and 
on Tribal management post-delisting for other areas (Tribal Management 
and Conservation of Wolves) in this final rule. However, because State 
wildlife management agencies will assume most management 
responsibilities when wolves are delisted, we assessed the State 
management plans in greater

[[Page 69863]]

detail. We recognize that the conservation of wolves by Tribes on 
Tribal lands after delisting may provide additional benefits to the 
species.
    Comment 77: Many Tribes, multi-Tribal organizations, and Tribal 
members expressed the significant cultural and spiritual relationship 
between Native Americans and the gray wolf.
    Our Response: We appreciate the cultural and spiritual significance 
of the wolf to many Native Americans. Although we acknowledge the 
importance of the cultural and spiritual significance of wolves to 
native people, we cannot consider it as a factor in our determination. 
Rather, we must evaluate the five statutory factors, consistent with 
the purpose of the Act to provide for the conservation of endangered 
species and threatened species, and the ecosystems upon which they 
depend. The Act defines conservation as the use of all methods and 
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened 
species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act 
are no longer necessary. Under our implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.11), a species should be delisted when the best scientific and 
commercial data available indicate that it no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species under the 
Act. None of the gray wolf entities we evaluated meets the definition 
of an endangered species or a threatened species; therefore, we are 
removing the currently listed entities from the List.
    Comment 78: Two commenters stated that the Service should use 
Tribes' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in the delisting 
decision and future gray wolf management plans. One commenter noted 
that Service publications describe TEK as ``Native Science'' gained 
``over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the 
environment.'' The commenter also stated that Service publications 
acknowledge how TEK ``encompasses the world view of indigenous people 
which includes ecology, spirituality, human and animal relationships, 
and more.'' The commenter asserts that TEK is the very definition of 
the best available science.
    Our Response: We agree that TEK may constitute the best available 
science, and it should be used in our decisions as appropriate, which 
is determined on a case-by-case basis. We sought information from 
Tribes in preparation of the proposed rule and incorporated any 
scientific information we received from them.

Public Comments

    In this section we do not repeat issues that we've already 
addressed above. We only address new issues raised that were not raised 
by peer reviewers, State or Federal agencies, or Tribes.
Recovery and Delisting
    Comment 79: Multiple commenters and two Tribal organizations 
expressed concern that while wolves have rebounded from near-extinction 
in parts of the northern Rocky Mountains region and Great Lakes area, 
most of the suitable habitat remains unoccupied and current population 
levels are lower than historical population levels. They asserted that 
recovery of wolves where they currently exist is due to Federal 
protections; thus, it is premature to remove Federal protections 
because wolves occupy only a small portion of their historical suitable 
habitat and/or range in the lower 48 United States. Some of these 
commenters stated that the Act provides for restoration throughout the 
historical range of wolves, and without protection by the Act, 
dispersing wolves could be shot or trapped before they are able to 
establish viable populations in unoccupied habitat. Commenters were 
also concerned that there is a lack of protection for wolves and 
promotion for wolf recovery in States not currently occupied by wolves. 
Similarly, some argued that the Act goes beyond just protecting the 
minimum number of individuals to prevent extinction.
    In contrast, some commenters noted that occupancy of wolves across 
the entire historical range is not possible, practical, or necessary to 
support viable wolf populations, and that wolves will return to 
unoccupied areas if suitable habitat exists.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that wolves do not occupy all of the 
potentially suitable habitat in the lower 48 United States. However, 
the Act does not describe recovery in terms of the proportion of 
historical range or potential habitat that must be occupied by a 
species, nor does it include restoration throughout the entire 
historical range as a conservation purpose. Thus, the Act does not 
require us to restore the gray wolf (or any other species) to all of 
its historical range or any specific percentage of currently suitable 
habitat. We find that the current level of occupied habitat is 
sufficient because it has supported recovery of the species. We also 
expect that wolf populations will continue to grow and expand post-
delisting in the West Coast States and central Rocky Mountains under 
State management (see Post-delisting Management section of this rule 
and Our Response to Comment 58. We are not, however, relying on such 
expansion for our determination that wolves in each of the gray wolf 
entities evaluated in this rule do not meet the definition of a 
threatened species or an endangered species under the Act.
    Comment 80: One commenter indicated that the Service has abandoned 
its responsibility to recover wolves in the lower 48 United States, 
which the commenter believed is contrary to its duty to conserve 
species under section 7(a)(1) of the Act.
    Our Response: In this final rule we analyze gray wolves in the 
lower 48 United States entity, and we conclude that they do not meet 
the definition of an endangered species or threatened species. The 
commenter's reliance on section 7(a)(1) of the Act is misplaced. 
Section 7(a)(1) directs Federal agencies to use their authorities in 
furtherance of the purpose of the Act by carrying out programs for the 
conservation of species that are currently listed under the Act. 
Section 7(a)(1) does not impose a separate requirement to conserve 
species that no longer warrant listing due to recovery. When a species 
no longer meets the definition of a threatened species or an endangered 
species under the Act and is delisted, section 7(a)(1) does not apply 
to that species. As described in Our Response to Comment 79, the Act 
does not require us to restore the gray wolf (or any other species) to 
all of its historical range or any specific percentage of currently 
suitable habitat before we may conclude that the species is recovered. 
Rather, that analysis is based on the five statutory factors. Based on 
the analyses in this final rule, we have concluded that the gray wolf 
entities currently listed are recovered--that is, they no longer meet 
the statutory definition of a threatened species or an endangered 
species. Thus, upon the effective date of this final rule (see DATES, 
above), section 7(a)(1) of the Act will not apply because the two 
currently listed gray wolf entities will no longer be listed.
    Comment 81: One commenter was concerned that shifting management of 
wolves to States post-delisting is not an adequate policy alternative 
to the Service's mandate to develop a substantive plan for gray wolf 
recovery per its responsibility under the Act. The commenter further 
stated that rather than focusing on the active recovery of the wolf, 
the Service issued multiple rulemakings to delist wolves.
    Our Response: There is no uniform definition for what constitutes 
recovery and how recovery must be achieved (see Gray Wolf Recovery 
Plans and Recovery

[[Page 69864]]

Implementation). Our recovery strategy for gray wolves in the lower 48 
United States consists of recovery of the species in three broad 
regions (NRM, Southwestern United States, and the East) that capture 
different subspecies and habitats, and we have, for decades, 
demonstrated a consistent commitment to this strategy. Recovery plans 
and recovery criteria are intended to provide guidance to the Service, 
States, and other partners on methods for eliminating, ameliorating, 
and minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that may be 
used to determine when recovery is achieved. We use recovery criteria, 
along with an analysis of the five factors to determine whether threats 
have been abated sufficiently and populations have achieved long-term 
viability, such that a species no longer meets the definition of 
endangered or threatened. The multiple rulemakings to delist wolves are 
a result of the Service's commitment to this recovery strategy. 
Returning management of gray wolves to the States is appropriate 
because each of the currently listed gray wolf entities has recovered 
and does not warrant Federal protections. We have explained elsewhere 
in this rule why State management is sufficient to ensure the 
conservation of the gray wolf after delisting. Also see Our Response to 
Comment 84.
    Comment 82: Several commenters stated that we inappropriately 
relied on wolf populations in Canada to determine that the combined 
listed entity is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in 
the foreseeable future. While the reviewer refers to the combined 
listed entity, their comment could apply to the analysis of other 
entities now included in this final rule.
    Our Response: We have concluded that each of the entities assessed 
in this rule--Minnesota, 44-State entity, combined listed entity, and 
lower 48 United States entity--contains sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation to sustain gray wolf populations over 
time. We provided general information on populations in Canada to 
acknowledge that they provide additional resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to these entities beyond that necessary to sustain 
populations within the gray wolf entities we evaluated. We have 
clarified this point in this final rule.
    Comment 83: One commenter expressed concern that we were relying 
too heavily on genetic rescue from Canada to ensure wolf recovery in 
the United States. The commenter was also concerned that State 
management might result in significant genetic bottleneck with 
implications for disease resistance and reproductive output. The 
commenter noted that disease outbreaks have caused ``sudden and 
severe'' mortality in Yellowstone wolves three times in the past 
decade.
    Our Response: There is no evidence that gray wolves in the lower 48 
United States suffer from low genetic diversity, except where they 
occur in isolated areas at extremely low population numbers (e.g., Isle 
Royale). High dispersal rates and long dispersal distances facilitate 
population connectivity between wolves in the United States and Canada 
(Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758; Forbes and Boyd 1996, pp. 1088-1089; Treves 
et al. 2009, p. 200; Jimenez et al. 2017, pp. 7 2012;10), which is not 
expected to change following delisting. While human-caused mortality is 
likely to increase in some States following delisting, we have 
determined that post-delisting management is sufficient to maintain 
viable metapopulations of the gray wolf (see Determination of Species 
Status section). The viability of these metapopulations is enhanced, 
but not dependent upon, their connectivity with Canada, since we expect 
population numbers to be sufficiently high to maintain genetic 
diversity without the need for genetic rescue. The fact that wolves 
have sustained bouts of heightened mortality due to disease in some 
years is not evidence of a genetic deficiency. While infectious disease 
is one of the key factors, along with prey abundance and social 
competition, affecting wolf population dynamics, the ability of wolves 
in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to rebound from disease outbreaks, 
in most instances the following year, demonstrates the resilience of 
individual wolves and packs as well as the limited effects disease has 
on the dynamics of wolf populations.
    Comment 84: Several commenters stated that we should have modified 
our recovery planning and implementation efforts after revising the 
listing to a single lower 48 United States listing in 1978. Some 
expressed that delisting is premature or in violation of the Act 
because recovery goals have not been identified or met for some or all 
unoccupied areas of the lower 48 United States, or because the 1992 
Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan is inadequate for guiding recovery in 
the combined listed entity because it is outdated and not the best 
available science and/or is geographically restricted. Commenters 
requested we develop, or believe the Act and/or our implementing 
regulations require us to develop, a single recovery plan for the lower 
48 United States, or nationwide, before proceeding with any delisting 
action. Some commenters provided suggestions regarding the development 
of such a plan, including specific areas in which wolves could be 
recovered. Other commenters stated that the Service should base 
recovery on subspecies or identify distinct population segments across 
the gray wolf's historical range, and that these should replace or 
supplement the current recovery zones. The Pacific Northwest, 
California, central Rockies, and Northeastern United States were 
mentioned most frequently for additional recovery programs. Still other 
commenters expressed their opinion that additional recovery efforts 
across the entire lower 48 United States were unwise and unnecessary.
    Our Response: Recovery plans are non-binding documents that are 
intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners 
on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and criteria that 
may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. However, our 
determination of the status of each of the gray wolf entities assessed 
in this rule is based on the status of each entity relative to the 
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species,'' not based on the achievement of specific recovery criteria. 
Possible future wolf recovery efforts are beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking because such actions are not necessary as a result of our 
determination that the gray wolf entities assessed in this rule do not 
meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species.
    As noted in the March 9, 1978, reclassification rule (43 FR 9607), 
we replaced the previous subspecies listings with a listing for gray 
wolves in Minnesota as threatened and gray wolves elsewhere in the 
lower 48 United States and Mexico as endangered 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 (see 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974), and we developed gray wolf 
recovery plans accordingly.
    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 endangered and threatened species. The 
Act further states that priority should be given to species that are 
most likely to benefit from such plans. To this end, we prioritized 
gray wolf recovery planning efforts to focus

[[Page 69865]]

on the NRM, the Eastern United States, and the Southwestern United 
States. We completed a recovery plan for the NRM in 1980, and revised 
it in 1987. In the East, we completed a recovery plan in 1978, and 
revised it in 1992. In the Southwest, a recovery plan was completed in 
1982, and revised in 2017. We disagree with commenters who suggested 
that we should have developed a single recovery plan for the lower 48 
United States. We are not required to revise our recovery plans and, 
even if we were, we continue to believe that it is appropriate to focus 
recovery efforts on these three regions. With the delisting of the 
currently listed gray wolf entities, we will focus our wolf recovery 
efforts on recovering gray wolves in the Southwest (the subspecies C. 
l. baileyi) and red wolves (Canis rufus) in the Southeast. Also see Our 
Response to Comment 69.
    Comment 85: Commenters offered many reasons why they thought 
delisting was premature or not warranted. Some commenters indicated 
that wolf recovery requires, should require, or could be improved by: 
(1) Establishment of large populations in more, or all, suitable or 
potentially suitable habitat within the species' historical range; (2) 
natural connectivity or linkage between populations; (3) protective 
regulatory mechanisms throughout the species' historical range, or in 
all or portions of its unoccupied historical range; and/or (4) 
protection and enhancement of existing population levels. Some claimed 
that we ignored historical range or historical population numbers when 
assessing recovery, while others expressed concern about impacts to 
other species, ecosystems, or the economy if wolves are delisted. Other 
commenters provided additional reasons why delisting now is 
appropriate, citing damages from wolves in the form of livestock and 
dog injuries and fatalities and other indirect damages in reduced farm 
productivity after interactions with wolves.
    Our Response: Under our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11), a 
species should be delisted when the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicate that it no longer meets the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species under the Act. This final 
delisting determination is based upon our evaluation of the status of 
each of the gray wolf entities assessed in this rule in light of the 
Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species.'' Thus, we consider potential threats to the species (in this 
case, the entities assessed in this rule) as outlined in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. When we evaluate the status of a species, we 
evaluate the impacts of the species' historical range loss on the 
viability of the species in its current range (see Historical Context 
of Our Analysis and Determination of Species Status). As described in 
detail in this rule, each of the gray wolf entities we assessed does 
not meet the Act's definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species.'' Therefore, delisting the currently listed gray wolf entities 
is warranted.
    Some of the commenters' suggestions are inconsistent with the 
purposes of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to prevent extinctions 
and provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. 
The Act defines conservation as the use of all methods and procedures 
which are necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to 
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no 
longer necessary (i.e., recovery). Our conservation efforts have been 
successful for the gray wolf, and the Act's protections are no longer 
required for the currently listed gray wolf entities.
    Comment 86: One commenter opined that the absence of wolves in 
areas of high human densities and areas where prey populations are not 
adequate to maintain viable wolf populations is a positive aspect of 
historical range loss that is missing from our analysis of the status 
of the combined listed entity. The commenter claimed that historical 
range reduction has provided support to the recovery of the combined 
listed entity by reducing the levels of human-wolf conflict and by 
concentrating wolf populations in areas where there is an adequate prey 
base, and that the final rule should recognize this positive factor.
    Our Response: We are not aware of any information indicating a 
positive causal relationship between gray wolf historical range loss 
(extirpation from most of the species' historical range) and gray wolf 
recovery. An active eradication program is the sole reason that wolves 
were extirpated from their historical range in the United States, and 
the regulation of human-caused wolf mortality is the primary reason 
wolf numbers have significantly increased and their range has expanded 
since the 1970s (see Human-caused Mortality). The commenter may be 
referring to factors that potentially influence human attitudes and 
tolerance of wolves, and the effects of attitudes and tolerance on the 
illegal killing and overall mortality of wolves. We have revised this 
final rule to provide additional information and clarity on this topic 
(see Human-caused Mortality, ``The Role of Public Attitudes'').
    Comment 87: Some commenters were concerned that human-caused 
mortality after delisting may halt or reverse gray wolf 
``restoration.''
    Our Response: As we stated in the Human-caused Mortality section of 
the proposed rule, and this final rule, human-caused mortality is 
likely to increase post-delisting. This may include increased use of 
lethal control to mitigate depredations on livestock and the 
implementation of public harvest to stabilize or reduce wolf population 
growth rates. Nonetheless, based on past delisting efforts in the Great 
Lakes area, and as demonstrated by current State management of wolves 
in the northern Rocky Mountains, we conclude that moderate increases in 
human-caused mortality after delisting are unlikely to cause dramatic 
declines in wolf populations across any of the gray wolf entities 
evaluated. Wolves in California, Colorado, and Washington will continue 
to remain State-listed and receive protections through State laws and 
regulations. Although wolves are delisted at the State level in Oregon, 
they continue to receive protections through the State Plan, its 
associated regulation, and Oregon's wildlife policy.
    Comment 88: A few commenters were concerned that with gray wolf 
delisting, a lack of Federal protection and funding will mean wolves 
will not be able to reestablish in Colorado or contribute to ecosystem 
benefits in Colorado. In addition, they were concerned that post-
delisting, human-caused mortality of gray wolves in Wyoming will 
preclude wolf movements from Wyoming to Colorado, in turn failing to 
reestablish populations in Colorado. The commenters indicated that 
there are currently no wolf packs in Colorado, and that dispersal of 
wolves from Canada to the northern Rocky Mountains region was not quick 
even following the end of ``routine shooting of wolves.'' They 
indicated that the presence of wolf populations in Colorado would 
provide resiliency and redundancy if wolf populations collapse in other 
States due to habitat loss from human development, disease, prey 
population declines, or human-caused mortality.
    Our Response: In January 2020, a group of six gray wolves was 
observed traveling together in the northwestern part of Colorado, 
indicating that gray wolves are in the beginning stages of recolonizing 
the State. In addition, since publication of the proposed rule, a 
dispersing individual from northwestern Wyoming was documented in 
Colorado in July 2019

[[Page 69866]]

and has remained in the State using a defined territory since that 
time. Additional populations of wolves in Colorado would add to the 
resiliency and redundancy of gray wolves in the lower 48 United States. 
However, as explained in this final rule, it is not necessary for 
wolves to occupy all, or most, of their historical range for us to 
conclude that delisting is appropriate.
    Our delisting of the gray wolf does not preclude the continued 
recolonization in Colorado or the future reestablishment of wolves in 
any other State. We appreciate the concern that wolf dispersal may be 
affected by increases in human-caused mortality, which may delay 
recolonization of vacant, suitable habitats in Colorado. Although 
recolonization of vacant, suitable habitats can occur relatively 
quickly, it does still take time, whether or not human-caused mortality 
is highly regulated. However, the innate behavior of wolves to disperse 
and locate other dispersing individuals across vast landscapes to, in 
some cases, fill social openings in existing packs or form new packs in 
part explains why wolf populations are resilient to moderate increases 
in human-caused mortality and are highly capable of continuing to 
recolonize vacant suitable habitats where they exist.
    Comment 89: Two commenters opined that wolf recovery cannot be 
achieved, and delisting is not appropriate, until wolves have returned 
to Utah. They indicated that much of Utah is historical and current 
gray wolf habitat, and pointed out that the exclusion of Utah from the 
recovery area for gray wolves is not explained. One commenter claimed 
that northern Utah was included in the NRM DPS as an intended 
``migratory corridor,'' and asked why it was included as a migratory 
corridor if it will never function as one.
    Our Response: As is stated in this final rule, gray wolves need not 
occupy all, or most, of their historical range in order for us to 
conclude that delisting is appropriate. See Our Response to Comment 79 
for additional information. The NRM DPS boundary was delineated to 
encompass an area sufficient for recovery of gray wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains. The northeast portion of Utah was most 
recently delisted as part of the NRM DPS in 2011. Similar to many other 
areas in the NRM DPS, that area will continue to provide connectivity 
to areas outside the NRM DPS, and this rule will not affect the ability 
of wolves to use both suitable and unsuitable habitats as dispersal 
routes to recolonize new areas outside the NRM DPS. See 72 FR 6112-
6113, for additional information.
    Comment 90: One commenter believed that delisting wolves at this 
time is not appropriate because there are large areas of unoccupied 
habitat, which, if occupied, could help maintain genetic diversity and 
resilience, especially as climate change alters habitats and prey 
availability. The commenter cited Hendricks et al. (2019) as using 
newer genetic techniques to explain how wolves adapt to different 
environments. In light of this research, the commenter believed it was 
premature to declare that self-sustaining populations in the Great 
Lakes or Northern Rocky Mountains are adequate for long-term survival 
of the species.
    Our Response: As is described in the March 15, 2019, proposed rule 
and this final rule, we evaluated the resiliency (in addition to other 
factors) of the Minnesota entity, 44-State entity, combined listed 
entity, and lower 48 United States entity, and determined that none of 
these entities meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or 
threatened species. As part of this evaluation, we assessed climate 
change, prey availability, and the Hendricks et al. (2019, entire) 
study. The northern Rocky Mountains wolves remain delisted and continue 
to expand beyond the NRM DPS boundary. We expect that wolves in the 
Great Lakes area will remain recovered post-delisting. Also see Our 
Response to Comment 113, which addresses concerns related to climate 
change effects on habitat and prey. Our Response to Comment 79 is also 
relevant to concerns raised by this commenter.
    Comment 91: Several commenters asked specifically for the inclusion 
of more details regarding suitable habitat in unoccupied Rocky Mountain 
States in our biological report and final rule. They cited Carroll et 
al. (2006) and other studies that found that Colorado and Utah could 
support a population of over 1,000 wolves.
    Our Response: Due to recent information confirming the presence of 
a group of six wolves in extreme northwestern Colorado, and their 
proximity to and potential use of habitats within Utah, we conducted an 
evaluation of suitable habitat in Colorado and Utah in this rule (see 
Habitat and Prey Availability).
    Comment 92: One commenter asked about the basis for our conclusions 
regarding continued wolf viability in the western Great Lakes and 
whether we had conducted population viability analyses. They requested 
that we state our assumptions and clarify definitions of terms. They 
also asked whether we considered, in our assessment of wolf viability, 
the likelihood of habitat changes in a significant portion of the range 
of the combined listed entity. While the reviewer refers to the 
combined listed entity, their comment could apply to the analysis of 
other entities now included in this final rule.
    Our Response: We did not develop a quantitative model of wolf 
population dynamics for wolves in the Great Lakes area. Once 
established, wolf populations are known to be remarkably resilient to 
human-caused mortality and are not particularly sensitive to changes in 
habitat as long as sufficient prey populations are maintained (see 
Habitat and Prey Availability section). The basis for our conclusions 
that wolves are no longer threatened or endangered in the entities 
evaluated in this rule are summarized in the Determination of Status 
Throughout All of Its Range and Determination of Status Throughout a 
Significant Portion of Its Range sections for each of the entities. In 
short, wolf populations have remained above recovery targets in the 
Great Lakes region for almost two decades, and the States have 
committed to maintaining wolf populations well above these targets for 
the foreseeable future. (See also Our Response to Comment 20.)
    Comment 93: Several commenters were concerned that the removal of 
Federal protections would inhibit the recovery progress of gray wolves, 
setting populations on a path toward extinction that would upset 
ecological systems kept in balance by wolves. Several commented that 
loss of apex predators substantially diminishes the functions and 
resiliency of ecosystems. The commenters claimed that ignoring the gray 
wolf's role in ecosystem function similarly ignores the best available 
science on this matter. Similarly, they contended that the 
understanding of wolf ecology and recovery has changed since recovery 
plans were developed.
    Additional commenters asserted that the Act protects ecosystems 
needed by endangered species and goes beyond just protecting the 
minimum number of individuals to prevent extinction. Commenters also 
indicated that the Service should consider ecosystem value when 
evaluating a significant portion of the range and the indirect effects 
of wolf population decline post-delisting on ecosystem health and 
function. Along these lines, commenters stated that wolves ``need to be 
restored to ecologically functional population sizes sufficient to 
influence ecosystems'' (citing Belant and Adams 2010, entire). 
Commenters pointed to numerous studies in the northern Rocky Mountains 
region and the Great Lakes

[[Page 69867]]

area, where wolf populations were determined to influence ungulate and 
other predator populations in such a way that the dynamics of 
biological diversity and ecosystem functions produced trophic cascades. 
Finally, another commenter stated that sufficient research is not 
available on wolf-ecosystem effects, and that such research needs to be 
conducted while wolves are still federally protected so the information 
can be used to inform delisting decisions; when wolves are delisted it 
would be difficult to obtain funding to support this research.
    Our Response: Wolves play a key role in ecosystems, including their 
potential to contribute to trophic cascades. While some believe wolves 
should remain listed until these cascading ecological effects are 
restored throughout ecosystems, this approach is not required by the 
Act and is not necessary for a determination that a species has 
recovered (no longer meets the Act's definition of an endangered 
species or threatened species). The Service is not required to 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). That said, 
the concern that delisting would result in declines or extinction is 
unfounded.
    Service policy calls for an ecosystem approach to carrying out 
programs for fish and wildlife conservation (National Policy Issuances 
95-03 and 96-10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal of this approach 
is to contribute to the effective conservation of natural biological 
diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems when 
carrying out 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 an endangered species or threatened 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, p. 1239), also is an example of the 
success of the ecosystem approach.
    Many new studies of wolf ecology and its implications for recovery 
have been published since the species was originally listed. We 
incorporated the best available scientific and commercial data into the 
proposed rule and this final rule (see Our Response to Comment 27). We 
used this information to reach our determination that gray wolves do 
not meet the Act's definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species and no longer require Federal protections. Any influence this 
final rule may have on funding additional research is beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking process.
    Comment 94: Multiple commenters favored the reintroduction of 
wolves to suitable historical ranges ``for the sake of wolves'' and to 
repair damages in ecosystems due to a lack of large predators.
    Our Response: As discussed in this final rule, we have determined 
that each of the gray wolf entities evaluated does not meet the Act's 
definition of an endangered species or threatened species and does not 
warrant protection under the Act (see Determination of Species Status). 
Therefore, additional reintroduction efforts by the Service are not 
planned, as the currently listed gray wolf entities have recovered. 
Because we have determined that gray wolves should not be federally 
listed, any future wolf reintroduction into additional areas would be 
at the discretion of State and Tribal agencies. The interaction of 
wolves and ecosystems is addressed in Our Response to Comment 93.
    Comment 95: One commenter asked that, rather than delist the gray 
wolf, we reclassify C. lupus to accurately reflect the species' 
historical range and the scope of the Service's obligations under the 
Act.
    Our Response: We interpret this comment as a recommendation to 
revise the boundaries of the currently listed gray wolf entities. For 
reasons explained in this rule (see Approach for this Rule), we 
evaluated the status of each of the currently listed entities 
separately, combined into a single entity, and the two currently listed 
entities combined with the NRM DPS (lower 48 United States entity). 
Because we determined that none of the gray wolf entities evaluated 
meets the Act's definition of an endangered species or a threatened 
species, we are removing the currently listed gray wolf entities from 
the List.
    Comment 96: A few commenters expressed concern that delisting gray 
wolves could harm Mexican wolves, either by increasing human-caused 
mortality of Mexican wolves dispersing outside the Mexican Wolf 
Experimental Population Area, or by potentially reducing the likelihood 
of ``genetic rescue'' via interbreeding with dispersing gray wolves.
    Our Response: This final rule has no effect on the separate listing 
for the Mexican wolf. The Mexican wolf will remain listed as an 
endangered species and continue to receive the protections of the Act. 
The Act prohibits activities that ``take'' endangered and threatened 
species unless a Federal permit allows such ``take'' (16 U.S.C. 1538). 
Therefore, it will remain illegal under the Act for members of the 
public to shoot a Mexican wolf, regardless of State laws pertaining to 
gray wolves or the potential for mistaking a Mexican wolf for a gray 
wolf or coyote, and members of the public are obligated to ensure that 
their activities are lawful. We will continue to assess significant 
causes of mortality as the experimental population expands numerically 
and geographically within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population 
Area. Furthermore, although no information exists that indicates 
Mexican wolves are currently dispersing into neighboring States, our 
10(j) rule specifies that such dispersers will be captured and returned 
to the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area south of I-40 in 
Arizona and New Mexico, maintained in captivity, or transferred to 
Mexico (see 50 CFR 17.84(k)). Finally, if genetic rescue is determined 
to be a necessary tool for the Mexican wolf at some time in the future, 
appropriate techniques will be used at that time.
Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends
    Comment 97: One commenter stated that we misrepresented the best 
available science pertaining to the population and metapopulation 
structure of wolves. They noted sections of the proposed rule in which 
we stated that wolves in the West Coast States and the Great Lakes are 
both part of larger metapopulations of wolves. They noted that 
dispersal between those two areas has not been documented and dispute 
their connectivity. Further, they stated that there is no evidence that 
wolves in the Great Lakes comprise western gray wolves and eastern 
wolves, due to the aforementioned lack of connectivity between wolves 
in the northern Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coast and the Great 
Lakes.
    Our Response: In this final rule we clarify our statements about 
metapopulations. Our intention in the proposed rule was to convey that 
wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and West Coast States were part 
of a metapopulation that included wolves in western Canada, and that 
wolves in the Great Lakes area were part of another metapopulation that 
included wolves in those States as well as in Ontario and Manitoba, 
Canada. The intent was not to imply that all of those wolves were 
meaningfully connected as

[[Page 69868]]

part of a single metapopulation; we agree that there are no data to 
show effective dispersal between those two larger areas. We have 
reviewed and clarified the text where necessary to help ensure the 
correct interpretation. As for the commenter's statement about western 
wolves in the Great Lakes area, it is important to note that the term 
``western gray wolves'' is used in the taxonomy section to distinguish 
between western and eastern wolves. There is general agreement that 
western wolves are Canis lupus, unlike the eastern wolves, about which 
there is significant debate, as explained in the rule. These ``western 
gray wolves,'' therefore, are widely agreed to be the same taxonomic 
species as the wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, but that does 
not imply, nor do we indicate in the rule, that there is current 
dispersal or connectivity between the ``western gray wolves'' in the 
Great Lakes area and wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains or other 
parts of the Western United States. We acknowledge that the terminology 
surrounding population structure and taxonomy can be confusing and have 
tried to clarify where possible.
Taxonomy
    Comment 98: Some commenters indicated that the eastern wolf is a 
species (C. lycaon) recognized as threatened in Canada, and that 
dispersers into the Northeastern United States should be protected.
    Our Response: We consider these wolves to be part of the gray wolf 
entities we assess. As explained in this rule, we have determined that 
none of the entities we assess meet the Act's definition of a 
threatened species or an endangered species (see Determination of 
Species Status) and, therefore, none warrant the protections of the 
Act. See Our Response to Comment 46 and How We Address Taxonomic 
Uncertainties in this Rule.
    Comment 99: We received several comments that questioned how we 
handled the uncertainty surrounding the taxonomy of the gray wolf and 
the distribution of subspecies.
    Our Response: We have clarified our view of the taxonomy and 
distribution of wolves to the extent possible given ongoing scientific 
uncertainty. The Act requires us to conduct our analysis based on the 
best available science. In the case of canid taxonomy, that science 
remains unresolved. In light of that uncertainty, we made certain 
assumptions and provided justification as appropriate. We understand 
that, absent complete scientific agreement on the subject, there will 
be disagreement about the correct interpretation of the conflicting 
data. However, we conclude that our approach satisfies the requirement 
to use the best available scientific data.
Human-Caused Mortality
    Comment 100: One commenter opined that there is a need for greater 
public involvement in wildlife conservation and management issues, 
particularly related to predator control.
    Our Response: While we appreciate the commenter's perspective, the 
level of public involvement in wildlife conservation is not a relevant 
factor in our analysis for this final rule. However, we note that at 
least three State agencies (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Wisconsin Department of 
Natural Resources) have convened citizen advisory groups to engage 
multiple stakeholders in discussing present and future wolf management 
in their respective States. Furthermore, State wildlife agencies 
generally have a citizen commission that sets policy and regulation for 
the agency through a public process that allows for input from all 
members of the public interested in a particular topic prior to the 
commission voting on policy decisions.
    Comment 101: Two commenters noted that USDA 2015 found that wolves 
have minimal impact on the livestock industry compared to other causes. 
One commenter stated that lethal control is not effective.
    Our Response: The report cited by the commenters surveys a random 
sample of producers nationwide then extrapolates information for each 
State based on survey results. Although this report demonstrates the 
minimal effect wolves have on the entire livestock industry at the 
national level, we conclude that it does not adequately address the 
local, and sometimes significant, effects that repeated depredations 
caused by wolves may have on individual livestock producers in occupied 
wolf range. Because the report lacks actual numbers based on confirmed 
and probable depredations, the information presented is best used to 
identify general cattle and calf death loss trends over time at a very 
large spatial scale. We rely more heavily on the empirical information 
compiled by State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife management agencies 
that investigate and classify depredations caused by wolves. Much of 
this information is provided in annual reports that are available for 
public dissemination. See Our Response to Comment 17 for information 
about lethal control.
    Comment 102: Several commenters addressed the influence a delisted 
wolf population might have on acceptance and tolerance of wolves by 
sportsmen and -women. Most of these commenters indicated that hunters 
and State wildlife agencies share the burden of a recovered wolf 
population due to reduced game populations resulting in a reduction of 
tags allocated for the hunt and reduced revenue. One commenter 
indicated wolves have had little impact on big game populations. 
Commenters cited a reference highlighting the need for support from 
local communities to recover Mexican wolf populations and a reference 
noting that hunter and trapper tolerance would decline if wolves were 
to be relisted in Montana.
    Our Response: We believe that local support was critical to, and 
continues to be critical to, the recovery and successful management of 
the gray wolf. Delisting may slowly improve tolerance for the species 
among certain stakeholders. However, we acknowledge that other 
stakeholder groups may experience frustration and reduced tolerance for 
wolf management as it changes from Federal to State authority. 
Accordingly, we have updated and revised the section Human-Caused 
Mortality--``The Role of Public Attitudes'' in this rule. Specifically, 
we addressed the tolerance of wolves by hunters/trappers and overall 
acceptance of hunting and trapping as a tool used to manage wolf 
populations. The references provided by the commenters have been 
incorporated into the discussion as appropriate. Although the commenter 
referenced a survey that noted tolerance of respondents for wolves 
would decrease if wolves were relisted in Montana, neither our proposed 
rule or this final rule considered relisting wolves in Montana.
    We conclude that big game populations remain of sufficient size to 
support both a viable wolf population and recreational opportunities 
for both consumptive and nonconsumptive users of wildlife. However, we 
acknowledge that, in some localized areas, wolves may be a significant 
factor in observed big game population declines, which could result in 
reduced allocation of hunting licenses and reduced revenue for both 
local communities and State wildlife agencies. While models indicate 
that predators can limit prey populations (Eberhardt 1997, entire), the 
root cause of observed ungulate declines or lack of population growth 
is often more complex, and involves many more factors, than simply the 
presence of wolves. For example, habitat conditions on summer ranges 
and environmental factors (i.e., winter severity) across the

[[Page 69869]]

Western United States can have a significant influence on the 
nutritional condition of adult female elk. This, in turn, affects 
pregnancy rates, the nutritional condition of calves, and ultimately 
calf survival and recruitment into the population (Cook et al. 2013, 
entire; Middleton et al. 2013, entire; Proffitt et al. 2016, entire; 
Horne et al. 2019b, entire). As a result, the effects of predation on 
elk may be more pronounced in populations suffering from poor nutrition 
(Proffitt et al. 2016, pp. 2167-2168).
    Even if it is determined that predators have a significant role in 
the dynamics of ungulate populations, in many cases further research 
would be necessary to determine which predator is having the most 
significant effect. Although some studies have documented the ability 
of wolves to limit the abundance of ungulates (Boertje et al. 1996, 
entire; Hebblewhite et al. 2002, entire; Hayes et al. 2003, entire), 
recent studies of elk population dynamics across Idaho (Horne et al. 
2019b, p. 1114) and in the Bitterroot Valley of Montana (Eacker et al. 
2016, pp. 1354-1357) indicate that, aside from the nutritional 
condition of adult female elk, mountain lions play a larger role in the 
dynamics of elk populations than either black bears or wolves. In the 
Great Lakes area, environmental conditions have a greater influence 
than predation on white-tailed deer populations, the wolf's primary 
prey in much of this region. The effects of environmental conditions on 
white-tailed deer populations in turn play a large role in the dynamics 
of wolf populations in the region, particularly in regards to wolf 
abundance and population growth rates (see the ``Great Lakes Area: Prey 
Availability'' section of this rule). For further information about big 
game populations in the gray wolf entities evaluated in this rule, 
refer to the Habitat and Prey Availability section of the rule.
    Comment 103: One commenter claimed that the livelihoods of people 
who live in rural areas with wolves are at stake; that wolves are 
killing their livestock, pets, and working animals; and that, if not 
provided relief, these residents will fight back against wolves and 
wolves will die. The commenter believed implementing the proposed rule 
was best for wolves and people because it returns control to the 
States.
    Our Response: As noted in the Human-Caused Mortality--``The Role of 
Public Attitudes'' section of the rule, research and empirical data 
indicate that illegal take occurs at a higher rate when gray wolves are 
federally protected by the Act as compared to periods when wolves are 
managed under State authority. Surveys also indicate that members of 
the public are more trusting of their State fish and wildlife agencies 
than their State or Federal Government (Manfredo et al. 2018, pp. 8, 
58-68).
    Comment 104: One commenter noted that attitudes towards wolves are 
largely positive. They stated that wildlife should not be managed based 
on the public's attitude regarding a species; rather, it should be 
based on sound science. The commenter also indicated that agencies 
should work to dispel misperceptions about wolves. Several commenters 
stated that humans continue to pose a major threat to wolf populations.
    Our Response: Regardless of the current level of public tolerance 
for wolves, we conclude that public support may decrease if the species 
has recovered, yet remains on the List. The goal of the Act is to 
recover listed species and then delist them when they no longer require 
the Act's protections because they do not meet the definition of a 
threatened species or endangered species. After careful consideration 
of the best commercial and scientific information, the Service has 
determined that the gray wolf listed entities are no longer in need of 
the Act's protections and warrant removal from the List. See the Human-
Caused Mortality--``The Role of Public Attitudes'' section of the rule 
for more information about human dimensions and wolves.
    The Service agrees that humans continue to pose the most 
significant threat to wolf populations in the lower 48 United States. 
We also conclude that adequate regulatory mechanisms that will be, or 
currently are, implemented by State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife 
management agencies provide sufficient protections to allow for the 
continued natural recolonization of wolves where vacant suitable 
habitat exists and will ensure wolf populations remain viable into the 
foreseeable future. For further information, see the Human-caused 
Mortality and Post-delisting Management sections of the rule. Also see 
Our Response to Comment 120.
    Comment 105: One commenter was concerned with our analysis of 
human-caused mortality in the West Coast States. The commenter stated 
that the proposed rule did not discuss: (a) Lethal management by State 
and Federal land and wildlife managers; (b) the impact of recreational 
hunting in the NRM and its effects on wolf dispersal and recolonization 
of West Coast States; (c) recreational hunting seasons on Tribal lands, 
such as the unlimited, year-round wolf hunting season on Confederated 
Tribes of the Colville Reservation lands, which also allow certain 
hunting and trapping activities outside of Tribal lands; and (d) the 
loss of wolves at the behest of livestock producers. The commenter 
asserted that the threat to wolves from human-caused mortality is 
exacerbated by the lack of nonlethal coexistence practices in key wolf 
habitats in the West Coast States.
    Our Response: With regards to lethal management (including hunting) 
in the NRM DPS and how that might impact West Coast States wolves, see 
Our Response to Comment 15. We address the impacts of lethal management 
of West Coast States, NRM DPS, and Great Lake States wolves in our 
Human-caused Mortality and Post-delisting Management sections. While 
nonlethal coexistence practices are not in place everywhere, State and 
Federal agencies and Tribal governments have made significant progress 
in deploying nonlethal deterrents to address wolf-livestock 
interactions in the West Coast States. We have contributed 
approximately $400,000 per year toward a national wolf-livestock grant 
program (inclusive of Mexican wolf) to incentivize livestock producers 
to implement nonlethal deterrents. Oregon and Washington have received 
a portion of these funds for the past several years, while livestock 
producers or the State have contributed an equal amount of their own 
funding or in-kind services toward nonlethal coexistence practices.
    The commenter is correct that some Tribes immediately outside of 
the 44-State entity (and, consequently, the combined listed entity) 
allow wolf harvest. We have updated this final rule to include this 
information (see Human-caused Mortality and Management in the NRM DPS 
sections); although, we note that the area affected by these 
regulations is entirely within the NRM DPS, where wolves are already 
federally delisted.
Habitat and Prey Availability
    Comment 106: We received multiple comments related to habitat in 
the West Coast States and the potential for continued occupancy and 
expansion of wolves into these States. Specifically, commenters noted 
that wolves are highly mobile and adaptable and are likely to find 
suitable habitats amongst the large blocks of State and Federal land in 
those States. Similarly, commenters noted that land use planning in 
some States ensures that private lands providing habitat will not be 
significantly altered. In addition, commenters noted that under State 
management, wolves are likely to continue to recolonize the West Coast

[[Page 69870]]

States, at least partially via dispersal from the northern Rocky 
Mountains.
    Our Response: We recognize the contributions of suitable wolf 
habitats in the areas described by the commenters. Wolves dispersing 
from the northern Rocky Mountains are important to the continued 
expansion of wolf populations in the West Coast States. While continued 
wolf dispersal from the northern Rocky Mountains into the West Coast 
States is not required for our findings in this final rule, we affirm 
that post-delisting management by States will continue to allow wolves 
to disperse and occupy West Coast States (see Post-delisting Management 
and Post-delisting Monitoring).
    Comment 107: One commenter stated that the Pacific Northwest 
section 4 analysis in the proposed rule is flawed for the following 
reasons: (a) The rule's analysis of suitable habitat was based 
primarily on road density and human population density, and does not 
properly consider many other vital habitat components (such as forest 
cover and the availability of federally protected or State-protected 
lands) and fails to properly assess the threats facing wolf habitat on 
a broader scale; (b) the rule's failure to consider important 
connectivity corridors and habitats necessary to foster movement into 
and allow the recolonization of habitats across the West Coast States 
by dispersing wolves from the NRM DPS; (c) the rule's failure to 
consider the vast areas of suitable habitat currently unoccupied by 
wolves in the West Coast States; and (d) the rule's failure to consider 
the adequacy or certainty of State regulations and wolf management 
plans (the commenter specifically notes the lack of State-level listing 
protections in Oregon).
    Our Response: Our biological report, as well as our proposed and 
final rules, considered vital habitat components, habitat corridors, 
and threats to habitat. As noted in our final biological report (see 
Suitable Habitat section) and this final rule (see Habitat and Prey 
Availability section), wolves are not habitat specialists and can 
persist, and travel through, nearly any habitat with sufficient prey, 
provided that sources of human-caused mortality are regulated. While 
road density and human population density are considered in some of the 
wolf habitat models we cite, other covariates include forest cover, 
livestock density or stocking rates, and land ownership (see Suitable 
Habitat section of the biological report). While there are large areas 
of unoccupied suitable gray wolf habitat in the lower 48 United States, 
we focused our analysis of habitat and prey availability on areas 
currently occupied by wolves. Because new information has emerged since 
publication of our proposed rule indicating that wolves now occupy a 
portion of northwest Colorado, we have included an analysis of wolf 
habitat and prey availability in the central Rocky Mountains in this 
final rule (see Habitat and Prey Availability section).
    We also fully considered the adequacy and certainty of State 
regulations and wolf management plans. Our analysis of post-delisting 
management considers the likelihood that wolves will persist in the 
Pacific Northwest following Federal delisting (see ``State Management 
in the West Coast States''). After delisting, wolves will continue to 
be State-listed in Washington and California until those States 
determine that wolves are recovered. Although wolves will not be State-
listed in Oregon following Federal delisting, the Oregon Department of 
Fish and Wildlife is required by State regulations to follow the Oregon 
Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. That plan includes program 
direction, objectives, and strategies to manage gray wolves in Oregon 
and defines the gray wolf's special status game mammal designation 
(Oregon Administrative Rule 635-110). Thus, there will continue to be 
substantial regulatory protections for gray wolves in the Pacific 
Northwest following Federal delisting.
    Comment 108: One commenter asked that we provide the basis for 
several statements regarding changes to prey availability or habitat in 
the western Great Lakes. Specifically, they asked for the basis of our 
conclusions regarding the effects of ungulate harvest, management of 
ungulate habitat, or ungulate diseases on wolf prey availability.
    On the topic of ungulate diseases, several commenters proposed that 
the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) can be controlled or 
otherwise inhibited by wolves. They indicated that the lack of large 
predators, including wolves, played a role in the current unnatural 
distribution and prevalence of CWD, and that wolves prey upon 
vulnerable animals, such as the weak, sick, young, or old; killing sick 
animals reduces the transmission of diseases, including CWD. Commenters 
further opined that CWD may never have become established if wolves 
were present to reduce or eliminate its spread via selective predation 
on sick animals.
    Our Response: We have updated our analysis in the Habitat and Prey 
Availability section of this rule to clarify the basis for our 
conclusions regarding the effects of ungulate harvest, management of 
ungulate habitat, and ungulate diseases on the viability of wolves. 
While predation can reduce the prevalence of infection in prey in some 
circumstances (see Hobbs 2006, p. 8; Wild et al. 2011, pp. 82-88; 
Tanner et al. 2019, pp. 5-7), in areas of high CWD disease prevalence 
this may not always be true (see Miller et al. 2008, entire). We 
decline to speculate whether or not CWD would have become established 
if wolves were present to reduce or eliminate its spread, as such 
speculation is immaterial to our decision.
    Comment 109: One commenter stated that the U.S. Forest Service 
could help the gray wolf by fully implementing the forest management 
goals in existing National Forest Management Plans. They stated that 
creation of early seral habitats, which are generally favored by large 
ungulate species, would benefit wolves. They requested that we 
recognize that not only do the National Forests provide large blocks of 
contiguous habitat that are unlikely to be converted to other uses, but 
that they also provide management opportunities to increase prey 
availability through forest management.
    Our Response: Some National Forests provide large blocks of 
contiguous habitat for the gray wolf (see Management on Federal Lands 
sections), although wolves are not limited to these areas. While it is 
true that some forest management practices can increase prey 
availability, wolves can also persist in areas without significant 
active forest management. Finally, we did not find habitat or prey 
availability to be a limiting factor in our analysis of threat factors 
in this rule (see Habitat and Prey Availability section).
    Comment 110: One commenter asked that we not specify road densities 
in delisting decisions, as they may limit management flexibility on 
National Forests. They pointed to research (e.g., Wydeven et al. 2001) 
that appears to indicate wolves can persist in some areas with 
relatively high road densities. The commenter is concerned that lower 
road densities will limit access for forest management and the creation 
of early seral habitats for ungulates.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we refer to road densities 
reported in the scientific literature because they have been found to 
be correlated with wolf mortality in some areas. We are not aware of 
any scientific basis for the concern that lower road densities would 
substantially reduce prey availability for wolves to the extent that it 
would impact population viability.
    Comment 111: One commenter questioned why we believed wolves would 
continue to expand in California

[[Page 69871]]

with the removal of Federal protections under the Act.
    Our Response: Wolves in California are classified as endangered 
under the California Endangered Species Act, which prohibits take 
(defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, kill, or attempts to hunt, 
pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of listed wildlife species (California 
Fish and Game Codes sections 86 and 2080). This will not change with 
Federal delisting. As we discuss in the Habitat and Prey Availability 
section, the available scientific literature shows significant amounts 
of suitable unoccupied wolf habitat in California. Given their 
dispersal abilities (Jimenez et al. 2017, entire), and continued State 
regulatory protections in Oregon and California (see Our Response to 
Comment 16), we expect wolves to continue to disperse into California 
from Oregon and to spread outward from the wolf pack currently located 
in California. Additionally, as the number of wolves and wolf packs 
increase in western Oregon, this increase will provide an additional 
supply of dispersers to recolonize California.
Disease and Parasites
    Comment 112: One commenter stated that the Service addressed 
disease only as a threat to wolves in the Great Lakes area and did not 
address this issue for west coast wolves. The commenter also indicated 
that diseases are known factors for wolf population crashes in small 
and isolated populations, similar to those in the West Coast States. 
Another commenter sought clarification as to which States collect 
biological samples for disease monitoring, how disease monitoring will 
occur in the future, and if States are able to sufficiently monitor 
disease as wolf expansion continues.
    Our Response: The analysis in the Disease and Parasites section of 
this final rule applies to the gray wolf throughout its range in the 
lower 48 United States and is not limited to wolves in the Great Lakes 
area. Further, wolves in the West Coast States are an extension of 
wolves from the NRM and western Canada and are actively recolonizing 
Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado. Thus, they are not 
considered ``small and isolated'' as indicated by the first commenter. 
Similarly, our discussion of disease and parasite monitoring clearly 
indicates that all States that currently have wolves monitor for 
disease. Through the various State wolf management plans that are in 
place, and will be in place post-delisting, we conclude that States are 
capable of adequately monitoring disease and parasites into the future.
Effects of Climate Change
    Comment 113: Three commenters disagreed with our assessment of 
climate change effects to wolves and wolf prey. One commenter was 
concerned about climate change-related declines in moose populations 
(citing Mech et al. 2018 and Nadeau et al. 2017), changes to ungulate 
susceptibility to chronic wasting disease (CWD), and loss of ungulate 
habitat to uncharacteristic fire in the West, which raised a question 
about the resilience of wolves in the future. The commenter felt a 
broader distribution of wolves is needed to address the potential for 
local population decreases or extirpations as a result of these 
concerns. Another commenter noted that, without snowpack, large hoofed 
animals will be able to out-run wolves and implied that ungulate prey 
may become less accessible to wolves. Similarly, this commenter was 
concerned about the loss of ice bridges in Isle Royale National Park, 
leading to isolation and population declines of wolves on the island. A 
third commenter stated that the role of climate change on wolf recovery 
is unknown and recommended that the impacts of climate change should be 
researched before delisting occurs.
    Our Response: In this final rule, we find that each of the gray 
wolf listed entities evaluated is recovered and warrants delisting. 
Through this process, we evaluated factors potentially threatening the 
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States, including climate change (see 
Effects of Climate Change). We determined that climate change is not 
causing negative effects to the viability of the gray wolf populations 
in each of the entities evaluated and that it is not likely to do so in 
the foreseeable future. These comments do not alter the substance of 
our analysis, for the reasons explained below.
    As discussed under Effects of Climate Change, wolves are highly 
adaptable, habitat and prey generalists. Similarly, prey species 
including ungulates also have reasonable adaptive capacity to shift 
habitats in response to changing conditions or potentially persist in 
place. Mech et al. (2018, pp. 45-46) and Nadeau et al. (2017, pp. 107-
109) speculate that climate change and its combined potential habitat-
related conditions, including potential for heat stress and rates of 
spread of disease and parasites, may be limiting factors for moose 
populations at the southern extents of their range in Minnesota and the 
Western United States. While climate change may be detrimental to moose 
populations in the Midwest, it may benefit white-tailed deer 
populations (Weiskopf et al. 2019, pp. 775-776), the wolf's primary 
prey in the region. Because historical evidence indicates gray wolves 
and their prey survived in hotter, drier environments, we expect wolves 
could easily adapt to the warmer and drier conditions that are 
predicted with climate change, including any northward expansion of 
diseases, parasites, or reduction in species currently at or near the 
southern extent of their range.
    With regard to decreased snow cover in winter and the concern that 
prey would have an advantage, we note that such changes in snow cover 
could also improve over-winter survival of prey. Increases in overall 
ungulate populations would thereby provide more prey for wolves. 
Although climate change may negatively affect moose in parts of its 
range, in many areas, moose are secondary or tertiary prey items for 
wolves behind elk and deer in the West and white-tailed deer in much of 
the Great Lakes area. Therefore, the effects of declining moose 
populations on overall prey availability within the entities evaluated 
is expected to be minimal.
    Because the wolves on Isle Royale do not meaningfully contribute to 
the viability of the gray wolf entities evaluated in this rule, the 
continued occurrence or loss of ice bridges does not warrant further 
analysis.
    Comment 114: We received a number of comments that stated climate 
change and its effects should be analyzed more thoroughly as a threat 
to wolves, and that climate change poses serious challenges for many 
ecosystems and species. These commenters provided citations that 
document the current global extinction crisis, relate that crisis to 
climate change, report on the ecosystem effects of losing top predators 
or other megafauna, and discuss how wolves may help to buffer climate 
impacts.
    Our Response: While we do not dispute the findings in the sources 
cited by the commenter, they are outside the scope of our analysis in 
this rule. Our analysis is limited to the specific threats affecting 
the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States. Literature addressing 
global conservation challenges can provide important context, but are 
not relevant to our analysis unless they relate to threats faced by the 
gray wolf in the lower 48 United States. Additionally, in assessing the 
impacts of climate change and other factors on wolves, we are not 
required to evaluate any effects the loss of wolves may have on other 
species, because those effects, even if significant, do not affect the

[[Page 69872]]

status of the gray wolf entities addressed in this rule.
    Comment 115: Several commenters requested a more thorough analysis 
of climate change effects on wolf habitat. They noted that patterns of 
drought and wildfire, changes in snowpack, and suitability for 
different vegetation types, including certain forest types, are likely 
to change. One commenter cited Gonzalez et al. (2018), which indicates 
climate change effects may be more pronounced in national parks, while 
another cited the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program's Fourth 
National Assessment (2018), which includes projections of habitat 
effects in regions across the country.
    Our Response: The cited papers and other research indicate there 
are likely to be habitat-level effects within the range of the gray 
wolf in the lower 48 United States due to climate change, including 
changes in precipitation, forest composition, and other factors. 
Depending on the region, there are also likely to be shifts in the 
specific composition, but not availability of, the ungulate prey base 
as climate change effects may be beneficial for some ungulate species 
and detrimental for others (Weiskopf et al. 2019). Wolves, however, are 
highly adaptable and able to exploit available resources, making it 
unlikely that such shifts will become limiting. As stated in our 
discussion of life history and biology, wolf population dynamics are 
strongly driven by the availability of prey and protection from 
persecution, not by specific habitat or vegetation types. While there 
are many habitat changes that may have local or short-term effects, 
including wildfires, or forest tree composition, the best available 
information about wolf biology indicates that these changes are not 
likely to significantly impact wolf population dynamics.
Genetics
    Comment 116: Several commenters recommended we address effective 
population size, citing Frankham et al. (2014) and the ``50/500'' or 
``100/1000'' rules as targets for minimum effective population sizes to 
ensure viability in both the short term and in perpetuity. They noted 
that effective population size has not been measured for the entire 
combined listed entity and that we provided no calculated ratio of 
census size to effective population size, and stated that management in 
Michigan and other States may allow effective population sizes to drop 
below sustainable levels.
    Our Response: In response to these comments, we added a section to 
evaluate more thoroughly the available data addressing wolf population 
genetics (Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding). This section includes 
relevant literature on available estimates of effective population size 
and why or how it relates to other genetic issues for wolves. Effective 
population size, as it relates to viability, is generally described as 
being important in the short term to avoid the effects of inbreeding, 
and in the long term to allow for evolutionary processes and adaptive 
capacity. As discussed in the Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding section, 
the available data do not indicate that inbreeding or associated 
effects are likely to pose a significant threat to the gray wolf in the 
lower 48 United States. In the long term, we expect that connectivity 
among States in the Great Lakes area and between those States and 
Canada will continue to support a large and genetically diverse 
population, as will connectivity among the NRM States and West Coast 
States and between those States and Canada. Moreover, we also recognize 
that a species' adaptive capacity is derived not only from genetic 
diversity, but also from phenotypic plasticity and dispersal ability 
(Nicotra et al. 2015, entire; Beever et al. 2016, entire). These 
factors are not included in general thresholds such as that provided by 
Frankham et al. (2014). Considering the life-history characteristics of 
the wolf, including high dispersal capability and adaptability, along 
with the factors discussed in the Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding 
section, it is unlikely that the wolf will be limited by adaptive 
capacity in the foreseeable future.
    Comment 117: Several commenters recommended that we provide a more 
explicit assessment of wolf population genetics and a discussion of 
potential issues or concerns related to genetic diversity, including 
inbreeding or reductions in genetic diversity.
    Our Response: In response to these comments, we added the section 
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding, which evaluates potential genetic 
issues in wolves, both generally and within the gray wolf in the lower 
48 United States specifically. We acknowledge the importance of 
considering genetic issues more explicitly as they relate to the 
current status of wolves and to potential changes upon delisting. As 
stated in that section, studies of genetic diversity have generally 
found it to be relatively high within the lower 48 United States (with 
the exception of the wolves on Isle Royale). Given our understanding of 
population dynamics, dispersal, and connectivity within and outside of 
the gray wolf entities analyzed, we do not expect genetic issues to 
significantly impact the viability of those entities.
Additional Threats
    Comment 118: One commenter recommended that we consider domestic 
and international trade as a potential threat, including, for example, 
export of wolf skins.
    Our Response: Regardless of demand for wolf skins, specimens 
collected for domestic or international trade likely occur through 
intentional means such as trapping or hunting. Because we already 
addressed intentional means of mortality in our analysis of human-
caused mortality, we find that this is not a separate or different 
threat that requires additional analysis.
    Comment 119: One commenter stated that agricultural development is 
a source of historical ``near extirpation'' of wolves. The commenter 
indicated that this threat still exists today, as there is more 
agricultural land present than historically.
    Our Response: In our March 15, 2019, proposed rule and this final 
rule, we acknowledge that large portions of the gray wolf's historical 
range are no longer suitable habitat to support wolves. However, we 
determined that sufficient suitable habitat exists to continue to 
support wolves into the future (see ``Habitat and Prey Availability 
Summary'' in this final rule).
Post-Delisting Management
    Comment 120: Several commenters stated that there is a mentality 
among some segments of the public to kill every wolf on the landscape, 
and without the protections of the Act, this mentality could result in 
the increased intentional killing of wolves (either through legal or 
illegal actions) that could once again threaten the continued existence 
of wolves. One commenter believed wildlife agencies were complicit in 
this mentality and assist the public by providing information to 
further reduce wolf populations. Many commenters were critical of the 
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms at the State level to maintain a 
recovered wolf population. One commenter indicated that management 
plans are not legally binding documents so there is no guarantee States 
will manage wolves above recovery levels, and others questioned the 
State management agencies' commitment or ability to do so. Several 
commenters took issue with the adequacy of State monitoring programs to 
accurately document wolf populations post-delisting. Five Tribal 
organizations and numerous commenters noted the declining trend in wolf 
numbers and the total number

[[Page 69873]]

of wolves harvested post-delisting in the NRM DPS. These commenters 
argue that the same will occur elsewhere if wolves are delisted. One 
commenter was concerned about State funding for wolf programs and its 
effect on State monitoring programs to ensure a viable wolf population 
is maintained. Numerous commenters were concerned about the potential 
for increased mortality under State management and the effect it may 
have on recolonization of unoccupied, suitable habitat.
    Several other commenters stated that wolves will continue to 
disperse after the protections of the Act have been removed, as has 
been observed in the NRM wolf population after delisting. Commenters 
noted that hunting has had little impact on wolf populations and that 
wolf populations continue to grow in number and expand geographically. 
Commenters stated that State management plans and regulatory mechanisms 
have been more than adequate to maintain wolf populations well above 
recovery criteria and that the public should be commended for the work 
they have done to complete and implement management plans.
    Our Response: While we acknowledge that some people have negative 
attitudes towards wolves and may illegally kill wolves as a result, we 
disagree with the assertion that State wildlife agencies assist members 
of the public in any way to carry out these actions. States and Tribes 
have rules and regulations governing the take of wolves and all 
wildlife, with professional staff available to monitor wildlife 
populations and enforce wildlife laws under their jurisdiction. We 
acknowledge that human-caused mortality will likely increase post-
delisting. Based on knowledge and experience in areas that are already 
delisted, we expect wolf numbers to initially decline, followed by a 
period of stabilization with slight fluctuations around an equilibrium 
in subsequent years as State and Tribal managers begin to adaptively 
manage for sustainable wolf populations. We conclude that regulatory 
mechanisms that will guide wolf management post-delisting are adequate 
to ensure the long-term, recovered status of wolves into the 
foreseeable future and will provide opportunities for the continued 
recolonization of vacant suitable habitats in the West Coast States and 
the central Rocky Mountains (refer to the Post-delisting Management 
section of this rule for detailed information about State plans). For 
further information, see Our Response to Comments 14, 16, 19, and 52 
and the Human-caused Mortality section of the rule.
    Human-caused mortality is the primary mortality factor for wolves 
outside of large, protected areas and, if left unregulated, can be a 
significant threat to wolf populations. However, we determined that 
regulatory mechanisms currently in place provide sufficient protections 
to ensure sustainable and recovered wolf populations will persist into 
the foreseeable future. We conclude that it is reasonable to rely on 
State statutes, regulations, and wolf management plans to understand 
how wolves will be managed after delisting. Wolf management plans from 
the Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin indicate 
that their primary goal is to ensure the long-term survival of wolves 
while concurrently minimizing wolf-related conflicts. State statutes 
and regulations are developed and adopted to assist each individual 
State in achieving this goal. Based on our review of available 
information, we expect that States will adaptively manage wolves to 
ensure the continued viability and recovered status of the species, 
which has already been demonstrated by wildlife managers in the Great 
Lake States during past delisting efforts (see Our Response to Comment 
130 and Post-delisting Management). In addition, we may use the Act's 
listing provisions, including emergency listing under sections 4(b)(7) 
and 4(g)(2) of the Act, if appropriate, to address any future threats 
to the viability and sustainability of the wolf population.
    The West Coast States of Oregon, Washington, and California have 
adopted wolf-management plans intended to provide for the continued 
recolonization and conservation of wolves while also working to 
minimize wolf-related conflicts. Wolves inhabiting the eastern one-
third of both Oregon and Washington were federally delisted in 2011 
(see 76 FR 25590; May 5, 2011) and have been managed under State 
authority since that time. As a result, lethal control has been used on 
occasion to resolve repeated conflicts with livestock in the delisted 
portions of each State. Despite the delisting and subsequent use of 
lethal control, wolves have continued to increase in number and 
recolonize vacant, suitable habitats within each State. Wolves in 
California and Washington are classified as endangered at the State 
level and, regardless of Federal status, are likely to remain so until 
recovery objectives outlined in their respective management plans are 
achieved and statutory and regulatory changes are made to reclassify 
wolves in each State. Washington recently initiated work to develop a 
post-recovery wolf management plan that would guide the long-term 
conservation and management of the species in the State. Wolves in 
Oregon are classified as a ``special status game mammal'' under Oregon 
Revised Statutes 496.004(9); however, regulated take is not anticipated 
to be a management option for some years (see Our Response to Comment 
107 for further information about Oregon). It is expected that wolf 
populations in these States will continue to increase as they 
recolonize vacant, suitable habitat within the region.
    As stated previously in this rule, we fully expect human-caused 
mortality to increase post-delisting in Michigan, Minnesota, and 
Wisconsin, as these States attempt to stabilize or reduce wolf 
population growth, but we do not anticipate those declines will be 
significant enough to threaten the recovered status of wolves. The NRM 
States of Idaho and Montana provide an example of how wolf populations 
might respond to increased human-caused mortality post-delisting. In 
Idaho, the wolf population peaked in 2009 at 870 animals and under 
State management, including public harvest in all but one year since 
2009, the population declined slightly and stabilized between 659 and 
786 wolves during 2010-2015 (see table 3). Likewise, Montana wolves 
have been managed under State authority in all but one year since 2009. 
Population estimates acquired by patch occupancy modeling (Rich et al. 
2013, entire) indicate wolf numbers reached a high of 1,088 wolves in 
2013, but have since (from 2016-2018) stabilized between 800 and 850 
animals (Inman et al. 2019, p. 7). Wolf populations in the Great Lakes 
States will likely follow a similar trend of an initial decline 
followed by long-term stabilization that will fluctuate slightly around 
an equilibrium as managers gain more experience in adaptively managing 
wolves. This equilibrium is expected to be well above minimum recovery 
criteria. The Service will evaluate potential threats and wolf 
population responses to delisting and subsequent increases in human-
caused mortality for 5 years post-delisting. It would not be in the 
best interest of the Great Lake States to severely reduce wolf 
populations or manage wolves down to minimum management levels, because 
doing so would severely limit State flexibility to address wolf 
conflict issues, limit wolf harvest opportunities, and increase the 
risk of relisting.
    Another factor we considered regarding likely long-term wolf 
population levels is the practical

[[Page 69874]]

challenge of reducing wolf populations down to levels that may threaten 
their viability and maintaining such reductions long term through 
legal, public harvest alone (e.g., hunting and trapping). These 
challenges include: Wolves' reproductive capacity, which will require 
increased levels of mortality to maintain populations well below 
carrying capacity; wolf dispersal capability, which allows for rapid 
recolonization of vacant, suitable habitats and the ability to locate 
social openings in existing packs; the likelihood that wolves will 
become more challenging to harvest as their numbers are reduced and as 
they become more wary of humans; and the likelihood that hunter and 
trapper interest and dedication will diminish as the wolf population is 
reduced, impacts are less pronounced, and success rates decline. It was 
primarily due to the unregulated use of poisons that wolf populations 
were extirpated in the lower 48 United States outside of Minnesota. At 
present, poisons are either not used at all, or their use is highly 
regulated and has not posed a significant threat to wolf populations in 
the United States in recent decades.
    For information related to State monitoring programs and the 
methodology used to accurately document wolf populations post-delisting 
see Our Response to Comment 14.
    Wolf conservation and management programs can be costly, which, as 
discussed earlier, is a primary reason many States are at the forefront 
in developing alternative wolf monitoring methods and continue to 
gather information and explore techniques to minimize risk associated 
with wolf conflicts. Because cost effective wolf monitoring and 
management requires adequate funding, each State wolf management plan 
discusses current and future funding sources and needs. At present, 
States within occupied wolf range generally use a combination of State 
and Federal funds and/or grants to support wolf programs.
    Although increased human-caused mortality may result in an overall 
decrease in the number of dispersers on an annual basis, as well as a 
reduction in dispersal distance as dispersers locate vacant territories 
or fill social openings nearer to their natal pack, dispersal is innate 
to the biology of the wolf and both short- and long-distance dispersal 
events will continue to occur. These movements will make it possible 
for wolves to recolonize areas of vacant, suitable habitat outside of 
currently occupied range, especially in the central Rocky Mountains and 
the West Coast States where resident packs in California, Oregon, and 
Washington contribute annually to the number of dispersing wolves on 
the landscape available to fill social openings in existing packs or to 
recolonize suitable habitat both within and outside of each State. By 
contrast, wolves have already recolonized most of the available 
suitable habitat in the Great Lake States, and any wolves that attempt 
to recolonize areas outside of the currently occupied range are not 
likely to persist long term due to the increased probability of 
conflict in more agriculturally oriented and human-dominated landscapes 
(see Mech et al. 2019, entire). For further information on this topic, 
see the Human-caused Mortality section of the rule and Our Response to 
Comment 15.
    Comment 121: Two commenters expressed concerns about Federal 
compensation programs and the Federal Government's role in compensation 
programs post-delisting. One spoke specifically about the Livestock 
Indemnity Program and how funds from this program may be unavailable to 
livestock producers who experience losses to wolves in States that do 
not currently have compensation programs already in place. This 
commenter believes that, without compensation programs, social 
tolerance for wolves will decrease, and wolves will be at greater risk 
of increased human-caused mortality. The other commenter stated that 
the Federal Government did not fulfill its responsibility to provide 
compensation for wolf-caused livestock losses and instead relied on 
States to develop compensation programs and distribute compensation 
funds. This commenter would like to see a Federal program that provides 
funds to States to assist with compensation to livestock producers who 
experience losses to wolves.
    Our Response: We agree that compensation programs alleviate some of 
the financial burdens experienced by livestock producers resulting from 
wolf depredations on livestock or pets and may indirectly increase 
tolerance among members of this stakeholder group for having wolves on 
the landscape. However, the Act does not allow us to make listing 
determinations based on whether State, Federal, or private compensation 
programs are adequate or will continue to be available to producers 
post-delisting. At present, all States within occupied wolf range, 
except California and Colorado, currently have some form of State 
compensation to reimburse producers for livestock lost to wolves. 
Although the usefulness of the Livestock Indemnity Program may decline 
post-delisting, States and Tribes will continue to have the opportunity 
to apply for Federal grants (Wolf-Livestock Demonstration Funds) that 
can be used to help offset some of the costs associated with the 
implementation of nonlethal mitigation techniques and State 
compensation programs.
    Comment 122: Several commenters expressed concern that State 
management would not be adequate to recover and maintain viability of 
wolves post delisting. Specifically, they contend that:
     California's plan is relatively new;
     Oregon's plan has become less protective;
     wolves are not State-listed in Oregon;
     Washington's plan is under legislative pressure and the 
State has allowed lethal control;
     the Great Lakes States previously allowed and will again 
allow recreational hunting and trapping;
     penalties for illegally killing wolves are inadequate;
     some States will manage wolves only to the point that they 
would not again require Federal listing;
     many States lack wolf management plans or protections or 
will manage to prevent establishment of wolves; and
     dispersal would be limited by hunting.
    Our Response: We conclude otherwise, as reflected in the Post-
delisting Management and Management in the NRM DPS sections of this 
rule. These State management plans contain objectives to conserve and/
or recover gray wolves. To ensure healthy populations are maintained, 
States will monitor population abundance and trends, habitat and prey 
availability, and impacts of disease, and they will take actions as 
needed to maintain populations. Overall, State management plans 
demonstrate State commitment to wolf conservation, thus providing a 
high level of assurance that healthy wolf populations will persist. We 
do not have authority to require specific State management measures. 
Rather, our role is to ensure that States implement management and 
protective measures that effectively conserve the wolves in their 
States, such that the species will not require Federal relisting.
    Comment 123: One commenter questioned the basis and rationale for 
the conclusion in the proposed rule that wolf populations in Wisconsin 
and Michigan have exceeded 200 animals for about 20 years.
    Our Response: The statement the commenter references is included in 
our discussion of Recovery Progress toward

[[Page 69875]]

meeting the recovery criteria from the revised recovery plan (USFWS 
1992, pp. 24-26). The second recovery criterion in the recovery plan 
states that at least one viable wolf population should be reestablished 
within the historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of 
Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26). Per the 
recovery plan, if that population is isolated, it should consist of at 
least 200 wolves for at least 5 years to be considered viable. The 
populations in Wisconsin and Michigan (although not isolated) have been 
above 200 for about 20 years (since 1998-1999 in Wisconsin, and since 
1999-2000 in Michigan); therefore, they have met the recovery criteria 
for an isolated population.
    Comment 124: One commenter felt that wolves should remain federally 
protected on all Federal lands in the western Great Lakes. Other 
commenters indicated we failed to analyze forest management plans in 
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin and how those plans affect wolves 
through livestock grazing, maintenance of prey populations, and 
regulation of hunting and trapping activities. One of these commenters 
further opined that we should have analyzed plans of every other 
Federal agency in the Midwest, and must evaluate every rule and 
regulation that may affect wolves and their habitat.
    Our Response: Different Federal land management agencies have 
varied missions that guide the use of their lands, and some Federal 
lands play an essential role in wolf recovery. However, maintaining 
Federal protections for wolves on Federal lands is not necessary for 
the continued viability of wolves in the Great Lakes region. 
Unregulated take, inclusive of targeted poisoning across all land 
ownerships, was the primary factor leading to the near extirpation of 
wolves across the lower 48 United States. In addition to protections 
afforded by the Act, changes in State and Federal rules and regulations 
that provided regulatory mechanisms that prevented or limited take and 
prosecuted illegal take of wolves have allowed for the conservation and 
recovery of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States to a level that 
warrants removal of both gray wolf listed entities from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. For further information, 
see Management on Federal Lands section of this rule.
    Comment 125: Several commenters noted that killing predators for 
sport or trophy hunts is morally and ethically wrong, and will threaten 
the viability of wolf populations post-delisting. One commenter 
objected to the use of hounds to legally harvest a wolf in Wisconsin 
when wolves were delisted.
    Our Response: We recognize that many find some or all forms of 
human-caused wolf mortality ethically and morally objectionable. We 
have encouraged hunting as a long-term strategy to conserve wolf 
populations because it is a valuable, efficient, and cost-effective 
tool to help manage many wildlife populations (Bangs et al. 2009, p. 
113). However, the methods that may be used to legally harvest wolves 
after delisting are not relevant to our analysis. The Act requires that 
we make listing determinations based on whether the species meets the 
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species because of 
the five statutory factors. The manner in which individuals may be 
harvested post-delisting is not a factor we consider, unless it would 
affect the viability of the species. How wolves may be legally 
harvested post-delisting will be subject to State authority and 
regulation. Based on the available information, we do not find any 
persuasive information to indicate that the manner in which wolves may 
be harvested will affect their viability in the lower 48 United States.
    Comment 126: One commenter indicated that, without protection 
provided by the Act, wolves will have a more difficult time 
establishing a population in California. The commenter stated that the 
Service failed to consider threats to gray wolves from ``other manmade 
factors,'' specifically illegal killing and poaching.
    Our Response: Our March 15, 2019, proposed rule and this final rule 
address human-caused mortality, as do multiple responses to comments 
from peer reviewers and State agencies (see Human-Caused Mortality 
section of this final rule and Our Responses to Comments 15, 18, and 
52. Our analysis of threats sufficiently considers ``other manmade 
factors,'' including illegal killing and poaching.
    Comment 127: One commenter stated that, while the Wisconsin 
population management goal of 350 wolves is above the goal required for 
Federal delisting, that goal was generally considered ``unscientific 
and outdated'' by Wisconsin wildlife professionals. The commenter 
stated that a goal of 650 was considered ``more reasonable'' and 
``realistic,'' and relatively ``better'' than the alternatives 
presented. The commenter further opined that the previous wolf 
management goal of 350 should be reevaluated, as it is no longer 
compatible with the scientific understanding of wolf biological 
carrying capacity or human attitudes and tolerance of wolves in the 
State.
    Our Response: After delisting, the States will be responsible for 
setting specific wolf management goals. Thus, Wisconsin may decide to 
manage for a higher number of wolves following delisting. For the 
purposes of this delisting determination, we evaluate whether wolves 
are endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of their range. In that 
context, we considered all aspects of the Wisconsin Wolf Management 
Plan, including that they would manage for a minimum of 350 wolves in 
the State, and whether that, in combination with management in the rest 
of the entity evaluated, would maintain wolves such that they are not 
endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
    Comment 128: Several commenters expressed concern that the States 
would implement a public harvest or recreational hunting after wolves 
are federally delisted. Others commented that they support a public 
harvest or recreational hunting.
    Our Response: Unregulated killing (specifically, killing through 
the use of poisons and government bounties) was the primary threat to 
the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States historically. Current rules 
and regulations as well as State management plans that will be 
implemented after delisting provide protection from unregulated 
killing. For the purposes of this rule, we are not required to decide 
whether a regulated harvest is an appropriate management tool. Instead, 
we evaluate whether the use of that management tool may reduce the 
number of wolves in the gray wolf entities to the extent that they 
would meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered 
species under the Act. As has been observed in the NRM States of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, we conclude that regulated wolf harvest can be 
carried out in a manner that would not threaten their recovered status.
    Comment 129: Several commenters expressed distrust for State wolf 
protection, based on past State programs aimed at wolf eradication. 
Another commenter noted that delisting is based in part on the adequacy 
of State management plans, without taking into consideration the fact 
that aspects of these plans have been and will continue to be altered 
by State legislation. The commenter expressed concern that politically 
based management is a serious threat to wolves and cannot be 
underestimated.

[[Page 69876]]

    Our Response: We acknowledge the past involvement of State and 
Federal Government agencies in intensive, and largely successful, 
programs to eradicate wolves. Based on existing State laws and State 
management plans, as well as the track record of States where wolves 
have been federally delisted, we conclude that it is appropriate to 
rely on the States to provide sufficient protection to wolves. We will 
monitor any changes in regulatory mechanisms affecting the protection 
or management of wolves, their prey, and their habitat for at least 5 
years following delisting and evaluate whether, as a result of those 
changes, the delisted gray wolf entities meet the definition of a 
threatened species or an endangered species.
    Comment 130: One commenter questioned whether Minnesota, Wisconsin, 
and Michigan adaptively managed wolves in the past to maintain wolf 
populations at or above minimum management levels or if it was just 
written into each State's management plans, and asked whether we 
analyzed this information.
    Our Response: In responding to the comment, we assume that the 
commenter refers to the period between 2012 and 2014 when wolves were 
federally delisted in the western Great Lakes and States implemented 
regulated public harvests. During that time, the States of Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan adaptively managed their respective wolf 
populations and maintained wolf populations well above minimum 
management levels defined in their respective management plans. This 
information is discussed in the Post-delisting Management section of 
the rule for each State. Nonetheless, we further clarify below how the 
western Great Lake States used an adaptive approach to manage wolf 
harvest between 2012 and 2014.
    Adaptive management may be used to evaluate the effects of a 
management action to determine if it is being implemented effectively 
to achieve a desired outcome. In wildlife science, it is an effective 
method to manage populations when the effect of the management action 
is unknown or is not well understood, or if managers simply want to 
take a cautious approach. This allows managers to evaluate population 
responses over a set time period and then make minor adjustments, if 
necessary, prior to implementing the management action over another set 
time period in order to continue working toward the desired management 
outcome. In the case of wolf harvest in the western Great Lakes, States 
developed harvest quotas to achieve a management outcome using the best 
information possible. Managers then evaluated the results of harvest in 
conjunction with other population metrics obtained through population 
monitoring efforts, as well as other factors, and made minor 
adjustments to the following season's harvest regulation. These 
adjustments were evaluated and made on an annual basis and are likely 
to be evaluated annually post-delisting.
    For example, Minnesota's wolf population objective is to maintain a 
late-winter wolf population of at least 1,600 wolves. Using the best 
information available, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources set a 
quota of 400 wolves for the first season in 2012, and a total of 413 
wolves were harvested. After evaluating the harvest and other factors, 
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources decreased the quota to 
220 wolves in 2013, and a total of 238 wolves were harvested. Once 
again, after evaluation, the 2014 quota was raised slightly to 250 
wolves, and a total of 272 wolves were harvested. Population estimates 
indicated wolf numbers fluctuated between 2,200 and 2,400 animals 
during this time. Thus, harvest had minimal impact on the population, 
and it remained well above Minnesota's management objective.
    Similarly, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources designed 
harvest zones and quotas for the first season in 2012, to begin 
reducing the population toward the management goal of 350 wolves off 
reservation lands, while concurrently directing harvest to areas with 
the greatest number of wolf-related conflicts. Although seasons were 
designed using a total quota system, separate quotas were developed for 
lands on and off reservations in the State. In 2012, a quota of 201 
wolves (116 off reservation; 85 on reservation) was set, and a total of 
117 wolves were harvested, all of which were taken off reservation 
lands. Harvest quotas were adjusted for the start of the 2013 season 
with a quota of 275 wolves (251 off reservation; 24 on reservation), 
and a total of 257 wolves were harvested, all of which were taken, 
again, off reservation lands. After evaluating harvest and population 
metrics, the 2014 quota was reduced to 156 wolves (150 off reservation; 
6 on reservation), and 154 wolves were harvested (all off reservation 
lands). Meanwhile, between 2012 and 2015, Wisconsin's wolf population 
was estimated to be 815 and 746, respectively. Although this 
represented an 8 percent decline, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources partially achieved their objective of reducing wolf abundance 
while maintaining wolf populations well above State management goals.
    The Michigan Department of Natural Resources implemented public 
harvest of wolves during the 2013 season only, and a total of 22 wolves 
were harvested during the season. Although the effect of harvest may 
have been evaluated by Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
biologists, no changes were implemented since no seasons occurred in 
subsequent years.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
    Comment 131: A few commenters urged the Service to update the 2008 
post-delisting monitoring plan.
    Our Response: The post-delisting monitoring plan that was developed 
in 2008 for wolves in the Great Lakes area is adequate under section 
4(g)(1) of the Act and remains applicable today (for more information, 
see Post-delisting Monitoring). The post-delisting monitoring plan for 
wolves in the Great Lakes area relies on a continuation of State 
monitoring activities, similar to those that have been conducted by 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources in 
recent years, and Tribal monitoring. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 
Departments of Natural Resources have monitored wolves for several 
decades with significant assistance from numerous partners, including 
the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Wildlife Services, 
Tribal natural resource agencies, and the Service. To maximize 
comparability of future post-delisting monitoring data with data 
obtained before delisting, all three State Departments of Natural 
Resources have committed to continue their previous wolf-population-
monitoring methodology, or to make changes only if they will not reduce 
the comparability of pre- and post-delisting data.
General
    Comment 132: A few commenters noted that the Federal Government has 
a public trust responsibility to maintain wolves for future generations 
and the ecosystem functions they support, and, generally, to preserve 
our Nation's heritage.
    Our Response: Our responsibilities with respect to wolves and other 
listed species are not defined by general principles of public trust, 
but by the requirements of the Act. As a result of the efforts of many 
partners in the private and public sector to conserve, protect, and 
enhance gray wolf populations, the gray wolf entities evaluated in this 
rule do not qualify for protection under the Act.

[[Page 69877]]

    Comment 133: One commenter submitted a petition for 
reclassification of gray wolves in the lower 48 United States. In this 
petition, they request that we determine the listing status of gray 
wolves (1) in the lower 48 United States, or (2) in two entities: the 
Eastern United States and the Western United States, or (3) in four 
entities: the U.S. West Coast region, the southern Rocky Mountains, the 
Northeastern United States, and the Midwestern United States. It is the 
same petition the commenter submitted directly to us on December 17, 
2018, and supplemented on February 26, 2019, prior to the publication 
of our proposal (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019) for this final rule.
    Our Response: We have addressed the petition, as a separate action, 
elsewhere in this document (see Evaluation of a Petition to Revise the 
Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the Act). We reviewed all information 
submitted with the petition and incorporated information, as 
appropriate, into this final rule.
Policy
    Comment 134: One commenter asserted that wolves are an ``endangered 
species'' or ``threatened species'' because they inhabit only about 15 
percent of their historical range, which is not a significant portion 
of their historical range.
    Our Response: The assertion that the gray wolf has not recolonized 
enough of its range in the lower 48 United States to reach the standard 
of a significant portion is inconsistent with Service policy because it 
equates the term ``range'' in the Act's definitions of ``threatened 
species'' and ``endangered species'' with historical range. (See Our 
Response to Comment 37).
    Comment 135: One commenter suggested that data collected by the 
States may be biased against wolves and should therefore be excluded 
from our analysis. They also stated that our status assessment process 
for gray wolves is biased in favor of agencies, organizations, and 
individuals that support the killing of wolves and requested 
clarification on how agencies, organizations, and individuals are 
chosen to participate in the process.
    Our Response: We are required by the Act to make our determinations 
based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Therefore, we include in our analysis any relevant data collected by 
the States, Tribes, or members of the public that falls into this 
category.
    To assist us in gathering all available information, we ask all 
members of the public, including States, Tribes, organizations, and 
individuals, to submit relevant information to us for our 
consideration. The Act requires us to cooperate with the States to 
``the maximum extent practicable'' (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)). However, 
although we acknowledge the unique positions of States and our 
obligation to consult with them, we do not assign different weight to 
the scientific information that they provide. Rather, we evaluate all 
information we receive, from all sources, to determine whether it is 
relevant to our assessment and constitutes the best available 
scientific and commercial data. For additional information on data 
collected by States, see Our Response to Comment 120.
    Comment 136: A few commenters stated that combining the two 
currently listed gray wolf entities, i.e., (1) Minnesota and (2) the 
lower 48 United States and Mexico outside of Minnesota, excluding the 
NRM DPS, for evaluation was inappropriate. They argued that combining 
the entities is arbitrary and not based on science. Some also 
maintained that we are obligated, through regulations, to assess each 
of the two entities separately.
    Our Response: We clarify in this final rule our reasons for 
combining the two currently listed C. lupus entities for analysis, and 
our regulations regarding listed entities that are not ``species'' as 
defined by the Act (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not 
Meet the Statutory Definition of a ``Species'' and Why and How We 
Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities). Further, while not 
required by our regulations, in response to these and other comments we 
have added separate analyses of the status of each of the two currently 
listed entities to this rule (See Approach for this Rule).
    Comment 137: Some commenters questioned our conclusion that West 
Coast States wolves are not discrete from NRM wolves. They felt that 
our application of ``discreteness'' is not consistent with our DPS 
policy (61 FR 4722, 4725, February 7, 1996), historical information on 
wolves in the Pacific Northwest, or wolf biology.
    Our Response: Our DPS policy states that a population segment of a 
vertebrate species may be considered discrete if it ``is markedly 
separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of 
physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. 
Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may 
provide evidence of this separation.'' We conducted a detailed analysis 
of the discreteness of ``Pacific Northwest'' wolves (wolves in the West 
Coast States portion of the combined listed entity and 44-State entity) 
in our 2013 status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest (78 
FR 35709-35713, June 13, 2013). This included analysis of discreteness 
based on physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors 
and included analysis of historical information on wolves in the 
region. We concluded that wolves in the West Coast States are not 
discrete from wolves in the NRM DPS. Recent scientific information only 
confirms our 2013 conclusion. Wolf numbers on both sides of the NRM DPS 
boundary in Washington, Oregon, and California continue to increase, 
and wolf range in the West Coast States continues to expand (USFWS 
2020, p. 28, Appendix 2). Also, data from collared wolves, as well as 
genetic analyses, show wolves are dispersing between West Coast States 
where gray wolves are federally protected (California, western Oregon, 
and western Washington) and the NRM where wolves are delisted (Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central 
Utah) (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17-18, 28). Moreover, recent genetic research 
shows that most wolves in Washington and Oregon are dispersers from the 
NRM or descendants of those dispersers (Hendricks et al. 2018, entire). 
Thus, the best available information indicates that wolves in the West 
Coast States portion of the combined listed entity (and 44-State 
entity) are not discrete from NRM wolves.
    Comment 138: Referring to statements in the Approach for This 
Proposed Rule section of our March 15, 2019, proposed rule, one 
commenter stated that ``Pacific Northwest'' wolves (wolves in western 
Washington, western Oregon, and northern California) harbor genetic 
ancestry from Pacific coastal rainforest wolves not present in the 
northern Rocky Mountains and are not, therefore, simply an extension of 
the NRM population.
    Our Response: Wolves with Pacific coastal wolf genetic ancestry 
have been reported from both the NRM DPS and the West Coast States. See 
Our Response to Comment 43.
    Comment 139: One commenter indicated that the proposed rule 
requires further environmental assessment under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    Our Response: As noted in the March 15, 2019, proposed rule, NEPA 
does not apply to our actions taken pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act 
(i.e., listings, delistings, and reclassifications). Thus, we are not 
required to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact 
statement, or otherwise meet the requirements of

[[Page 69878]]

NEPA, before issuing this final rule. A notice outlining the Service's 
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    Comment 140: One commenter indicated that a lack of reliable data 
precludes us from making a finding on the status of the gray wolves.
    Our Response: The Act instructs us to make our determinations based 
on the best scientific and commercial data available. We cannot await 
the development of additional scientific information; rather, we must 
act on the basis of the data currently available to us. Moreover, we 
disagree with the commenter that we lack sufficient reliable data to 
support our determination. Wolves are among the most studied mammals in 
the world. A great deal of reliable information exists on their ecology 
and population dynamics.
    Comment 141: Several commenters questioned our SPR analysis. Some 
thought our SPR analysis was inadequate or inconsistent with case law 
because they believed we relied on the viability of the Great Lakes 
metapopulation to render all other portions insignificant, or because 
we did not assess areas of unoccupied historical range to determine if 
they are significant portions of the range of the combined listed 
entity. Some disagreed with our conclusions, providing arguments for 
why they believed specific portions were significant and in danger of 
extinction. Commenters focused mainly on the West Coast States portion 
and specific areas of unoccupied historical range.
    Our Response: To determine whether any portions of the entity's 
range may be significant, and thus warrant further consideration in our 
SPR analysis, we evaluated whether any portions could be considered 
significant under any reasonable definition of ``significant.'' We 
asked whether any portions of the range may be biologically meaningful 
in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the entity 
being evaluated. This approach is consistent with the Act, our 
implementing regulations, our policies, and case law.
    As explained in this rule, we consider the term ``range'' in the 
SPR phrase to be the area occupied by the species at the time we make 
our determination (see Our Response to Comment 37). Thus, we did not 
evaluate portions of unoccupied historical range in our SPR analysis. 
We also did not rely on the viability of the Great Lakes portion to 
determine whether portions might be significant. Rather, we determined 
whether any portions may be significant by looking at whether they may 
be biologically meaningful in terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the entity being evaluated (see Determination of 
Species Status).
    Comment 142: One commenter stated that the Washington Wolf Plan 
lacks regulatory assurances or binding commitments that we could 
reasonably rely upon to know how the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife intends to manage wolves into the future. They also noted that 
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is embarking on a State-
level Environmental Policy Act process to consider potential changes to 
the Washington Wolf Plan and its guidance for wolf management in 
Washington. The commenter contended that this process could lead to 
fundamental changes to how Washington manages wolves, especially in a 
post-Federal listing environment, giving the Service no regulatory 
assurances as to whether gray wolves will be responsibly managed in 
Washington after a Federal delisting decision. The commenter believed 
this to be a clear violation of the Act.
    Our Response: The commenter presents no information that would 
indicate that Washington is likely to abandon wolf recovery. To the 
contrary, Washington has been proactive in managing the recolonization 
of wolves. The State developed a science-based conservation and 
management plan that has been implemented since 2011. The plan was 
developed with the assistance of a 17-member citizen advisory wolf 
working group over nearly 5 years (2007-2011). The process included 
extensive public review (23 public meetings and nearly 65,000 comments 
submitted) and a blind scientific peer review. The Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Commission unanimously adopted the plan in December 2011. The 
purpose of the more recent planning effort, referenced by the 
commenter, is to proactively identify how Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife will manage wolves to ensure their continued conservation 
once they are removed from the State's endangered species list. The 
Department is being proactive in seeking public input in designing 
their post-delisting management strategy. Following Federal delisting, 
wolves will retain regulatory protections under Washington State law 
(Revised Code of Washington 77.15.120; Washington Administrative Code 
220-610-010) until they meet their State recovery criteria and are 
delisted by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. As 
explained elsewhere in this rule, we find those regulatory protections 
to be sufficient to conserve wolves after delisting.

Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the Listings for the Gray Wolf Under 
the Act

Background

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species 
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17. 
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., ``list'' a 
species), remove a species from the List (i.e., ``delist'' a species), 
or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or 
from threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, 
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the 
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial 
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to 
``credible scientific or commercial information in support of the 
petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial 
scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the 
petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
    A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a 
threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described 
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors 
are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes (Factor B);
    (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); 
and
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence (Factor E).
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence.

[[Page 69879]]

In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may 
have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other 
actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may 
have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect 
individuals of a species negatively. The term ``threat'' includes 
actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere 
identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information 
presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest 
that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the 
species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species under the Act.
    If we find that a petition presents such information, our 
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by 
considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and 
the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual 
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the 
cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also 
consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions 
and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the 
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation 
efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this 
cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate 
them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable 
future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition 
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act. If we 
find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the 
Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in 
accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings 
(81 FR 49248, July 27, 2016).

Species and Range

    The gray wolf (Canis lupus) is currently listed as: (1) Threatened 
in Minnesota; and (2) endangered in all or portions of 44 of the 
contiguous United States. The petition includes three alternatives, 
each representing a separate petitioned action, for revising the 
currently listed gray wolf entities. Each of the alternatives involve 
splitting and/or combining the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States 
into DPSs, and all exclude the Mexican wolf subspecies. Two of the 
alternatives involve relisting gray wolves in the Northern Rocky 
Mountains. Because each alternative represents a separate petitioned 
action, we evaluated them separately.
    1. lower-48 DPS--list as threatened; or
    2. Western and Eastern DPSs--both list both as threatened; or
    3. Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) DPS--remain delisted,
    Midwest DPS--list as threatened,
    West Coast DPS--list as endangered,
    Southern Rockies DPS--list as endangered, and
    Northeast DPSs--list as endangered.

Petition History

    On December 17, 2018, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity and the Humane Society of the United States, 
requesting that the existing listing for gray wolf be revised. The 
petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioners, required at 50 CFR 
424.14(c). Additional supporting materials required under 50 CFR 
424.14(b) were received on February 26, 2019. This finding addresses 
the petition.

Findings

Alternatives 1 and 2
    We reviewed the petition, sources cited in the petition, and other 
readily available information. We considered the factors under section 
4(a)(1) and assessed the cumulative effect that the threats identified 
within the factors may have on the species now and in the foreseeable 
future. We considered a ``threat'' as any action or condition that may 
be known to, or is reasonably likely to, negatively affect individuals 
of a species. This includes those actions or conditions that may have a 
direct impact on individuals, as well as those that may affect 
individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources. 
The mere identification of threats is not sufficient to constitute 
substantial information indicating that revising the current gray wolf 
listed entities may be warranted. Based on our review of the petition, 
sources cited in the petition, and other readily available information, 
regarding development and unoccupied suitable habitat (Factor A), 
human-caused mortality and mortality rates (Factor B), disease (Factor 
C), and reduced genetic diversity (Factor E), we find that the petition 
does not provide substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that revising the listings for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) 
to: (1) A threatened lower-48 DPS; or (2) threatened Western and 
Eastern DPSs may be warranted.
Alternative 3
    Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, 
and other readily available information, we find that the petition does 
not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the West Coast, Southern Rockies, or Northeast gray wolf 
petitioned entities may qualify as DPSs and, therefore, that they may 
be listable entities under the Act. Although we find the petition 
provides substantial information indicating that the Midwest population 
may qualify as a valid DPS, we do not undertake further evaluation of 
Alternative 3 because the petitioners failed to present substantial 
information for us to conclude that this entire set of petitioned 
entities, comprising five DPSs (including the currently delisted NRM 
DPS), is a valid option for revising the current gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) listed entities. Petitioners presented substantial information 
only with respect to a Midwest DPS of gray wolf, and did not present 
any information that would allow us to evaluate whether the remainder 
of the currently listed 44-State entity may be a listable entity and, 
if so, whether it may warrant listing as threatened or endangered. 
Finally, we would reach this same conclusion even if the petitioner had 
provided substantial information that the Southern Rockies petitioned 
entity may qualify as a valid listable entity under the Act.
    The basis for our findings on this petition, and other information 
regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at 
http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 under 
the Supporting Documents section.

Determination of Species Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
a ``threatened species''. The

[[Page 69880]]

Act defines endangered species as a species ``in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and a 
threatened species as a species ``likely to become an endangered 
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range.'' For a more detailed discussion on the factors 
considered when determining whether a species meets the definition of 
an endangered species or a threatened species and our analysis on how 
we determine the foreseeable future in making these decisions, see 
Regulatory Framework.
    If we determine that any of the entities evaluated in this rule are 
not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we then consider 
whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range \6\-- that is, 
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which it is true 
that both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in 
danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more 
efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question or the 
``status'' question first. We can choose to address either question 
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a 
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we 
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the 
species' range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Portion of its range'' refers to the members of the 
species that occur in a particular geographic area of the species' 
current range (not the habitat in which those members occur). This 
is because, while ``portion of the range'' is part of the species' 
range (i.e., a geographical area), when we evaluate a significant 
portion of its range, we consider the contribution of the 
individuals in that portion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Listed Entities

Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
    When wolves in Minnesota were first listed under the Act in 1974, 
there were approximately 750 wolves occupying the northeast corner of 
the State. The primary cause of the decline of wolves was targeted 
elimination by humans. However, gray wolves are highly adaptable; their 
populations are remarkably resilient as long as prey availability, 
habitat, and regulation of human-caused mortality are adequate. Wolf 
populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as pervasive 
human-caused mortality or disease, once those disruptions are removed 
or reduced.
    With the protections of the Act, gray wolves began to increase in 
numbers and expand their range in Minnesota; because of this progress 
toward recovery, they were reclassified as a threatened species in 
1978. Since that time, the number of wolves and the overall extent of 
their range in Minnesota have increased further; wolves in Minnesota 
now exist as a large, stable population of about 2,655 individuals that 
are biologically connected to expansive and robust populations in 
Canada and adjacent States of Wisconsin and Michigan.
    To sustain populations over time, a species must have a sufficient 
number and distribution of healthy populations to withstand annual 
variation in its environment (resiliency), novel changes in its 
biological and physical environment (representation), and catastrophes 
(redundancy) (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 308-311; Smith et al. 2018, 
p. 304). A species with a sufficient number and distribution of healthy 
populations is generally better able to adapt to future changes and to 
tolerate stressors (factors that cause a negative effect to a species 
or its habitat).
    Wolves in Minnesota are highly abundant, have a stable trend (USFWS 
2020, pp. 20-22 and Appendix 1), and are broadly distributed throughout 
high-quality habitat in the State (see Great Lakes Area Suitable 
Habitat--MN discussion). Their high reproductive potential (USFWS 2020, 
p. 8) enables them to withstand high mortality levels and their ability 
to disperse long distances allows them to quickly expand and recolonize 
vacant habitats (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Wolves are also highly adaptable 
animals; they are able to inhabit and survive in a variety of habitats 
and are efficient at shifting their prey to exploit available food 
resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6). Furthermore, wolves in Minnesota do not 
function as an isolated population occurring only within the boundaries 
of the State. They are interconnected with the large, expansive 
population of wolves in Canada and with wolves in Wisconsin and 
Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 28). Populations that are connected to and 
interact with other populations of the same species (metapopulations) 
are widely recognized as being more secure over the long term than are 
several isolated populations that contain the same total number of 
packs and individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). This security arises 
because adverse effects experienced by one of its subpopulations 
resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local 
environmental fluctuations can be asynchronous and countered by 
occasional influxes of individuals from other subpopulations in the 
metapopulation, which can increase or better maintain genetic 
diversity. Thus, the high levels of genetic diversity evident in 
Minnesota wolves (see discussion under Genetic Diversity and 
Inbreeding) are supported through interconnections with wolves in 
Canada and neighboring States. This genetic diversity provides wolves 
in Minnesota with a greater ability to adapt to both short-term and 
long-term changes in their environment.
    Wolves in Minnesota are highly resilient to perturbations because 
of their abundance and broad distribution across high-quality habitat 
in the State. Biological factors also play an important part in the 
resiliency of wolves in Minnesota, namely their high reproductive 
capacity and genetic diversity. Those factors provide resiliency in the 
face of stochastic variability (annual environmental fluctuations, 
periodic disturbances, and impacts of anthropogenic stressors). Life-
history characteristics of the wolf, including high dispersal 
capability and adaptability, along with the high genetic diversity 
evident in Minnesota wolves, provides sufficient adaptive capacity such 
that their long-term survival in the State is assured. Additionally, 
catastrophic events have not affected wolf populations at a State-wide 
scale in Minnesota, and we found no indication that these events would 
impact the long-term survival of wolves throughout this State in the 
future.
    The recovery of wolves in Minnesota is attributable primarily to 
successful interagency cooperation in the management of human-caused 
mortality. That mortality is the most significant barrier to the long-
term conservation of wolves. Therefore, this source of mortality 
remains the primary challenge in managing the wolf population to 
maintain its recovered status into the foreseeable future. Legal 
harvest and agency control to mitigate depredations on livestock are 
the primary human-caused mortality factors that managers can manipulate 
to achieve management objectives and minimize depredation risk 
associated with repeated conflicts, respectively, once delisting 
occurs. Wolves in Minnesota now greatly exceed the recovery criteria in 
the revised recovery plan that the Minnesota population must be stable 
or growing and its continued survival be assured, with a population 
goal of 1,251-1,400 wolves. As a result, we can expect to see some 
reduction in wolf populations in Minnesota as managers begin to 
institute management strategies with the

[[Page 69881]]

objective of stabilizing or reversing population growth while 
continuing to maintain wolf populations well above Federal recovery 
criteria.
    Using an adaptive-management approach that adjusts harvest based on 
population estimates and trends, the initial objectives of the State 
may be to reduce wolf populations and then manage for sustainable 
populations, similar to how States manage all other game species.
    Based on our analysis, we conclude that Minnesota will maintain an 
abundant and well-distributed wolf population that will remain above 
recovery levels for the foreseeable future, and that the threat of 
human-caused mortality has been sufficiently addressed. The State of 
Minnesota has wolf-management laws, plans, and regulations that 
adequately regulate human-caused mortality. The State has committed to 
manage its wolf population at or above recovery levels, has recently 
demonstrated this commitment, and expect this commitment to continue 
into the foreseeable future. Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as 
described in the State wolf-management plan, are likely to identify 
high mortality rates or low birth rates that warrant corrective action 
by the management agency. Based on our review, we conclude that 
regulatory mechanisms in Minnesota are adequate to maintain the 
recovered status of wolves in the State once they are federally 
delisted.
    Based on the biology of wolves and our analysis of threats, we 
conclude that wolf populations in Minnesota will continue to be 
maintained at or above identified recovery levels. As a result, wolf 
biology (namely the species' reproductive capacity, adaptability, and 
dispersal ability) and the availability of large, secure blocks of 
suitable habitat within the occupied areas will ensure the maintenance 
of populations capable of withstanding all other foreseeable threats. 
The amount and distribution of occupied wolf habitat currently 
provides, and will continue to provide into the foreseeable future, 
large core areas that contain high-quality habitat of sufficient size 
and with sufficient prey to support a recovered wolf population. Our 
analysis of land management shows these areas, specifically Minnesota 
wolf management zone A, will maintain their suitability into the 
foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that, Minnesota contains a 
sufficient amount of high-quality wolf habitat to support wolf 
populations above recovery levels into the future.
    While disease and parasites can temporarily affect individuals, 
specific packs, or small, isolated populations (e.g., Isle Royale), 
seldom do they pose a significant threat to large wolf populations, 
such as those that occur in Minnesota. As long as wolf populations are 
managed above recovery levels, these factors are not likely to threaten 
the viability of the wolf population in Minnesota at any point in the 
foreseeable future. Climate change is also likely to remain an 
insignificant factor affecting the population dynamics of wolves into 
the foreseeable future, due to the adaptability of the species. 
Finally, based on our analysis, we conclude that cumulative effects of 
threats do not now, nor are likely to within the foreseeable future, 
threaten the viability of wolves throughout their range in Minnesota.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to wolves in Minnesota. We evaluated the status of wolves in Minnesota 
and assessed the factors likely to negatively affect them, including 
threats identified at listing, at the time of reclassification, now, 
and into the foreseeable future. The best available information 
indicates that wolves in Minnesota are recovered and do not meet the 
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species because of 
any one or a combination of the five factors set forth in the Act.
    Specifically, we have determined, based on the best available 
information, that human-caused mortality (Factor C); habitat and prey 
availability (Factor A); disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic 
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational uses (Factor B); climate change (Factor E); 
or other threats, singly or in combination, are not of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that wolves in Minnesota 
are in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of their range. We have also 
determined that ongoing effects of recovery efforts, which resulted in 
a significant expansion of the occupied range of and number of wolves 
in Minnesota over the past decades, in conjunction with State, Tribal, 
and Federal agency wolf management and regulatory mechanisms that will 
be in place following delisting across their occupied range, will be 
adequate to ensure the conservation of wolves in Minnesota. These 
activities will maintain an adequate prey base, preserve denning and 
rendezvous sites, monitor disease, restrict human take, and maintain 
wolf populations well above the recovery criteria established in the 
revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28).
    We have identified the best available scientific studies and 
information assessing human-caused mortality; habitat and prey 
availability; the impacts of disease and parasites; commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, 
including with respect to changing climate; recovery activities and 
regulatory mechanisms that will be in place following delisting; and 
predictions about how these may affect wolves in Minnesota in making 
determinations about their future status, and we conclude that it is 
reasonable to rely on these sources. Therefore, after assessing the 
best available information, we have determined that wolves in Minnesota 
are not in danger of extinction throughout all of their range, nor are 
they likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    Because we determined that wolves in Minnesota are not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of their range, we will consider whether there are any significant 
portions of their range in Minnesota that are in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of 
Its Range
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants 
listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(SPR). Having determined that wolves in Minnesota are not in danger of 
extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of their range in Minnesota, we now consider whether 
they may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in a significant portion of their range in 
Minnesota.
    After reviewing the biology of and potential threats of wolves in 
Minnesota, we have not identified any portions of the State for which 
both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future (i.e., areas in which threats may be 
concentrated) and (2) the portion may be significant. While some 
portions may be at increased risk from human-caused mortality or 
factors related to small numbers, we did not find that any of these 
portions may be significant. We provide our analysis below.
    First, portions outside the core wolf range in northern Minnesota 
may be at

[[Page 69882]]

greater risk from human-caused mortality or from factors related to 
small numbers of individuals. However, these portions are not 
biologically meaningful in terms of their contribution to the 
resiliency, redundancy, or representation of wolves in Minnesota 
because they contain only lone dispersers from the core wolf range that 
are not members of established breeding packs. Thus, they do not 
contribute to the overall demographic or genetic health of the 
Minnesota population and they lack genetic or ecological uniqueness 
relative to other wolves in Minnesota. Therefore, we find that these 
portions are not ``significant'' under any reasonable definition of 
that term because they are not biologically meaningful to the Minnesota 
entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Second, the State wolf-management zone (Zone B) in which post-
delisting depredation control would be allowed under a broader set of 
circumstances than in the core population zone, and, thus, would likely 
experience higher levels of human-caused mortality upon delisting, is 
not significant under any reasonable definition of ``significant.'' The 
wolves in this zone occur on the periphery of the large core 
population, occur in areas of limited habitat suitability, and do not 
contribute appreciably to (and are thus not biologically meaningful to) 
the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the Minnesota entity.
    Wolves in this higher intensity management zone are not meaningful 
to the resiliency of the Minnesota entity because they constitute a 
small proportion of wolves in Minnesota (Zone B contains about 15 
percent of the Minnesota wolf population). Thus, wolves in the higher 
intensity management zone do not contribute meaningfully to the ability 
of wolves in Minnesota to withstand stochastic processes.
    Likewise, the higher intensity management zone is not meaningful to 
the redundancy of the Minnesota entity because wolves in this zone 
represent a relatively small number and distribution of wolves in 
Minnesota and catastrophic events have not affected wolf populations at 
a State-wide scale in Minnesota, and we found no indication that these 
events would impact the long-term survival of wolves throughout this 
State in the future. Thus, wolves in the higher intensity management 
zone do not contribute meaningfully to the ability of wolves in 
Minnesota to withstand catastrophic events. Wolves in the higher 
intensity management zone are not meaningful to the representation of 
wolves in Minnesota because they are genetically similar to other 
wolves in the core area of Minnesota and because gray wolves are a 
highly adaptable generalist species with high dispersal capability, 
thus allowing them to adapt to changing environmental conditions. 
Therefore, we do not find that these portions may be significant under 
any reasonable definition of ``significant'' because they are not 
biologically meaningful to wolves in Minnesota in terms of resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation.
Minnesota: Final Determination
    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened species'' 
and ``endangered species'' contained in the Act and the reasons for 
delisting as specified at 50 CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that removing 
the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in Minnesota from the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. Although this 
entity is not a species as defined under the Act, we have collectively 
evaluated the current and potential threats to gray wolves in 
Minnesota, including those that result from past loss of historical 
range. Wolves in Minnesota do not meet the definition of a threatened 
species or an endangered species as a result of the reduction of 
threats as described in the analysis of threats and are neither 
currently in danger of extinction, nor likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of their 
range within the State.
44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range
    In 1978, when gray wolves were listed in the conterminous States 
other than Minnesota, there was a small group of wolves on Isle Royale 
(Michigan) in Lake Superior and perhaps a few individual wolves in 
northern Michigan and Wisconsin. The primary cause of the decline of 
wolves in the 44-State entity was targeted elimination by humans. 
However, gray wolves are highly adaptable; their populations are 
remarkably resilient as long as prey availability, habitat, and 
regulation of human-caused mortality are adequate. Wolf populations can 
rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused 
mortality or disease, once those disruptions are removed or reduced.
    With the protections of the Act, gray wolves began to repopulate 
Michigan and Wisconsin through expansion of the populations in 
Minnesota and Canada. Wolves in the 44-State entity now primarily exist 
as a large, stable to growing, population of about 1,576 individuals in 
Wisconsin and Michigan that is biologically connected to expansive and 
robust populations in Canada and the adjacent State of Minnesota. 
Within the 44-State entity there are also a small number of colonizing 
wolves in the West Coast States and central Rocky Mountains that 
represent the expanding edge of a larger population outside the 44-
State entity (in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Canada) 
(figure 2). We focus our analysis where wolves occur.
    The recovery criteria for wolves in the Eastern United States, as 
outlined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and Revised Recovery 
Plan, includes the maintenance of the Minnesota population and 
reestablishment of at least one viable wolf population within the 
historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and 
Isle Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United 
States). The viable population outside of Minnesota has been 
reestablished in Wisconsin and Michigan.
    Within the 44-State entity, the wolf population in Wisconsin and 
Michigan is stable to slightly increasing and currently numbers at 
least 1,576 (914 in Wisconsin and 695 in Michigan) (USFWS 2020, pp. 21-
24 and Appendix 1). Wolves are broadly distributed throughout high-
quality habitat in the northern portions of both States (see Great 
Lakes Area Suitable Habitat--WI and MI discussions). Their high 
reproductive potential (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to withstand 
increased levels of human-caused mortality and their ability to 
disperse long distances allows them to quickly expand and recolonize 
vacant habitats (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Wolves are also highly adaptable 
animals; they are able to inhabit and survive in a variety of habitats 
and take advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6). 
Furthermore, biologically, wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan do not 
function as an isolated population. They are interconnected with the 
large, expansive population of wolves in Canada and with wolves in 
Minnesota (USFWS 2020, p. 28).
    Populations that are connected to and interact with other 
populations of the same species (metapopulations) are widely recognized 
as being more secure over the long term than are several isolated 
populations that contain the same total number of packs and individuals 
(USFWS 1994, appendix 9). This is because adverse effects

[[Page 69883]]

experienced by one of its subpopulations resulting from genetic drift, 
demographic shifts, and local environmental fluctuations can be 
asynchronous and countered by occasional influxes of individuals from 
other subpopulations in the metapopulation, which can increase or 
better maintain genetic diversity. Thus, the genetic diversity of the 
wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan (see discussion under Genetic 
Diversity and Inbreeding) is supported through interconnections with 
wolves in Canada and neighboring Minnesota. This genetic diversity 
provides wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan with a greater ability to 
adapt to both short-term and long-term changes in their environment. A 
mixture of western gray wolves and eastern wolves in the Great Lakes 
area may provide additional adaptive capacity (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3).
    Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan are highly resilient to 
perturbations because of their abundance and broad distribution across 
high-quality habitat in these States. Biological factors also play an 
important part in the resiliency of wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan, 
namely their high reproductive capacity and genetic diversity. Those 
factors provide resiliency in the face of stochastic variability 
(annual environmental fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and impacts 
of anthropogenic stressors). Life-history characteristics of the wolf, 
including high dispersal capability and adaptability, along with the 
high genetic diversity evident in wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan, 
provides sufficient adaptive capacity such that their long-term 
survival is assured. Additionally, catastrophic events have not 
affected wolf populations at a multi-State scale in Wisconsin and 
Michigan, and we found no indication that these events would impact the 
long-term survival of wolves throughout these States in the future.
    The wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan contain sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation to sustain populations within the 44-
State entity over time. Therefore, we conclude that the relatively few 
wolves that occur within the 44-State entity outside of Wisconsin and 
Michigan, including those in the West Coast States and central Rocky 
Mountains as well as lone dispersers in other States, are not necessary 
for the recovered status of the 44-State entity. However, the viability 
of the entity is further enhanced by wolves that occur outside of 
Wisconsin and Michigan. Wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains and 
western Canada are expanding into the 44-State entity in Oregon, 
Washington, California, and Colorado (figure 2). With ongoing State 
management in the NRM DPS, further expansion of wolves into the 44-
State entity is likely to continue in the West Coast States and 
possibly the central Rocky Mountains. Although wolves in these areas 
would add to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, they are not 
necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that they no longer 
meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act. 
Furthermore, although having wolves in unoccupied areas could also 
contribute to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, they are not 
necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that they no longer 
meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    The recovery of the 44-State entity is attributable primarily to 
successful interagency cooperation in the management of human-caused 
mortality. That mortality is the most significant barrier to the long-
term conservation of wolves. Therefore, this source of mortality 
remains the primary challenge in managing the wolf population to 
maintain its recovered status into the foreseeable future. Legal 
harvest and agency control to mitigate depredations on livestock are 
the primary human-caused mortality factors that management agencies can 
manipulate to achieve management objectives and minimize depredation 
risk associated with repeated conflicts, respectively, once delisting 
occurs.
    Wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan now greatly exceed the recovery 
criteria in the revised recovery plan for a second population outside 
Minnesota and Isle Royale (for both a population that is connected to 
Minnesota (at least 100 wolves) and a population that is separated from 
Minnesota (at least 200 wolves)). As a result, we can expect to see 
some reduction in wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan as those 
States begin to institute management strategies (such as increased 
depredation control and wolf-hunting seasons) with the objective of 
stabilizing or reversing population growth while continuing to maintain 
wolf populations well above Federal recovery requirements. Using an 
adaptive-management approach that adjusts harvest based on population 
estimates and trends, the initial objectives of States may be to reduce 
wolf populations and then manage for sustainable populations, similar 
to how States manage all other game species. For example, in 2013-2014, 
during a period when gray wolves were federally delisted in the Great 
Lakes area, Wisconsin reduced the State's wolf harvest quota by 43 
percent in response to a reduced (compared to the previous year) 
estimated size of the wolf population. We expect Washington, Oregon and 
California will manage wolves through appropriate laws and regulations 
to ensure that the recovery objectives outlined in their respective 
wolf management plans are achieved, even though wolves in these areas 
are not necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that they no 
longer meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    Based on our analysis, we conclude that Wisconsin and Michigan will 
maintain an abundant and well-distributed wolf population in their 
States above recovery levels for the foreseeable future, and that the 
threat of human-caused mortality has been sufficiently reduced. Both 
States have wolf-management laws, plans, and regulations that 
adequately regulate human-caused mortality. Each of the States has 
committed to manage its wolf population at or above viable population 
levels (at least 350 in Wisconsin and at least 200 in Michigan; see 
State Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan), and we do not 
expect this commitment to change. Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as 
described in the State wolf-management plans, are likely to identify 
high mortality rates or low birth rates that warrant corrective action 
by the management agencies. Based on our review, we conclude that 
regulatory mechanisms in both States are adequate to maintain the 
recovered status of wolves in the 44-State entity once they are 
federally delisted. Further, while relatively few wolves occur in the 
west coast portion of the 44-State entity at this time, and State wolf-
management plans for Washington, Oregon, and California do not yet 
include population management goals, these plans include recovery 
objectives intended to ensure the reestablishment of self-sustaining 
populations in these States. In addition, we expect wolves in the NRM 
and western Canada to continue to expand into unoccupied suitable 
habitats in the Western United States, as envisioned in State wolf 
conservation and management plans. Although this range expansion would 
provide for additional redundancy, it is not needed to recover the gray 
wolf in the 44-State entity.
    Based on the biology of wolves and our analysis of threats, we 
conclude that, as long as wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan 
are maintained at or above identified recovery levels, wolf biology 
(namely, the species' reproductive capacity) and the availability of 
large, secure blocks of

[[Page 69884]]

suitable habitat within the occupied areas will enable the maintenance 
of populations capable of withstanding all other foreseeable threats. 
Although much of the historical range of the 44-State entity is no 
longer occupied, we find that the amount and distribution of occupied 
wolf habitat currently provides, and will continue to provide into the 
foreseeable future, large core areas that contain high-quality habitat 
of sufficient size and with sufficient prey to support a recovered wolf 
population. Our analysis of land management shows these areas, 
specifically Wisconsin Wolf Zone 1 and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 
will maintain their suitability into the foreseeable future. Therefore, 
we conclude that, despite the loss of large areas of historical range 
for the 44-State entity, Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 
contain a sufficient amount of high-quality wolf habitat to support 
wolf populations above recovery levels into the future.
    While disease and parasites can temporarily affect individuals, 
specific packs, or small, isolated populations (e.g., Isle Royale), 
seldom do they pose a significant threat to large wolf populations, 
such as those found in Wisconsin and Michigan. As long as wolf 
populations are managed above recovery levels, these factors are not 
likely to threaten the viability of the wolf population in the 44-State 
entity at any point in the foreseeable future. Climate change is also 
likely to remain an insignificant factor affecting the population 
dynamics of wolves into the foreseeable future, due to the adaptability 
of the species. Finally, based on our analysis, we conclude that 
cumulative effects of threats do not now, nor are they likely to within 
the foreseeable future, threaten the viability of the 44-State entity 
throughout the range of wolves in the 44-State entity.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the 44-State entity. We evaluated the status of the 44-State entity 
and assessed the factors likely to negatively affect it, including 
threats identified at listing, at the time of reclassification, now, 
and into the foreseeable future. While wolves in the 44-State entity 
currently occupy only a portion of wolf historical range, the best 
available information indicates that the 44-State entity is recovered 
and does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species because of any one or a combination of the five 
factors set forth in the Act.
    Specifically, we have determined, based on the best available 
information, that human-caused mortality (Factor C); habitat and prey 
availability (Factor A); disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic 
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational uses (Factor B); climate change (Factor E); 
or other threats, singly or in combination, are not of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the 44-State entity 
is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We have also determined 
that ongoing effects of recovery efforts, which resulted in a 
significant expansion of the occupied range of and number of wolves in 
the 44-State entity over the past decades, in conjunction with State, 
Tribal, and Federal agency wolf management and regulatory mechanisms 
that will be in place following delisting of the entity across its 
occupied range, will be adequate to ensure the conservation of wolves 
in the 44-State entity. These activities will maintain an adequate prey 
base, preserve denning and rendezvous sites, monitor disease, restrict 
human take, and keep wolf populations well above the recovery criteria 
established in the revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28).
    We have identified the best available scientific studies and 
information assessing human-caused mortality; habitat and prey 
availability; the impacts of disease and parasites; commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, 
including with respect to changing climate; recovery activities and 
regulatory mechanisms that will be in place following delisting; and 
predictions about how these may affect the 44-State entity in making 
determinations about the 44-State entity's future status, and we 
conclude that it is reasonable to rely on these sources. Therefore, 
after assessing the best available information, despite the large 
amount of lost historical range (see Historical Context of Our 
Analysis), we have determined that the 44-State entity is not in danger 
of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to become 
so in the foreseeable future.
    Because we determined that the gray wolf 44-State entity is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we will consider whether there are any 
significant portions of its range that are in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant 
Portion of Its Range
    After reviewing the biology of the 44-State entity and potential 
threats, we have not identified any portions of the 44-State entity for 
which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., areas in which threats may 
be concentrated) and (2) the portion may be significant. We reiterate 
that ``range'' refers to the general geographical area within which the 
species is found at the time of our determination (see Definition and 
Treatment of Range). ``Portion of its range'' refers to the members of 
the species that occur in a particular geographic area of the species' 
current range. This is because, while ``portion of the range'' is part 
of the species' range (i.e., a geographical area), when we evaluate a 
significant portion of its range, we consider the contribution of the 
individuals that are in that portion at the time we make a 
determination. While some portions may be at increased risk from human-
caused mortality or factors related to small numbers, we did not find 
that any of these portions may be significant. We provide our analysis 
below.
    First, portions peripheral to the Wisconsin-Michigan population 
that may frequently contain lone dispersing wolves (e.g., the Lower 
Peninsula of Michigan, eastern North and South Dakota) or may contain 
few wolves (e.g., Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from human-caused 
mortality or from factors related to small numbers of individuals. 
However, these portions are not biologically meaningful to the 44-State 
entity in terms of resiliency, redundancy, or representation because 
they contain only lone dispersers from the core wolf range or few or no 
breeding pairs. Thus, they do not contribute to the overall demographic 
or genetic diversity of the Wisconsin-Michigan population and they lack 
genetic or ecological uniqueness relative to other wolves in the 
States. Therefore, we find that these portions are not ``significant'' 
under any reasonable definition of that term because they are not 
biologically meaningful to the 44-State entity in terms of its 
resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Second, State wolf-management zones in which post-delisting 
depredation control would be allowed under a broader set of 
circumstances than in core population zones (and, thus, would likely 
experience higher levels of human-caused mortality upon the 44-State 
entity's delisting), such as

[[Page 69885]]

Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 and 4, are not significant under any 
reasonable definition of ``significant.'' The wolves in these zones 
occur on the periphery of a large population (the Wisconsin-Michigan 
population), occur in areas of limited habitat suitability, and do not 
contribute appreciably to (and are thus not biologically meaningful to) 
the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the 44-State entity.
    Wolves in these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the resiliency of the 44-State entity because, even 
though they contain multiple established packs in addition to lone 
wolves, they constitute a small proportion of wolves in the Wisconsin-
Michigan population and, consequently, the 44-State entity (Zones 3 and 
4 contain about 6 percent of the Wisconsin wolf population). Upon 
delisting, a large population of wolves will still exist in Wisconsin 
and Michigan outside of these areas. Thus, wolves in these higher 
intensity management zones do not contribute meaningfully to ability of 
wolves in the 44-State entity to withstand stochastic processes.
    Likewise, these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the redundancy of the 44-State entity because wolves in 
these zones represent a relatively small number and distribution of 
populations or packs in Wisconsin and Michigan and catastrophic events 
have not affected wolf populations at a multi-State scale in Wisconsin 
and Michigan, and we found no indication that these events would impact 
the long-term survival of wolves throughout these two States in the 
future. Thus, wolves in these higher intensity management zones do not 
contribute meaningfully to the ability of the Wisconsin-Michigan 
population, or 44-State entity, to withstand catastrophic events.
    Finally, wolves in these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the representation of the 44-State entity because they 
are genetically similar to other wolves in the Wisconsin-Michigan area 
of the 44-State entity and because gray wolves are a highly adaptable 
generalist species with high dispersal capability, thus allowing them 
to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, we do not 
find that these portions may be significant under any reasonable 
definition of ``significant'' because they are not biologically 
meaningful to the 44-State entity in terms of its resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation.
    Third, the small number of wolves occurring in the West Coast 
States and the central Rocky Mountains are not a significant portion of 
the 44-State entity. Our evaluation of whether any portions of the 
range may be ``significant'' is a biological inquiry. We consider 
whether any portions are biologically meaningful in terms of the 
resiliency, redundancy, or representation of gray wolves in the 44-
State entity. When the gray wolf was listed in 1978, there were about 
1,200 wolves in Minnesota, and those wolves later expanded into 
Wisconsin and Michigan (USFWS 2020, pp. 20-23). Unlike wolves that are 
dispersing from the Great Lakes metapopulation, the wolves that are 
presently found in the West Coast States and the central Rocky 
Mountains originated primarily from the NRM wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-
5). As the delisted NRM population has continued to expand under State 
management, those wolves have moved into California, Oregon, and 
Washington, and most recently into Colorado. Those wolves are not 
connected biologically to the core populations in the 44-State entity, 
and are not biologically ``significant'' to this entity.
    We acknowledge that both the West Coast States and central Rocky 
Mountains portions of the 44-State entity may be at greater risk from 
human-caused mortality or from factors related to small numbers of 
individuals. However, wolves in these portions are not meaningful to 
the redundancy or resiliency of the 44-State entity because they occur 
in small numbers and include relatively few breeding pairs. There are 
seven known breeding pairs in the West Coast States, and a single group 
of six known individuals in Colorado. Because these wolves represent 
the expanding edge of a recovered and stable source population (the NRM 
DPS), and are therefore not an independent population within the 44-
State entity, the relatively small number of wolves there do not 
contribute meaningfully to the ability of any population to withstand 
stochastic events, nor to the entire entity's ability to withstand 
catastrophic events. These portions are also not meaningful in terms of 
representation, because (1) gray wolves are a highly adaptable 
generalist carnivore capable of long-distance dispersal, and (2) the 
gray wolves in this area are an extension of a large population of 
wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. They are not an isolated 
population with unique or markedly different genotypic or phenotypic 
traits that is evolving separate from other wolf populations. They are 
also well-represented in the lower 48 United States as a result of 
recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we do not find that this portion 
may be significant, under any reasonable definition of ``significant,'' 
to the 44-State entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation.
    We conclude that there are no portions of the 44-State entity for 
which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future and (2) the portion may be 
significant. As discussed above, portions that may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future are not 
significant under any reasonable definition of that term. Conversely, 
other portions that are or may be significant (i.e., the core areas of 
the Wisconsin-Michigan population) are not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Because we did not 
identify any portions of the 44-State entity where threats may be 
concentrated and where the portion may be biologically meaningful in 
terms of the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the 44-State 
entity, a more thorough analysis is not required. Therefore, we 
conclude that the 44-State entity is not in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future within a significant 
portion of its range.
44-State Entity: Final Determination
    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened species'' 
and ``endangered species'' contained in the Act and the reasons for 
delisting as specified at 50 CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that removing 
the 44-State entity of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is appropriate. 
Although this entity is not a species as defined under the Act, we have 
collectively evaluated the current and potential threats to gray wolves 
in the 44-State entity, including those that result from past loss of 
historical range. Wolves in the 44-State entity do not meet the 
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species as a result 
of the reduction of threats as described in the analysis of threats and 
are neither currently in danger of extinction, nor likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant portion of 
their range.
    Although substantial contraction of gray wolf historical range 
occurred within the 44-State entity since European settlement, the 
range of the gray wolf has expanded significantly since its original 
listing in 1978, and the

[[Page 69886]]

impacts of lost historical range are no longer manifesting in a way 
that threatens the viability of the species. The causes of the previous 
contraction (for example, targeted extermination efforts), and the 
effects of that contraction (for example, reduced numbers of 
individuals and populations, and restricted gene flow), in addition to 
the effects of all other threats, have been ameliorated or reduced such 
that the 44-State entity no longer meets the Act's definitions of 
``threatened species'' or ``endangered species.''

Combined Listed Entity

Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its 
Range
    We have determined that Minnesota and the 44-State entity are each 
not an endangered species or a threatened species. Therefore, no entity 
which includes any of those components can be in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its 
range because we have already conclude that it is not threatened or 
endangered throughout some of its range. Nonetheless, below we 
independently analyze whether the combined listed entity is in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so throughout all of its range. Then 
we turn to the question, not already resolved, of whether that entity 
is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in a significant 
portion of its range.
    Prior to listing in the 1970s, wolves in the combined listed entity 
had been reduced to about 1,000 individuals and extirpated from all of 
their range except northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. 
The primary cause of the decline of wolves in the combined listed 
entity was targeted elimination by humans. However, gray wolves are 
highly adaptable; their populations are remarkably resilient as long as 
prey availability, habitat, and regulation of human-caused mortality 
are adequate. Wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, 
such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease, once those 
disruptions are removed or reduced.
    With the protections of the Act, the size of the gray wolf 
population increased to over four times that at the time of the initial 
gray wolf listings in the early 1970s, and more than triple that at the 
time of the 1978 reclassification (a figure which does not include the 
wolves currently found in the northern Rocky Mountains, which was part 
of those earlier listings, although not now part of the current 
combined listed entity). The range has expanded outside of northeastern 
Minnesota to central and northwestern Minnesota, northern and central 
Wisconsin, and the entire Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and is in the 
early stages of expanding into western Washington, western Oregon, 
northern California, and Colorado. Wolves in the combined listed entity 
now primarily exist as a large, stable to growing, metapopulation of 
about 4,200 individuals in the Great Lakes area and a small number of 
colonizing wolves in the West Coast States and Colorado that represent 
the expanding edge of a large metapopulation outside the combined 
listed entity (in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Canada and, 
more recently the central Rocky Mountains (figure 2)). We focus our 
analysis where wolves occur.
    The recovery criteria for wolves in the Eastern United States, as 
outlined in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and Revised Recovery 
Plan, includes the maintenance of the Minnesota population and 
reestablishment of at least one viable wolf population within the 
historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and 
Isle Royale, Michigan (see Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United 
States). The viable population outside of Minnesota has been 
reestablished in Wisconsin and Michigan.
    Within the combined listed entity, the wolf metapopulation in the 
Great Lakes area is stable to slightly increasing, currently numbers at 
least 4,231 wolves (2,655 in Minnesota, 914 in Wisconsin, and 695 in 
Michigan) (USFWS 2020, pp. 21-24 and Appendix 1), is broadly 
distributed throughout high-quality habitat in the northern portions of 
the three States (see Great Lakes Area Suitable Habitat--MN, WI and MI 
discussions), and contains high levels of genetic diversity (see 
Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding). Further, the high reproductive 
potential of gray wolves (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to withstand 
increased levels of mortality, their ability to disperse long distances 
allows them to quickly expand and recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS 
2020, p. 7), and the fact that they are highly adaptable animals 
enables them to inhabit and survive in a variety of habitats and take 
advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6).
    The wolf metapopulation in the Great Lakes area is highly resilient 
to perturbations because of its abundance and broad distribution across 
high-quality habitat in the Great Lakes area. Biological factors also 
play an important part in the resiliency of wolves in the Great Lakes 
area, namely their high reproductive capacity and genetic diversity. 
Those factors provide resiliency in the face of stochastic variability 
(annual environmental fluctuations, periodic disturbances, and impacts 
of anthropogenic stressors). Life-history characteristics of the wolf, 
including high dispersal capability and adaptability, along with the 
high genetic diversity evident in wolves in the Great Lakes area, 
provides sufficient adaptive capacity such that their long-term 
survival is assured. Additionally, catastrophic events have not 
affected wolf populations at a multi-State scale in the Great Lakes 
area, and we found no indication that these events would impact the 
long-term survival of wolves throughout the Great Lakes area in the 
future.
    Thus, the metapopulation of wolves in the Great Lakes area and, 
consequently, the combined listed entity, contain sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain populations 
within the combined listed entity over time. Therefore, we conclude 
that the relatively few wolves that occur within the combined listed 
entity outside of the Great Lakes area, including those in the West 
Coast States and central Rocky Mountains as well as lone dispersers in 
other States, are not necessary for the recovered status of the 
combined listed entity. However, the viability of the entity is 
enhanced even further by wolves that occur outside of the Great Lakes 
area and also by those that occur outside the combined listed entity. 
First, the viability of the combined listed entity is increased even 
further via connectivity of the entity to populations in Canada. 
Connection of the metapopulation of wolves in the Great Lakes area to a 
population of about 12,000-14,000 wolves in eastern Canada further 
increases the resiliency and representation (via gene flow) of wolves 
in the Great Lakes area, increasing the viability of the combined 
listed entity. Second, wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains and 
western Canada are expanding into the combined listed entity in Oregon, 
Washington, California, and Colorado (figure 2). With ongoing State 
management in the NRM DPS, further expansion of wolves into the 
combined listed entity is likely to continue in the West Coast States 
and possibly the central Rocky Mountains. Although wolves in these 
areas would add to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, they are 
not necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that they no 
longer meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act. 
Furthermore, although having wolves in unoccupied areas could also

[[Page 69887]]

contribute to resiliency, redundancy, and representation, they are not 
necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that they no longer 
meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under the Act.
    The recovery of the combined listed entity is attributable 
primarily to successful interagency cooperation in the management of 
human-caused mortality. That mortality is the most significant barrier 
to the long-term conservation of wolves. Therefore, this source of 
mortality remains the primary challenge in managing the wolf population 
to maintain its recovered status into the foreseeable future. Legal 
harvest and agency control to mitigate depredations on livestock are 
the primary human-caused mortality factors that management agencies can 
manipulate to achieve management objectives and minimize depredation 
risk associated with repeated conflicts, respectively, once delisting 
occurs. Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly exceed the Federal 
recovery requirements defined in the revised recovery plan. As a 
result, we can expect to see some reduction in wolf populations in the 
Great Lakes areas as States begin to institute management strategies 
(such as increased depredation control and wolf-hunting seasons) with 
the objective of stabilizing or reversing population growth while 
continuing to maintain wolf populations well above Federal recovery 
requirements. Using an adaptive-management approach that adjusts 
harvest based on population estimates and trends, the initial 
objectives may be to reduce wolf populations and then manage for 
sustainable populations, similar to how States manage all other game 
species. For example, in 2013-2014, during a period when gray wolves 
were federally delisted in the Great Lakes area, Wisconsin reduced the 
State's wolf harvest quota by 43 percent in response to a reduced 
(compared to the previous year) estimated size of the wolf population. 
We expect Washington, Oregon, and California will manage wolves through 
appropriate laws and regulations to ensure that the recovery objectives 
outlined in their respective wolf management plans are achieved.
    Based on our analysis, we conclude that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 
Michigan will maintain an abundant and well-distributed metapopulation 
in the Great Lakes area that will remain above recovery levels for the 
foreseeable future, and that the threat of human-caused mortality has 
been sufficiently reduced. All three States have wolf-management laws, 
plans, and regulations that adequately regulate human-caused mortality. 
Each of the three States has committed to manage its wolf population at 
or above viable population levels, and we do not expect this commitment 
to change. Adequate wolf-monitoring programs, as described in the State 
wolf-management plans, are likely to identify high mortality rates or 
low birth rates that warrant corrective action by the management 
agencies. Based on our review, we conclude that regulatory mechanisms 
in all three States are adequate to maintain the recovered status of 
wolves in the combined listed entity once they are federally delisted. 
Further, while relatively few wolves occur in the west coast portion of 
the combined listed entity at this time, and State wolf-management 
plans for Washington, Oregon, and California do not yet include 
population management goals, these plans include recovery objectives 
intended to ensure the reestablishment of self-sustaining populations 
in these States. In addition, we expect the wolf metapopulation in the 
western U.S. and western Canada to continue to expand into unoccupied 
suitable habitats in the Western United States, as envisioned in State 
wolf conservation and management plans.
    Based on the biology of wolves and our analysis of threats, we 
conclude that, as long as wolf populations in the Great Lakes States 
are maintained at or above identified recovery levels, wolf biology 
(namely the species' reproductive capacity) and the availability of 
large, secure blocks of suitable habitat within the occupied areas will 
enable the maintenance of populations capable of withstanding all other 
foreseeable threats. Although much of the historical range of the 
combined listed entity is no longer occupied, we find that the amount 
and distribution of occupied wolf habitat currently provides, and will 
continue to provide into the foreseeable future, large core areas that 
contain high-quality habitat of sufficient size and with sufficient 
prey to support a recovered wolf population. Our analysis of land 
management shows these areas, specifically Minnesota Wolf Management 
Zone A (Federal Wolf Management Zones 1-4), Wisconsin Wolf Zone 1, and 
the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, will maintain their suitability into 
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that, despite the loss 
of large areas of historical range for the combined listed entity, 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan contain a 
sufficient amount of high-quality wolf habitat to support wolf 
populations into the future.
    While disease and parasites can temporarily affect individuals, 
specific packs, or small, isolated populations (e.g., Isle Royale), 
seldom do they pose a significant threat to large wolf populations 
(e.g., core populations in the NRM DPS and Great Lakes area) as a 
whole. As long as wolf populations are managed above recovery levels, 
these factors are not likely to threaten the viability of the wolf 
population in the combined listed entity at any point in the 
foreseeable future. Climate change is also likely to remain an 
insignificant factor affecting the population dynamics of wolves into 
the foreseeable future, due to the adaptability of the species. 
Finally, based on our analysis, we conclude that cumulative effects of 
threats do not now, and are not likely to within the foreseeable 
future, threaten the viability of the combined listed entity throughout 
the range of wolves in the combined listed entity.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the combined listed entity. We evaluated the status of the combined 
listed entity and assessed the factors likely to negatively affect it, 
including threats identified at listing, at the time of 
reclassification, now, and into the foreseeable future. While wolves in 
the combined listed entity currently occupy only a portion of wolf 
historical range, the best available information indicates that the 
combined listed entity is recovered and does not meet the definition of 
an endangered species or a threatened species because of any one or a 
combination of the five factors set forth in the Act.
    Specifically, we have determined, based on the best available 
information, that human-caused mortality (Factor C); habitat and prey 
availability (Factor A); disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic 
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational uses (Factor B); climate change (Factor E); 
or other threats, singly or in combination, are not of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the combined listed 
entity is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We have also determined 
that ongoing effects of recovery efforts, which resulted in a 
significant expansion of the occupied range of and number of wolves in 
the combined listed entity over the past decades, in conjunction with 
State, Tribal, and Federal agency wolf management and regulatory 
mechanisms that will be in

[[Page 69888]]

place following delisting of the entity across its occupied range, will 
be adequate to ensure the conservation of wolves in the combined listed 
entity. These activities will maintain an adequate prey base, preserve 
denning and rendezvous sites, monitor disease, restrict human take, and 
keep wolf populations well above the recovery criteria established in 
the revised recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28).
    We have identified the best available scientific studies and 
information assessing human-caused mortality; habitat and prey 
availability; the impacts of disease and parasites; commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational uses; gray wolf adaptability, 
including with respect to changing climate; recovery activities and 
regulatory mechanisms that will be in place following delisting; and 
predictions about how these may affect the combined listed entity in 
making determinations about the combined listed entity's future status, 
and we conclude that it is reasonable to rely on these sources. 
Therefore, after assessing the best available information, despite the 
large amount of lost historical range (see Historical Context of Our 
Analysis), we have determined that the combined listed entity is not in 
danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor is it likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future.
    Because we determined that the combined listed entity is not in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
throughout all of its range, we will consider whether there are any 
significant portions of its range that are in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a 
Significant Portion of Its Range
    After reviewing the biology of the combined listed entity and 
potential threats, we have not identified any portions of the combined 
listed entity for which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., 
areas in which threats may be concentrated) and (2) the portion may be 
significant. We reiterate that ``range'' refers to the general 
geographical area within which the species is found at the time of our 
determination (see Definition and Treatment of Range). ``Portion of its 
range'' refers to the members of the species that occur in a particular 
geographic area of the species' current range. This is because, while 
``portion of the range'' is part of the species' range (i.e., a 
geographical area), when we evaluate a significant portion of its 
range, we consider the contribution of the individuals that are in that 
portion at the time we make a determination. While we identified some 
portions that may be at increased risk from human-caused mortality or 
factors related to small numbers, we did not find that any of these 
portions may be significant. We provide our analysis below.
    First, portions peripheral to the Great Lakes metapopulation that 
may frequently contain lone dispersing wolves (e.g., Lower Peninsula of 
Michigan, eastern North and South Dakota) or may contain few wolves 
(e.g., Isle Royale) may be at greater risk from human-caused mortality 
or from factors related to small numbers of individuals. However, 
wolves in these portions are not meaningful to resiliency or redundancy 
of the combined listed entity because they are lone dispersers from 
core wolf range or few or no breeding pairs or are few in number and 
likely to remain so (e.g., Isle Royale). They are not contributing to 
representation of the combined listed entity because they dispersed or 
descend from the core wolf populations in the Great Lakes 
metapopulation or, in the case of Isle Royale, are genetically isolated 
and therefore have a low probability of long-term genetic health. Thus, 
these portions do not contribute to the overall demographic or genetic 
diversity of the lower 48 United States entity and they lack genetic 
uniqueness relative to other wolves in the entity. Further, gray wolves 
are a highly adaptable species with high dispersal capability, thus 
allowing them to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, 
we find that these portions are not ``significant'' because they are 
not biologically meaningful to the combined listed entity in terms of 
its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Second, State wolf-management zones in which post-delisting 
depredation control would be allowed under a broader set of 
circumstances than in core population zones (and, thus, would likely 
experience higher levels of human-caused mortality upon the combined 
listed entity's delisting), such as Minnesota Wolf Management Zone B 
(Federal Wolf Management Zone 5) or Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 
and 4 may be at greater risk from human-caused mortality or from 
factors related to small numbers of individuals. However, the wolves in 
these portions occur on the periphery of a large metapopulation (the 
Great Lakes metapopulation), occur in areas of limited habitat 
suitability, and do not contribute appreciably to (and are thus not 
biologically meaningful to) the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the combined listed entity. In fact, the Revised 
Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf advises against restoration 
of wolves in State Zone B (Federal Zone 5).
    Wolves in these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the resiliency of the combined listed entity because, 
even though they contain multiple established packs in addition to lone 
wolves, they constitute a small proportion of wolves in the Great Lakes 
metapopulation and, consequently, the combined listed entity (Zone B 
contains approximately 15 percent of the Minnesota wolf population; 
Zones 3 and 4 contain about 6 percent of the Wisconsin wolf 
population). Thus, wolves in these higher intensity management zones do 
not contribute meaningfully to the ability of wolves in the combined 
listed entity to withstand stochastic processes.
    Likewise, these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the redundancy of the combined listed entity because 
wolves in these zones represent a relatively small number and 
distribution of packs in their respective States and catastrophic 
events have not affected wolf populations at a multi-State scale in the 
Great Lakes area, and we found no indication that these events would 
impact the long-term survival of wolves throughout these States in the 
future. Thus, wolves in these higher intensity management zones do not 
contribute meaningfully to the ability of wolf populations in these 
States, the Great Lakes metapopulation, or, consequently, the combined 
listed entity, to withstand catastrophic events. Wolves in these higher 
intensity management zones are not meaningful to the representation of 
the combined listed entity because they are genetically similar to 
other wolves in the Great Lakes area of the combined listed entity and 
because gray wolves are a highly adaptable species with high dispersal 
capability, thus allowing them to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions. Therefore, we do not find that these portions may be 
significant because they are not biologically meaningful to the 
combined listed entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation.
    Third, the small number of wolves occurring in the West Coast 
States and the central Rocky Mountains are not a significant portion of 
the combined listed entity. Our evaluation of whether any portions of 
the range may be ``significant'' is a biological inquiry. We

[[Page 69889]]

consider whether any portions are biologically meaningful in terms of 
the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of gray wolves in the 
combined listed entity. When the gray wolf was listed in 1978, there 
were about 1,200 wolves in Minnesota, and those wolves later expanded 
into Wisconsin and Michigan (USFWS 2020, pp. 20-23). Unlike wolves that 
are dispersing from the Great Lakes metapopulation, the wolves that are 
presently found in the West Coast States and the central Rocky 
Mountains originated primarily from the NRM wolves (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-
5). As the delisted NRM population has continued to expand under State 
management, those wolves have moved into California, Oregon, and 
Washington, and most recently into Colorado. Those wolves are not 
connected biologically to the core populations in the combined listed 
entity, and are not biologically ``significant'' to this entity.
    We acknowledge that both the West Coast States and central Rocky 
Mountain portions of the combined listed entity may be at greater risk 
from human-caused mortality or from factors related to small numbers of 
individuals. However, wolves in these portions are not meaningful to 
the redundancy or resiliency of the combined listed entity because they 
occur in extremely small numbers and include relatively few breeding 
pairs. There are seven known breeding pairs in the West Coast States, 
and a single group of six known individuals in Colorado. Because these 
wolves represent the expanding edge of a recovered and stable source 
population (the NRM DPS), and are therefore not an independent 
population within the combined listed entity, the relatively small 
number of wolves there do not contribute meaningfully to the ability of 
any population to withstand stochastic events, nor to the entire 
entity's ability to withstand catastrophic events. These portions are 
also not meaningful in terms of representation, because (1) gray wolves 
are a highly adaptable generalist carnivore capable of long-distance 
dispersal, and (2) the gray wolves in this area are an extension of a 
large population of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains. They are 
not an isolated population with unique or markedly different genotypic 
or phenotypic traits that is evolving separate from other wolf 
populations. They are also well-represented in the lower 48 United 
States as a result of recovery in the NRM DPS. Therefore, we do not 
find that this portion may be significant to the combined listed entity 
in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    We conclude that there are no portions of the combined listed 
entity for which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future and (2) the portion may 
be significant. As discussed above, some may be in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, but we do not find 
that these portions may be significant under any reasonable definition 
of that term because they are not biologically meaningful to the 
combined listed entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation. Conversely, other portions that are or may be 
significant (i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes metapopulation) 
are not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. Because we could not answer both screening 
questions in the affirmative for these portions, we conclude that these 
portions of the range do not warrant further consideration as a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we conclude that the 
combined listed entity is not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future within a significant portion of its 
range.
Combined Listed Entity: Final Determination
    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened species'' 
and ``endangered species'' contained in the Act and the reasons for 
delisting as specified at 50 CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that removing 
the two currently listed entities of gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is 
appropriate. Although this entity is not a species as defined under the 
Act, we have collectively evaluated the current and potential threats 
to the combined listed entity, including those that result from past 
loss of historical range. Wolves in the combined listed entity do not 
meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species as 
a result of the reduction of threats as described in the analysis of 
threats and are neither currently in danger of extinction, nor likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all or a significant 
portion of their range.
    Although substantial contraction of gray wolf historical range 
occurred within the combined listed entity since European settlement, 
the range of the gray wolf has expanded significantly since its 
original listing in 1978, and the impacts of lost historical range are 
no longer manifesting in a way that threatens the viability of the 
species. The causes of the previous contraction (for example, targeted 
extermination efforts), and the effects of that contraction (for 
example, reduced numbers of individuals and populations, and restricted 
gene flow), in addition to the effects of all other threats, have been 
ameliorated or reduced such that the combined listed entity does not 
meet the Act's definitions of ``threatened species'' or ``endangered 
species.''

Lower 48 United States Entity

Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All 
of Its Range
    We have determined that Minnesota, the 44-State entity, and the 
combined listed entity are each not an endangered species or a 
threatened species. Therefore, no entity which includes any of those 
components can be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range because we have already 
conclude that it is not threatened or endangered throughout some of its 
range. Nonetheless, below we independently analyze whether the lower 48 
United States entity is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout all of its range. Then we turn to the question, not already 
resolved, of whether that entity is in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so in a significant portion of its range.
    At the time gray wolves were first listed under the Act in the 
1970s, wolves in the lower 48 United States had been reduced to about 
1,000 individuals and extirpated from all of their range except 
northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a small fraction of 
the species' historical range in the lower 48 United States. The 
primary cause of the decline of wolves in the lower 48 United States 
was targeted elimination by humans. However, gray wolves are highly 
adaptable; their populations are remarkably resilient as long as prey 
availability, habitat, and regulation of human-caused mortality are 
adequate. Established wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe 
disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease, once 
those disruptions are removed or reduced.
    Provided the protections of the Act, the number of gray wolves in 
the lower 48 United States (greater than 6,000 wolves) has increased 
more than sixfold since the initial listings and about

[[Page 69890]]

fivefold since the 1978 reclassification. The range of the species has 
expanded from northeast Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, to include 
central and northwestern Minnesota, the entire Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan, and northern and central Wisconsin in the Eastern United 
States. In addition, wolves in the Western United States were 
functionally extinct at the time of listing, but now viable populations 
occupy large portions of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Washington, 
and eastern Oregon in the Western United States. They are also 
currently expanding from the NRM region into the West Coast States 
(western Washington, western Oregon, northern California), and 
Colorado.
    Despite the substantial increase in gray wolf numbers and 
distribution within the lower 48 United States since 1978, the species 
currently occupies only a small portion of its historical range within 
this area. This loss of historical range has resulted in a reduction of 
gray wolf individuals, populations, and suitable habitat within the 
lower 48 United States compared to historical levels. Changes resulting 
from range contraction for the lower 48 United States have increased 
the vulnerability of the lower 48 United States entity to threats such 
as reduced genetic diversity and restricted gene flow (reduced 
representation), catastrophic events (reduced redundancy), or 
stochastic disturbances (reduced resiliency), such as annual 
environmental fluctuations (prey availability, pockets of disease 
outbreaks) and anthropogenic stressors.
    Wolves in the lower 48 United States now exist primarily as two 
large, genetically diverse, stable to growing metapopulations, one 
currently numbering over 4,200 individuals in the Eastern United States 
(in the Great Lakes area) and another numbering about 1,900 individuals 
in 2015 in the Western United States (in the NRM and West Coast States) 
(figure 3). The current number of individuals in the western U. S. 
metapopulation is similar to that in 2015, and this metapopulation is 
currently recolonizing western Washington, western Oregon, northern 
California, and Colorado. Gray wolf metapopulations--populations that 
are connected to and interact with other populations of the same 
species--are widely recognized as being more secure over the long term 
than are several isolated populations that contain the same total 
number of packs and individuals (USFWS 1994, appendix 9). This outcome 
is because adverse effects experienced by one of its subpopulations 
resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local 
environmental fluctuations can be countered by occasional influxes of 
individuals and their genetic diversity from other subpopulations in 
the metapopulation. Furthermore, the high reproductive potential of 
gray wolves (USFWS 2020, p. 8) enables them to withstand increased 
levels of mortality and their ability to disperse long distances allows 
them to quickly expand and recolonize vacant habitats (USFWS 2020, p. 
7). Gray wolves are also able to inhabit and survive in a variety of 
habitats and take advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 
6).
    Gray wolves in the lower 48 United States entity are highly 
resilient to perturbations because of their abundance and broad 
distribution across high-quality habitat in the entity. Biological 
factors also play an important part in the resiliency of wolves in the 
entity, namely their high reproductive capacity and genetic diversity. 
The large sizes of the two metapopulations in the entity, the high 
quality of the habitat they occupy, and those biological factors 
provide the entity resiliency in the face of stochastic (random) 
variability (annual environmental fluctuations in, for example, prey 
availability, pockets of disease outbreaks; periodic disturbances, and 
anthropogenic stressors). Further, the two metapopulations and their 
broad distribution across several States provides the entity the 
redundancy to survive a catastrophic event because such an event is 
unlikely to simultaneously affect gray wolf populations in all the 
States across which these metapopulations are distributed. Lastly, the 
gray wolf is a highly adaptable species that can inhabit a variety of 
ecosystem types and exploit available food resources in a diversity of 
areas. Genetic, general size, habitat, and dietary differences between 
gray wolves currently found in the Eastern United States (Great Lakes 
area) and Western United States (NRM and West Coast States) provide the 
entity additional adaptive capacity. Thus, the lower 48 United States 
entity contains sufficient capacity to adapt to future changes in the 
environment such that their long-term survival is assured. In sum, 
wolves in the Eastern and Western United States contain sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain populations in 
the lower 48 United States entity over time. This alone is sufficient 
for us to determine that the lower 48 United States entity is not 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    While the lower 48 United States entity contains sufficient 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain the entity over 
time, the viability of the entity is increased even further via 
connectivity of the entity to populations in Canada. Connection of the 
Great Lakes metapopulation and western U.S. metapopulation to a 
population of about 12,000-14,000 wolves in eastern Canada and 15,000 
gray wolves in western Canada, respectively, further increases the 
resiliency, and representation (via gene flow), of the Great Lakes and 
western U.S. metapopulations, increasing the viability of the entity. 
Further, with ongoing State management in the NRM States, expansion of 
the western U. S. metapopulation into unoccupied suitable habitat in 
the West is likely to continue, as envisioned in State wolf 
conservation and management plans, further increasing the resiliency 
and redundancy of the lower 48 United States entity in the future.
    Our conclusion that the lower 48 United States entity is not 
currently in danger of extinction in all of its range is consistent 
with our historical view of the recovery of the species. We have long 
considered gray wolf recovery in the lower 48 states to mean recovery 
in three regions: The NRM, Eastern United States, and, as explained 
above, Southwestern United States. Wolves in the Southwestern United 
States (Mexican wolves) are listed separately with ongoing recovery 
efforts, and that listing is not affected by this final rule. Wolves in 
the remaining two regions, the NRM and Eastern United States, exist in 
two metapopulations that greatly exceed the recovery criteria for gray 
wolves in each region. Gray wolves in the NRM and Eastern United States 
(the Great Lakes area) meet the long-held recovery criteria set by the 
NRM Recovery Team and Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team (respectively) 
because these areas contain sufficient wolf numbers and distribution, 
threats have been alleviated, and the States and Tribes are committed 
to continued management such that the long-term survival of the gray 
wolf in these two regions is ensured. Although there is no requirement 
that the criteria in a recovery plan be satisfied before a species may 
be delisted, the fact that wolves in the NRM and Eastern United States 
regions have met the recovery criteria supports our conclusion that the 
metapopulations together contain sufficient wolf numbers and 
distribution to ensure the long-term survival of the lower 48 United 
States entity.
    The recovery of the lower 48 United States entity is attributable 
primarily to

[[Page 69891]]

successful interagency cooperation in the management of human-caused 
mortality. That mortality is the most significant barrier to the long-
term conservation of wolves. We expect that wildlife managers will 
implement, or continue to use, an adaptive management approach to 
wolves that ensures maintenance of a recovered wolf population into the 
foreseeable future. Legal harvest and lethal control to reduce 
depredations on livestock are the primary human-caused mortality 
factors that State, Tribal, and Federal agencies can manipulate to 
achieve management objectives and minimize depredation risk once 
delisting occurs.
    In the Western United States, the NRM States have successfully 
managed for sustainable wolf populations since the NRM DPS was first 
delisted in 2008-2009 (Idaho, Montana, eastern one-third of Washington 
and Oregon, north-central Utah) and 2008 and 2012 (Wyoming). Even with 
increased levels of human-caused mortality, gray wolf numbers have 
remained relatively stable in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming since the 
delisting of the NRM DPS and have increased in the broader Western 
United States as NRM wolves have expanded their range into the 
Washington and Oregon part of the NRM DPS, the West Coast States 
(western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California), and 
Colorado.
    The core NRM wolf populations occur in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 
These States have demonstrated their commitment to managing their wolf 
populations at or above recovery levels for years, and we do not expect 
this commitment to change. Further, while State wolf-management plans 
for Washington, Oregon, and California do not yet include population 
management goals, these plans include recovery objectives intended to 
ensure the reestablishment of self-sustaining populations in these 
States. We expect Washington, Oregon, and California will manage wolves 
through appropriate laws and regulations to ensure that the recovery 
objectives outlined in their respective wolf management plans are 
achieved.
    Wolves in the Eastern United States are well above Federal recovery 
levels defined in the revised Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan. As a 
result, we can expect to see some reduction in wolf populations in the 
Great Lakes area as States begin to institute management strategies 
designed to stabilize or reverse population growth, while continuing to 
maintain wolf populations well above Federal recovery levels in their 
respective States. Using an adaptive-management approach that adjusts 
harvest based on population estimates and trends, the initial 
objectives of States may be to reduce wolf populations and then manage 
for sustainable populations, similar to how States manage all other 
game species. For example, in 2013-2014, during a period when gray 
wolves were federally delisted in the Great Lakes area, Wisconsin 
reduced the State's wolf harvest quota by 43 percent in response to a 
population count that was lower than expected compared to the previous 
year.
    Based on our analysis, we conclude that eastern U.S. States will 
maintain, and NRM States will continue to maintain, wolf populations 
that will remain above recovery levels for the foreseeable future 
because the threat of unregulated human-caused mortality has been 
sufficiently reduced. The NRM States have successfully managed gray 
wolves well above recovery levels for years and we have no reason to 
believe this will change. As demonstrated by current State management, 
maintenance of the recovered wolf population in the NRM States is 
likely to continue, providing ample opportunities for wolves to 
continue to recolonize vacant suitable habitat in the West. In the 
Eastern United States, States have wolf-management laws, plans, and 
regulations that adequately regulate human-caused mortality and each 
has committed to manage its wolf population at or above recovery 
levels. We expect this commitment to continue into the foreseeable 
future. Wolf-monitoring programs, as described in the State wolf-
management plans, are likely to identify population parameters and 
trends that warrant corrective action, and we have no information that 
would lead us to question the commitment of wildlife management 
agencies to implementing these adaptive changes to ensure the recovered 
status of wolves. Based on our review, we conclude that regulatory 
mechanisms are adequate to maintain the recovered status of wolves in 
the two metapopulations in the lower 48 United States and, 
consequently, the lower 48 United States entity, once the currently 
listed gray wolf entities are federally delisted.
    Although much of the historical range of the lower 48 United States 
is no longer occupied, we find that the amount and distribution of 
occupied wolf habitat currently provides, and will continue to provide, 
large core areas that contain high-quality habitat of sufficient size 
and with sufficient prey to support recovered wolf populations. Our 
analysis of land management shows these areas, specifically Minnesota 
Wolf Management Zone A (Federal Wolf Management Zones 1-4), Wisconsin 
Wolf Zone 1, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in the Eastern United 
States, and large areas of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the Western 
United States, will maintain their suitability into the foreseeable 
future. Therefore, we conclude that, despite the loss of large areas of 
historical range in the lower 48 United States, the States of 
Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the East and Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming, in the West contain a sufficient amount of high-quality wolf 
habitat to support viable and recovered wolf populations into the 
foreseeable future. Further, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, 
and Utah contain suitable wolf habitat, much of which is currently 
unoccupied, that is capable of supporting additional wolves. Expansion 
of the NRM population into unoccupied suitable habitat in the Western 
United States is ongoing and is likely to continue post-delisting, 
which will increase wolf abundance and distribution in the United 
States. Although wolves in these areas would add additional redundancy, 
they are not necessary in order to conserve wolves to the point that 
they no longer meet the definitions of endangered or threatened under 
the Act.
    While disease and parasites can temporarily affect individuals, 
specific packs, or small, isolated populations (e.g., Isle Royale), 
seldom do they pose a significant threat to large wolf populations 
(e.g., core populations in the western United States and Great Lakes 
area) as a whole. As long as wolf populations are managed above 
recovery levels, these factors are not likely to threaten the viability 
of the wolf population in the lower 48 United States entity at any 
point in the foreseeable future. Similarly, while changes in genetic 
diversity or population structuring may occur post-delisting, they are 
not likely to be of such a magnitude that they pose a significant 
threat to the entity; available evidence indicates that continued 
dispersal, even at a lower rate, within and among areas of the lower 48 
United States will be adequate to maintain sufficient genetic diversity 
for continued viability. Climate change is also likely to remain an 
insignificant factor affecting the population dynamics of wolves into 
the foreseeable future, due to the adaptability of the species. 
Finally, based on our analysis, we conclude that cumulative effects of 
threats do not now, nor are likely to within the foreseeable future, 
threaten

[[Page 69892]]

the viability of the lower 48 United States entity throughout its 
range.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the lower 48 United States. We evaluated the status of the lower 48 
United States entity and assessed the factors likely to negatively 
affect it, including threats identified at listing, at the time of 
reclassification, now, and into the foreseeable future. While wolves 
currently occupy only a portion of their historical range in the lower 
48 United States, the best available information indicates that the 
lower 48 United States entity does not meet the definition of an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any one or a 
combination of the five factors set forth in the Act.
    Specifically, we have determined, based on the best available 
information, that human-caused mortality (Factor C); habitat and prey 
availability (Factor A); disease and parasites (Factor C); genetic 
diversity and inbreeding (Factor E); commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational uses (Factor B); climate change (Factor E); 
or other threats, singly or in combination, are not of sufficient 
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the lower 48 United 
States entity is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We have also 
determined that ongoing recovery efforts, which resulted in a 
significant expansion of the occupied range of and number of wolves in 
the lower 48 United States over the past decades, in conjunction with 
regulatory mechanisms developed and implemented by State, Tribal, and 
Federal managers, are or will be adequate to ensure the conservation of 
wolves in the lower 48 United States. These recovery efforts will 
maintain an adequate prey base, preserve denning and rendezvous sites, 
monitor disease, regulate human take, and maintain wolf populations 
well above the recovery criteria established in the revised Eastern 
Timber Wolf Recovery Plan and NRM recovery plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-28; 
USFWS 1987, p. 12). Based on our analysis of threats we conclude that, 
as long as wolf populations in the Eastern United States are maintained 
at or above identified recovery levels and core wolf populations in the 
NRM States continue to be maintained well above recovery levels, wolf 
biology (namely the species' reproductive capacity and dispersal 
capability) and the availability of large, secure blocks of suitable 
habitat within the occupied areas will allow wolf populations to 
withstand all other foreseeable threats.
    Therefore, after assessing the best available information, despite 
the large amount of lost historical range (see Historical Context of 
Our Analysis), we have determined that the lower 48 United States 
entity is not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, nor 
is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    Because we determined that the lower 48 United States entity is not 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range, we will consider whether there are 
any significant portions of its range that are in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a 
Significant Portion of Its Range
    After reviewing the biology of the lower 48 United States entity 
and potential threats, we have not identified any portions of the 
entity's range for which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., 
areas in which threats may be concentrated) and (2) the portion may be 
significant. We reiterate that ``range'' refers to the general 
geographical area within which the species is found at the time of our 
determination (see Definition and Treatment of Range). ``Portion of its 
range'' refers to the members of the species that occur in a particular 
geographic area of the species' current range. This is because, while 
``portion of the range'' is part of the species' range (i.e., a 
geographical area), when we evaluate a significant portion of its 
range, we consider the contribution of the individuals that are in that 
portion at the time we make a determination. While we identified some 
portions that may be at increased risk from human-caused mortality or 
factors related to small numbers, we did not find that any of these 
portions may be significant. We provide our analysis below.
    First, portions peripheral to the Great Lakes metapopulation within 
the lower 48 United States that may frequently contain lone dispersing 
wolves (e.g., the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, North and South Dakota) 
or contain relatively few wolves (e.g., Isle Royale) may be at greater 
risk from human-caused mortality or from factors related to small 
numbers of individuals. However, wolves in these portions are not 
meaningful to resiliency or redundancy because they contain few wolves, 
or few or no breeding pairs. They are not contributing to 
representation because they dispersed or descend from the core wolf 
populations in the Great Lakes metapopulation or, in the case of Isle 
Royale, are genetically isolated. Thus, these portions do not 
contribute to the overall demographic or genetic diversity of the lower 
48 United States entity, and they lack genetic uniqueness relative to 
other wolves in the entity. Further, gray wolves are a highly adaptable 
species with high dispersal capability, thus allowing them to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions. Therefore, we do not find that these 
portions may be ``significant'' because they are not biologically 
meaningful to the lower 48 United States entity in terms of its 
resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Second, portions peripheral to the western United Sates 
metapopulation within the lower 48 United States entity that may 
frequently contain lone dispersing wolves or contain relatively few 
wolves (e.g., central Rocky Mountains, western Washington, western 
Oregon, northern California) may be at greater risk from human-caused 
mortality or from factors related to small numbers of individuals. 
However, wolves in these portions are not meaningful to resiliency or 
redundancy because they contain few wolves, or few or no breeding 
pairs. They are not contributing to representation because they 
dispersed or descend from the core wolf populations in the NRM. Thus, 
these portions do not contribute to the overall demographic or genetic 
diversity of the lower 48 United States entity and they lack genetic 
uniqueness relative to other wolves in the entity. Further, gray wolves 
are a highly adaptable species with high dispersal capability, thus 
allowing them to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Therefore, 
we do not find that these portions may be ``significant'' because they 
are not biologically meaningful to the lower 48 United States entity in 
terms of its resiliency, redundancy, or representation.
    Third, State wolf-management zones in which post-delisting 
depredation control would be, or is, allowed under a broader set of 
circumstances than in core population zones (and, thus, would likely 
experience higher levels of human-caused mortality when the currently 
listed C. lupus entities are delisted), such as Minnesota Wolf 
Management Zone B, Wisconsin Wolf Management Zones 3 and 4, and areas 
of Wyoming in which wolves are managed as predators, may be at greater 
risk from human-caused mortality or from factors related to small 
numbers of individuals. However, the wolves in these portions occur on 
the periphery of large populations, occur in areas of

[[Page 69893]]

limited habitat suitability, and do not contribute appreciably to (and 
are thus not biologically meaningful to) the resiliency, redundancy, or 
representation of the lower 48 United States entity.
    Wolves in these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the resiliency of the lower 48 United States entity 
because, even though they may contain multiple established packs in 
addition to lone wolves, they constitute a small proportion of wolves 
in their respective populations and, consequently, the lower 48 United 
States entity (Minnesota Zone B contains about 15 percent of the 
Minnesota wolf population, Wisconsin Zones 3 and 4 contain about 6 
percent of the Wisconsin wolf population, and the Wyoming predator zone 
contains about 8 percent of the Wyoming wolf population (based on an 
estimated population of 26 wolves in this zone in 2019)). Thus, wolves 
in the higher intensity management zones do not contribute meaningfully 
to the ability of wolves in the lower 48 United States entity to 
withstand stochastic processes.
    Likewise, these higher intensity management zones are not 
meaningful to the redundancy of the lower 48 United States entity 
because wolves in these zones represent a relatively small number and 
distribution of packs or individuals in their respective States, and we 
found no indication that catastrophic events are likely to occur at a 
scale that would impact the long-term survival of wolves throughout 
these States. Thus, wolves in these higher intensity management zones 
do not contribute meaningfully to the ability of wolf populations in 
these States, the two metapopulations, or, consequently, the lower 48 
United States entity, to withstand catastrophic events. Wolves in these 
higher intensity management zones are not meaningful to the 
representation of the lower 48 United States entity because they are 
genetically similar to other wolves in the western U.S. or Great Lakes 
metapopulation and because gray wolves are a highly adaptable species 
with high dispersal capability, thus allowing them to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions. Therefore, we do not find that these portions 
may be significant because they are not biologically meaningful to the 
lower 48 United States entity in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, 
or representation.
    We conclude that there are no portions of the lower 48 United 
States entity for which both (1) gray wolves may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future and (2) the 
portion may be significant. As discussed above, some may be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, but we 
do not find that these portions may be significant under any reasonable 
definition of that term because they are not biologically meaningful to 
the lower 48 United States entity in terms of its resiliency, 
redundancy, or representation. Conversely, other portions that are or 
may be significant (i.e., the core areas of the Great Lakes and western 
U.S. metapopulations) are not in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future. Therefore, because we could not 
answer both screening questions in the affirmative for these portions, 
we conclude that these portions of the range do not warrant further 
consideration as a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we 
conclude that the lower 48 United States entity is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future within a 
significant portion of its range.
Lower 48 United States Entity: Final Determination
    After a thorough review of all available information and an 
evaluation of the five factors specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
as well as consideration of the definitions of ``threatened species'' 
and ``endangered species'' contained in the Act and the reasons for 
delisting as specified at 50 CFR 424.11(e), we conclude that removing 
gray wolves currently listed in the lower 48 United States from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) is 
appropriate. Although this entity is not a species as defined under the 
Act, we have collectively evaluated the current and potential threats 
to the lower 48 United States entity, including those that result from 
past loss of historical range. Wolves in the lower 48 United States 
entity do not meet the definition of a threatened species or an 
endangered species as a result of the reduction of threats as described 
in the analysis of threats and are neither currently in danger of 
extinction, nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
    Although substantial contraction of gray wolf historical range 
occurred within the lower 48 United States entity since European 
settlement, the range of the gray wolf has expanded significantly since 
its original listing in 1978, and the impacts of lost historical range 
are no longer manifesting in a way that threatens the viability of the 
species. The causes of the previous contraction (for example, targeted 
extermination efforts), and the effects of that contraction (for 
example, reduced numbers of individuals and populations, and restricted 
gene flow), in addition to the effects of all other threats, have been 
ameliorated or reduced such that the lower 48 United States entity does 
not meet the Act's definitions of ``threatened species'' or 
``endangered species.''

Determination of Species Status: Conclusion

    Gray wolves were listed under the Act in the 1970s, when the 
species numbered only about 1,000 individuals and occupied only 
northeastern Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan, a small fraction of 
its historical range in the lower 48 United States. Since then, our 
longstanding approach to gray wolf recovery has been to establish 
healthy populations of gray wolves in three areas of ecological or 
genetic diversity: The Western United States (the NRM), the Eastern 
United States, and the Southwestern United States. In two of those 
areas--the NRM and Eastern United States--wolves are now recovered. As 
a result, gray wolves in the lower 48 states (excepting the Mexican 
wolf) are recovered. The western U.S. metapopulation, with stable 
populations of about 1,900 wolves (in 2015) distributed across several 
States, has been delisted for years and remains recovered. The 
successful recovery of wolves in the NRM is highlighted by the recent 
and ongoing extension of the population farther westward, into western 
Washington, western Oregon, northern California, and southward into 
Colorado. The Great Lakes metapopulation, with stable or growing 
populations totaling over 4,200 wolves in three States, is also 
recovered for the reasons explained in this final rule. In the third 
area on which we have focused our recovery efforts--the Southwestern 
United States--the Mexican wolf subspecies of gray wolf is now 
separately listed as an endangered species and has not yet recovered. 
Recovery and delisting of gray wolves in the NRM and Eastern United 
States is consistent with the requirements of the Act and will further 
its conservation purposes by allowing us to focus our recovery efforts 
on imperiled wolves in the Southwestern United States.

Effects of This Rule

    This rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by removing the two existing C. 
lupus listed entities from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. This rule also removes the special regulations 
found at 50 CFR 17.40(d) for

[[Page 69894]]

wolves in Minnesota and the designation of critical habitat found at 50 
CFR 17.95(a) for gray wolves in Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan.

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 (PDM) is to verify that a species delisted due to 
recovery remains secure from risk of extinction after it no longer has 
the protections of the Act. To do this, PDM generally focuses on 
evaluating (1) demographic characteristics of the species, (2) threats 
to the species, and (3) implementation of legal and/or management 
commitments that have been identified as important in reducing threats 
to the species or maintaining threats at sufficiently low levels. Under 
section 4(g)(2) of the Act, we are required to make prompt use of the 
emergency-listing authority under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to prevent 
a significant risk to the well-being of any recovered species.
    Section 4(g) of the Act explicitly requires cooperation with the 
States in development and implementation of PDM programs. However, we 
remain responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, 
must remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM. We also will seek 
active participation of other State and Federal agencies or Tribal 
governments that are expected to assume management authority for the 
species' conservation. In some cases, agencies have already devoted 
significant resources toward wolf monitoring efforts.
    Our monitoring activities will focus on wolves within Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan. Although the entities evaluated in this rule 
include wolves outside of those states, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to focus on the Great Lakes area because it includes the 
currently-listed Minnesota entity and that portion of the 44-State 
entity that is most significant in terms of vulnerability of the 
species following removal of the Act's protections. Therefore, by 
evaluating the monitoring data from the Great Lakes states, we can 
effectively monitor the status of the species. As explained above (see 
Determination of Species Status), wolves occupying other portions of 
the lower 48 United States (the West Coast States and the central Rocky 
Mountains) occur in small numbers and are part of the recovered and 
delisted population of gray wolves in the NRM DPS. In the NRM states, 
post-delisting monitoring is either already completed (Idaho and 
Montana) or currently in place (Wyoming). This rule does not affect the 
status of wolves in the NRM DPS because they are already delisted and 
we are not revisiting that determination. Thus, even though we 
evaluated a lower 48 United States entity, the wolves in the NRM states 
are not included in our post-delisting monitoring activities for this 
rule.
    We will monitor wolves in the Great Lakes area in accordance with 
our February 2008 Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Western Great 
Lakes Distinct Population Segment of the Gray Wolf, which we developed 
with the assistance of the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team.
    The 2008 plan, although written for a distinct population segment 
that no longer exists, is still applicable within the Great Lakes area 
because it focuses on monitoring wolves within the borders of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and we have 
determined that there is no new information that would cause us to 
revise the plan. The plan is available on our website at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/population/index.html.
    Under the plan, we will rely on a continuation of State monitoring 
activities, similar to those that have been conducted by the Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources in recent 
years, and Tribal monitoring. These activities will include both 
population monitoring and health monitoring of individual wolves. 
During the PDM period, the Service will conduct a review of the 
monitoring data and program. We will consider various relevant factors 
(including, but not limited to, mortality rates, population changes and 
rates of change, disease occurrence, and range expansion or 
contraction) to determine if the population of wolves within the 
borders of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan 
warrants expanded monitoring, additional research, consideration for 
relisting as threatened or endangered, or emergency listing.
    Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan Departments of Natural Resources 
have monitored wolves for several decades with significant assistance 
from numerous partners, including the U.S. Forest Service, National 
Park Service, Wildlife Services, Tribal natural resource agencies, and 
the Service. To maximize comparability of future PDM data with data 
obtained before delisting, all three State Departments of Natural 
Resources have committed to continue their previous wolf-population-
monitoring methodology, or will make changes to that methodology only 
if those changes will not reduce the comparability of pre- and post-
delisting data. Occupancy modeling has emerged as a scientifically 
valid technique for estimating population size (Rich et al. 2013, 
entire; Ausband et al. 2014, entire) and is currently used by numerous 
States to track wolf numbers (e.g., Idaho, Minnesota, Montana). 
Wisconsin has begun to explore using data from traditional track 
surveys and radio-collared wolves in an occupancy modeling framework to 
develop model-driven estimates of wolf population size. However, 
current count-based estimates based on track surveys and data from 
radio-collared wolves will continue to be reported in future years, 
ensuring comparability of pre- and post-delisting population size 
estimates and allowing validation of estimates derived from occupancy 
models. Wisconsin may modify data collection methods in the future to 
more fully embrace the occupancy modeling approach, but only after 
validation of occupancy models for a minimum of 3 years and in 
consultation with Service staff.
    In addition to monitoring wolf population numbers and trends, post-
delisting monitoring will evaluate post-delisting threats, in 
particular human-caused mortality, disease, and implementation of legal 
and management commitments. If at any time during the monitoring period 
we detect a substantial downward change in the populations or an 
increase in threats to the degree that population viability may be 
threatened, we will work with the States and Tribes to evaluate and 
change (intensify, extend, and/or otherwise improve) the monitoring 
methods, if appropriate, and consider relisting the gray wolf, if 
warranted.
    We will implement post-delisting monitoring for 5 years beyond the 
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above). We believe that 5 years 
of post-delisting monitoring is sufficient for the reasons stated in 
the 2008 plan: (1) The Great Lakes population is estimated to be 
several times greater than the numerical delisting criteria in the 
recovery plan; and (2) we do not envision any threat or combination of 
threats that is or are likely to lead to a rapid decline in wolf 
numbers in those states. At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, we 
will conduct a final review and we may request reviews by former 
members of the Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Team and

[[Page 69895]]

other independent specialists. We will post the results of the review 
on our website. Based on the final review, we will determine whether to 
continue monitoring and evaluate whether the gray wolf meets the 
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act

    We determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment or an environmental impact statement, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to 
section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons 
for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 
FR 49244).

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), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.
    We coordinated the proposed rule with the affected Tribes and, 
furthermore, throughout several years of development of earlier related 
rules and the March 15, 2019, 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 
changes, and (2) to understand their concerns with those changes. Upon 
publication of the proposed rule, we invited federally recognized 
Tribes to consult on a government-to-government basis on our March 15, 
2019, proposed rule. We also presented an overview of the proposed rule 
at the 37th Annual-Native American Fish and Wildlife Society 
Conference. In preparation of this rule, we met with the Chippewa 
Ottawa Resources Authority Board and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and 
Wildlife Commission's Voigt Inter-Tribal Task Force to discuss the 
proposal. We also offered to meet individually with and discuss the 
proposal with any Tribe that wanted to do so and met with the Keweenaw 
Bay Indian Community Natural Resources Program, Fond du Lac Band of 
Chippewa Indians, and the Nez Perce. Additionally, we have fully 
considered all of the comments on the proposed rule submitted by Tribes 
and Tribal organizations and have attempted to address concerns, new 
data, and new information where appropriate.
    If requested, we will conduct additional consultations with Native 
American Tribes and multi-Tribal organizations subsequent to this final 
rule to facilitate the transition to State and Tribal management of 
wolves within the lower 48 United States outside of the NRM DPS, where 
wolves are already under State and Tribal management.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 or 
upon request from the Service's Headquarters Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are Service staff members.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


Sec.  17.11   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by removing both entries for ``Wolf, gray 
(Canis lupus)'' under Mammals in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.


Sec.  17.40   [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.40 by removing and reserving paragraph (d).


Sec.  17.95   [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  17.95(a) by removing the critical habitat entry for 
``Gray Wolf (Canis lupus).''

Aurelia Skipwith,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24171 Filed 11-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P