Federal Register: April 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 62)
DOCID: fr02ap09-8 FR Doc E9-5991
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Veterans Employment and Training Service
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17
RIN ID: RIN 1018-AW37
FWS ID: [FWS-R6-ES-2008-0008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr02ap09-8
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 4, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), identify a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States and revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing gray wolves within NRM DPS boundaries, except in Wyoming. The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the eastern onethird of Washington and Oregon, a small part of northcentral Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Our current estimate for 2008 indicates the NRM DPS contains approximately 1,639 wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). These numbers are about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive year the population has exceeded our numeric and distributional recovery goals.
The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws, management plans, and regulations that meet the requirements of the Act and will conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In our proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we noted that removing the Act's protections in Wyoming was dependant upon the State's wolf law (W.S. 116302 et seq. and 231101, et seq. in House Bill 0213) and wolf management plan adequately conserving Wyoming's portion of a recovered NRM wolf population. In light of the July 18, 2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.
We determine that the best scientific and commercial data available demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is not threatened or endangered throughout ``all'' of its range (i.e., not threatened or endangered throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of the range represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, this final rule removes the Act's protections throughout the NRM DPS except for Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will continue to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).
SUMMARY:
Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Background
Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 1880 kilograms (kg) (40175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 3134; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 13). Packs typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) and defend these areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available prey, intraspecies conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 1117).
Typically, only the topranking (``alpha'') male and female in each
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006,
pp. 2434; Service et al. 2008, Tables 13). Females and males
typically begin breeding as 2year olds and may annually produce young
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al.
19892007, Tables 13). Most years, four of these five pups survive
until winter (Service et al. 19892008, Tables 13). Wolves can live 13
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be
[[Page 15124]]
quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be
reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003,
p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf
populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very
high levels of humancaused mortality or disease. After severe
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have
been documented in lowdensity suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181183; Service et al. 2008, Table 4).
For detailed information on the biology of this species see the ``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).
Previous Federal Actions
In 1974, we listed two subspecies of gray wolf as endangered: The NRM gray wolf (C. l. irremotus) and the eastern timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17740) in Mexico and the southwestern U.S. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and Mexico.
In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, we designated critical habitat in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. In the NRM, we completed a recovery plan in 1980 and revised in 1987. In the Great Lakes Region, we completed a recovery plan in 1978 and revised in 1992. In the Southwest, we completed a recovery plan in 1982.
On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act, including the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in States with Serviceapproved postdelisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)).
The NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the 3rd successive year (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). To meet the Act's requirements Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post delisting wolf management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms would exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels. However, we found the 2003 Wyoming legislation and plan inadequate to conserve Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 2004). Wyoming challenged this determination but the Federal district court in Wyoming dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision and on April 3, 2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling (442 F. 3rd 1262).
On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced a 12month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal District Court. On February 27, 2008, Federal District Judge issued an order dismissing the case (Wyoming U.S. District Court Case Number 2:06CV00245).
On February 8, 2007, we proposed to identify the NRM DPS of the gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal noted that the Act's protections would be retained in significant portions of the range in Wyoming in the final rule if adequate regulatory mechanisms were not developed to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. Under this scenario, wolves in portions of Wyoming would continue to be regulated under the Act as a nonessential, experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).
On July 6, 2007, the Service extended the comment period in order to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf management plan and State law that we believed, if implemented, could allow the wolves in all of Wyoming to be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then determined this plan provided adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 2). On February 27, 2008, we issued a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing all of this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514). This rule determined that Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms were adequate.
On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a lawsuit challenging the
identification and delisting of the NRM DPS. The plaintiffs also moved
to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana granted the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's
implementation of the final delisting rule for the NRM DPS of the gray
wolf. The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf
population that lacked evidence of genetic exchange between
subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and
capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 statute and wolf
management plan because the State failed to commit to managing for at
least 15 breeding pairs and Wyoming's 2007 statute allowed the WGFC to
diminish the trophy game area if it ``determines the diminution does
not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's
management of wolves.'' The court's preliminary injunction order
concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the [[Page 15125]]
merits of their claims. In light of the district court order, on
September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and
remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court vacated the final
delisting rule and remanded it back to the Service for further consideration.
Similarly, on February 8, 2007, we recognized a Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed it from the list of the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). Several groups challenged this rule in court, arguing that the Service may not identify a DPS within a broader preexisting listed entity for the purpose of delisting the DPS (Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 070677 (PLF) (D.D.C.)). On September 29, 2008, the court vacated the WGL DPS final rule and remanded it to the Service. The court found that the Service had made that decision based on its interpretation that the plain meaning of the Act authorizes the Service to create and delist a DPS within an alreadylisted entity. The court disagreed, and concluded that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority. The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service can provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act.
Given the above court rulings, on October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926), we reopened the comment period on our February 8, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we sought information, data, and comments from the public regarding the 2007 proposal with an emphasis on new information relevant to this action, the issues raised by the Montana District Court, and the issues raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to the WGL gray wolf DPS. The notice also asked for public comment on what portions of Wyoming need to be managed as a trophy game area and what portions of Wyoming constitute a significant portion of the NRM DPS's range. After further analysis, we determined that Wyoming's regulatory framework did not meet the requirements of the Act. On January 15, 2009 Wyoming's Governor was notified that Wyoming no longer had a Service approved wolf management plan (Gould 2009). Wolf management in all of Wyoming (except the Wind River Tribal Lands because the tribe had a Serviceapproved plan) again became immediately under the less flexible provisions of the 1994 experimental population rules [17.84 (i)].
We are required to rely upon the best scientific information currently available. Therefore, this final rule reflects new data and information primarily concerning wolf population numbers, livestock depredations and wolf control, and genetic exchange that were received after the 2008 public comment period. This new data and information are consistent with and did not change our conclusions stated in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the notice for the reopened comment period.
For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 2003 Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006), the 12month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to designate the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service published a policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Under this policy, the Service considers two factors to determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS(1) discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS, and the Service then evaluates the population segment's conservation status according to the standards in section 4 of the Act for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or threatened).
Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS
We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated for DPS status based on discreteness and significance as defined by our DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade (e.g., road or highway) boundary to be used as a boundary of convenience for clearly identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. Specifically, the DPS includes that portion of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, the DPS includes that portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The centers of these roads are deemed the boundary of the DPS (See Figure 1).
This DPS is consistent with over 30 years of recovery efforts in
the NRMs in that: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S. historic range of
the NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3;
Service 1987, p. 2) which was the originally listed entity in 1974 (39
FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the DPS boundaries are inclusive of the
areas focused on by both NRM recovery plans (Service 1980, pp. 78;
Service 1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS)
(Service 1994, Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusive of the entire
CentralIdaho and Yellowstone Nonessential Experimental Population
areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).
BILLING CODE 431055P
[[Page 15126]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.003
One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2007 (Service et al. 2008, Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did not persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs from 2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) through 2008 (Service et al. 20032009, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press). Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we used the 2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634).
Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the
boundaries for the DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances of
over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 2005
(Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d). These data indicate that the
average dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60
mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; Thiessen 2007,
p. 33; Jimenez et al. 2008d). We determined that 290 km (180 mi), three
times the average dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for
unusually longdistance dispersal out from existing wolf pack
territories (Jimenez et al. 2008, Figures 2 and 3). Only 11 wolves (none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed
[[Page 15127]]
farther outside the core population areas and remained in the U.S. None
of these wolves returned to the core population in Montana, Idaho, or
Wyoming. Only dispersal from the NRM packs to areas within the U.S. was
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine
the appropriate DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada
were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal difference
because the distribution of suitable habitat and level of human
persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the U.S.,
potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average
dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from
existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated
a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support
intermittent additional pack establishment from the core wolf
population given the availability of patches of nearby suitable
habitat. Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not be
applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 1316).
We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, pp. 555558) and throughout the western U.S. (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 2730) by comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and predictions of those models (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559; Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) were similar in many respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant yearround wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; Service et al. 19992009, Figures 14, Tables 13). The models indicate little habitat is suitable for pack persistence within the portion of the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah although dispersing wolves may utilize these areas (See Factor A).
Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries of our DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 2008, Figures 14, Table 4) indicate that nonforested rangeland and croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to humancaused mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a broad boundary separating the NRM population from both the southwestern and Midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the western U.S.
We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because(1) these areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing wolves have been documented in these areas more than once in recent times (Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d); (3) these areas contain some suitable habitat (see Factor A); (4) the potential for connectivity exists between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS; and (5) most of the area lies within the historic range of the NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) originally listed under the Act in 1974 (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat suitability models indicate these nearby areas would likely be more connected to the core populations in central Idaho and northwestern Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might become established in other large blocks of potentially suitable habitat farther beyond the NRM DPS boundary. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the DPS from other large patches of suitable habitat to the west or south (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541).
Although we have received reports of individual and wolf packs in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 713), agency efforts to confirm them have been unsuccessful and to date no individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd et al. 2007). However, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of the North Cascades), in July 2008. Their territory is west of the NRM DPS boundary. Genetic analysis indicated the two adults did not come from the wolf population in the NRM DPS. Instead, they likely originated from southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). This confirms the appropriateness of our western DPS boundary and our conclusion that intervening unsuitable habitat makes it unlikely that wolves have or will disperse between the North Cascades and the NRM population. However, if additional wolves disperse into the North Cascades, they will remain protected by the Act as endangered because it is outside of the NRM DPS.
We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS
because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2)
expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal
distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only
areas unsuitable habitat for pack persistence and does not effect the
distinctness of the NRM DPS. DPS boundaries that include all of
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are also consistent with the 1994
designations of the CentralIdaho and Yellowstone Nonessential
Experimental Population areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)). Although including
all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including portions of the
Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do not consider
these areas to be suitable wolf habitat for pack persistence because of
their size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing
wolves. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 558559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not to
analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming because they are fairly
intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed
by, private land, making pack establishment and persistence unlikely.
While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas
[[Page 15128]]
were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current
conditions these areas were largely sink habitat (i.e., a habitat in
which the species' mortality exceeds reproductive success) and that by
2025 (within the foreseeable future) they were likely to be ranked as
low occupancy because of human population growth and road development.
We chose not to extend the NRM DPS boundary east beyond Montana and Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of NRM wolves. Given the available information on potentially suitable habitat, expansion of the DPS to include Colorado or larger portions of Utah to the south and west would have included large areas of potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat in those States (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541). Given the current distribution of the NRM wolf population to suitable habitat, we concluded that a smaller DPS containing occupied suitable habitat, the adjacent areas of largely unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, and that was distinct from other large contiguous blocks of potentially suitable habitat to the west and south was more biologically appropriate. This DPS is also reflective of areas of recovery focus over the last 30 years (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; Service 1980; Service 1987; Service 1994; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).
Analysis for Discreteness
Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions(1) is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the TaxonThe eastern edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the western edge of the area currently occupied by the WGL wolf population (eastern Minnesota) and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat (see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS boundary is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental populations of wolves in the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. While one dispersing wolf was confirmed east and two south of the DPS boundary, no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from other U.S. wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the NRM DPS.
Until recently, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS boundary (although we occasionally got unconfirmed reports and 2 wolves were killed close to that boundary). Then, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundaries). These wolves did not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they likely originated from southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). The pack's territory is outside the NRM DPS and remains discrete from the NRM gray wolf population. The pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Should this pack persist and other wolves follow, they would remain separated from the NRM DPS by unsuitable wolf habitat.
Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166 167; Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 12; Ream et al. 1991, pp. 351352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM wolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez 2008d; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 11 of over 200 confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core population (Boyd and Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007). Undoubtedly many other dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been radiocollared. All but three of these known U.S. longdistance dispersers remained within the proposed DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form packs or breed in the U.S. (Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez 2008d).
The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond the boundary of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along Interstate 70 in northcentral Colorado in spring 2004. Although not confirmed, in early 2006, video footage of a black wolflike canid was taken near Walden in northern Colorado, suggesting another dispersing wolf had traveled into Colorado. The subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. On March 7, 2009, a dispersing wolf from the Yellowstone area was located by GPS radiotelemetry near Vail, Colorado. Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was found along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed it was a wolf that had dispersed from the Yellowstone area.
No other unusual wolf dispersal events were documented in the NRM DPS in 2008. A radiocollared wolf from central Idaho continues to live in the GYA. It formed a new pack and bred in 2009. A report of a pack of wolves in northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge Reservoir (outside the NRM DPS) was investigated in spring 2008. The existence of this pack was not confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with pups in northeastern Oregon (inside the NRM DPS) was investigated in August 2008. The existence of this pack was not confirmed. A photograph of a black wolflike canid taken in late 2008 in the central Cascade Range in Oregon (outside the NRM DPS) but its origin and fate remain unknown.
We expect that occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse between and beyond the currently occupied wolf habitat areas in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into States adjacent to the NRM DPS. However, pack development and persistence outside the NRM DPS is unlikely because wolves disperse as individuals that typically have low survival (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is limited and distant (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) from the NRM wolf population.
No connectivity currently exists between the NRM wolf population and any other U.S. wolf packs or populations. While it is theoretically possible that a lone wolf might travel between the NRM wolf population and other U.S. packs or populations, such movement has never been documented and is likely to be rare because of both the distance and the intervening areas of unsuitable habitat.
Furthermore, the DPS policy does not require complete separation of
one DPS from other U.S. packs or populations, but instead requires
``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional individual wolves or packs
disperse among populations, the NRM DPS could still display the required discreteness. Based on the information presented
[[Page 15129]]
above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly separated from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.
Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf PopulationsThe DPS policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). If delisted, States in the NRM would carefully monitor and manage to retain populations at or above the recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the U.S.Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the DPS due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.
Analysis for Significance
If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/ or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Below we address factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological SettingWithin the range of holarctic species, the NRM has amongst the highest diversity of large predators and native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, and vegetation (Smith et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves share habitats with black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (U. arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and diverse assemblage of native prey include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to dramatic and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in YNP. While these effects likely still occur at varying degrees elsewhere they are increasingly modified and subtle the more an area is affected by humans (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334338; Robbins 2004, pp. 8081; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and competition with other native ungulates in YNP. These complex interactions may increase streamside willow production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This suspected pattern of wolfcaused changes also may be occurring with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a yearround source of food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf population in the NRM has extended the southern range of the contiguous gray wolf population in western North America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into a much more diverse, ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of species than is found elsewhere within occupied wolf habitat in most of the northern hemisphere.
Significant Gap in the Range of the TaxonWolves once lived throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15degree latitudinal or over 1,600 km (1,000 mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts would occur in the NRM, most noticeably in the most pristine and wildest areas (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334338; Robbins 2004, pp. 8081; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press, pp. 16).
Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, recovery in portions of the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and currently constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 States.
We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, it is a valid DPS.
Agency's Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Of the over 370 native vertebrate ``species'' listed under the Act,
77 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies
(henceforth referred to as populations) under one of several
authorities including the DPS language in the definition of
``species''. Of these 77 listed populations 32 predate the 1996 DPS
policy (61 FR 4722); therefore, the final listing determinations for
these populations did not include formal DPS analyses per the 1996 DPS
policy. Specifically, the 77 populations encompass 51 different species
or subspecies. During the history of the Act, the Service and NMFS have taken actions with respect to populations in 98 listing,
reclassification, and delisting actions. The majority of those actions
identified a classification other than a taxonomically recognized
species or subspecies at the time of listing. In several instances,
however, the agencies have identified a DPS and, as appropriate,
revised the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in a single
action. For example, we (1) established a DPS of the grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area and surrounding area,
[[Page 15130]]
within the existing listing of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States,
and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife (March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2) established two DPSs of the
Columbian whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus): The
Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River DPS; and removed the Douglas
County DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (July
24, 2003; 68 FR 43647); (3) removed the brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis) in the Southeastern United States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continued to identify the brown
pelican as endangered throughout the remainder of its range (February
4, 1985; 50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American crocodile (Crocodylus
acutus) in Florida as a DPS within the existing endangered listing of
the American crocodile in the United States and reclassified the
Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR
13027); and (5) amended the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants by revising the entry for the gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population from the List
while retaining the western North Pacific population as endangered
(June 16, 1994; 59 FR 31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to identify
four DPSs within the existing listing of the gray wolf in the lower 48
States and to reclassify three of the DPSs from endangered to
threatened (July 13, 2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above under
``Previous Federal Action,'' the final rule we issued in 2003
identified three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified two of the DPSs from
endangered to threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). Although courts
subsequently invalidated these DPSs, they did not question the
Service's authority to identify and reclassify DPSs within a larger
preexisting listing. Identifying and delisting the Western Great Lakes
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and does not represent a change in agency position.
Recovery
Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery CriteriaShortly after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to reestablish and maintain viable populations of the NRM wolf (C. l. irremotus) in its former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii) but there were no recovery goals. The 1980 plan covered an area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was once believed to be the range of the NRM wolf subspecies. It recommended that recovery actions be focused on the large areas of public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. The revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to gray wolves in the NRMs. Consistent with the 1980 plan it also recommended focusing recovery actions on the large blocks on public land in the NRM. The 1987 plan specified a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands); (2) central Idaho (SelwayBitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the AbsarokaBeartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, but that connectivity between them be somehow encouraged. However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, p. 115, 16; Service 1999, p. 2).
The 1994 EIS on wolf reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the
NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals because we were concerned
that the 1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:6878).
We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding
pair, since any male and female wolf are `capable' of producing
offspring and lone wolves may not have territories. We also believed
the relatively small `hard' recovery areas greatly reduced the amount
of area that could be used by wolves and would almost certainly
eliminate the opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and
genetic connectivity. The Service conducted a thorough literature
review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable
populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations,
surveyed the opinions of the top 43 wolf experts in North America, of
which 25 responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of
the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's
EIS and in a peerreviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts
and Carbyn 1995, pp. 2638). Our analysis concluded that the 1987
recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that
modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information
about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded
``Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater
resiliency than indicated by theory'' and theoretical treatments of
population viability ``have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf
recovery programs by overstating the required population size'' (Fritts
and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding
pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at
least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their
birth, during the previous breeding season. We also concluded that
``Thirty or more breeding pair comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially
[[Page 15131]]
isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have a high probability of longterm
persistence'' because it would contain enough individuals in
successfully reproducing packs that were distributed over distinct but
somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the longterm (Service
1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange
could occur by natural means or by humanassisted migration management
and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of
that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9). In defining
a ``Recovered Wolf Population'' we found ``in the northern Rockies a
recovered wolf population is 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3
areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between
areas'' (Service 1994, p. 67). We further determined that a
metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three areas of
core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
Since 1994, we have believed movement of individuals between the metapopulation segements could occur either naturally or by human assisted migration management (Service 1994, p. 767). Specifically, we stated ``The importance of movement of individuals between sub populations cannot be overemphasized. The dispersal ability of wolves makes such movement likely, unless wolves were heavily exploited between recovery areas, as could happen in the more developed corridor between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive migration management might become necessary if 1 of the 3 subpopulations should develop genetic or demographic problems. (We saw) no reason why migration management should be viewed negatively. It will be a necessity in other wolf recovery programs. Some, however, may view such management intervention as `unnatural' '' (Service 1994, p. 767). Furthermore, we found ``that the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years (was) reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat conservative, however, and should be considered minimal. The addition of a few extra pairs would add security to the population and should be considered in the postEIS management planning. That could always be done as a periodic infusion if deemed necessary'' (Service 1994, p. 675).
We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We attempted
to survey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43
other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized
experts about wolves and/or conservation biology. In total 53 people
provided their expert opinion regarding a wide range of issues related
to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature,
including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs
2002, pp. 19). Despite varied professional opinions and a great
diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery
goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate
than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a
viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic
exchange, either natural or humanfacilitated, was important to
maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population
viability. Reviewers also thought the proven ability of a breeding pair
to show successful reproduction was a necessary component of a
biologically meaningful breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended
other concepts/numbers for recovery goals, but most were slight
modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While
experts strongly (78 percent) supported that our 1994 conclusions
represented a viable wolf population, they also tended to believe that
wolf population viability was enhanced by higher rather than lower
population levels and longer than shorter demonstrated time frames. Five hundred wolves and five years were common minority
recommendations. A slight majority indicated that even the 1987
recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female
capable of breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas may be
viable, given the persistent of other small wolf populations in other
parts of the world. The results of previous population viability
analysis for other wolf populations varied widely, and as we had
concluded in our 1994 analysis, reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical
results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used
in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than
actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that
review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition
of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, p. 19).
The 2002 reevaluation of the 1994 wolf recovery goal by a broader
spectrum of experts in wolf conservation also repeatedly recognized
connectivity among the core recovery areas as critical, but this
connectivity could be achieved through naturally dispersing wolves and/
or by humanassisted migration management. Specifically, we stated
``Connectivity was the single issue brought up most often by reviewers.
Many commented that wolves are unusually good dispersers and movement
between core recovery areas was probably not going to be a significant
wolf conservation issue in the NRM. Several believed that wolves would
soon colonize neighboring states. Nearly everyone commented that the
interchange of individuals between the sections of the metapopulation
and more importantly maintenance of connection to the Canadian
population. Several comments emphasized the importance of maintaining
some minimum number of wolves in northwestern Montana to maintain the
connection to the Canadian population. Other reviewers noted that such
connectivity could be easily maintained by management actions (such as
translocation) rather than natural dispersal. Movement into the GYA was
mentioned as a specific concern by some because that was the only
recovery area where wolf movement from other recovery areas appeared it
could be a concern, and it was the southernmost tip of a much larger
connected North American wolf population. A majority believed the
Service's proposal defined a viable wolf population but others believed
it needed to be improved by providing a measurable definition of
connectivity. Others believed that documenting successful reproduction
was an important measure of population viability and liked the concept
used in the 1994 EIS definition. The importance of future wolf
management (state or tribal management), primarily in maintaining
humancaused mortality below a level that would cause extirpation and
management that would foster some connectivity (either natural or man
induced) were the most critical components of determining longterm
population viability * * * The true test of wolf population viability
will be determined by subsequent management practices. Past management practicessuch as (1) reintroduction of wolves
[[Page 15132]]
from two Canadian sources (Alberta and British Columbia) and from
numerous packs in each area, (2) subsequent management relocations
between all three recovery areas, (3) the natural dispersal
capabilities of wolves and proximity of core recovery areas to one
another, (4) documented routine interchange with Canadian wolf
populations and between Idaho and northwestern Montana, (5) a young
population age structure with successful pup production and survival,
and (6) the establishment of wolf populations in and around core
refugia (central Idaho Wilderness, YNP, Glacier National Park and
associated public lands to these areas) have produced a robust and
viable wolf population that currently has very high genetic and
demographic diversity that occupies core refugia in the highest quality
wolf habitat in the NRM of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Maintenance of
those conditions in the wolf population will depend solely on longterm
future management to (1) regulate humancaused mortality and (2)
maintain genetic connectivity among population segments, including
Canada, either through deliberate relocation of wolves and/or
encouraging sufficient natural dispersal'' (Bangs 2002, pp. 34, 89).
Development of the Service's recovery goal clearly recognized that the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments and/or by humanassist migration management in the unlikely event it was ever required (Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Groen et al. 2008).
We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use `breeding pairs' (packs that have at least an adult male and an adult female and that raised at least 2 pups until December 31) to describe successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 78; Mitchell et al. 2008). The breeding pair metric includes most of the important biological concepts in wolf conservation. Specifically, we thought it was important for breeding pairs to have: Both male and female member together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation of a distinct territory (generally 5001,300 km\2\ (200500 mi\2\) and almost always in suitable habitat); enough pups to replace two adults; offspring that become yearling dispersers; at least 4 wolves following the point in the year with the highest mortality rates (summer and fall); all social structures and age classes represented within a wolf population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger wolves.
Often we do not know if a specific pack actually contains an adult male, adult female, and two pups in winter; however, group size has proven to have a strong correlation with breeding pair status (Mitchell et al. 2008). Research indicates a pack size of around 9 equates to one breeding pair (large packs have complex age classespups, yearlings and older adults). In the future, the States may be able to use pack size in winter as a surrogate to help reliably identify each pack's contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf population recovery.
We also have determined that an essential part of achieving recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and individual wolves among the three States and the three recovery zones. Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery and longterm wolf population viability is dependent on its distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well distributed population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM and to facilitate natural connectivity.
Following the 2002 review of our recovery criteria, we began to use States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 20032009, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be best conserved by equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States. This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared recovery area that was the responsibility of the adjacent State. State regulatory authorities and traditional management of resident game populations occur on a StatebyState basis. Management by State would still maintain a robust wolf population in each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural refugia from humancaused mortality (e.g., National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of dispersing wolves in each State. Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery areas and promote a minimum level of potential natural dispersal to and from each population segment. This approach also will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is shared by all three States. A large and well distributed population within the GYA is especially important because it is the most isolated recovery segment within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19).
The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum number of breeding pairs and individual wolves needed to achieve and maintain recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf population always exceeds the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, wolves in each State shall be managed for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in midwinter. This and other steps, including human assisted migration management if required (discussed below), will maintain the NRM DPS's current metapopulation structure. Further buffering our minimum recovery goal is the fact that Service data since 1986 indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each breeding pair has corresponded to 14 wolves in the overall NRM wolf population in mid winter (including many wolves that travel outside these recognized breeding pairs) (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). Thus, managing for 15 breeding pairs per State will result in substantially more than 150 wolves in each State (>600 in the NRM). Additionally, because the recovery goal components are measured in midwinter when the wolf population is near its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be much higher than these minimal goals.
We further improved, provided additional safety margins, and
assured that the minimum recovery criteria would always be exceeded in
our 2009 postdelisting monitoring plan. Three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to
[[Page 15133]]
determine if relisting is warranted including: (1) If the wolf
population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf
population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves
in either Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming at the end of the year; (2) if
the portion of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls
below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one
of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State
law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to
the wolf population. Overall, we believe the NRM wolf population will
be managed for over 1,000 wolves including over 300 wolves and 30
breeding pairs in the GYA (in 2008 there were 35 breeding pairs and 449
wolves in the GYA). This far exceeds postdelisting management targets
of at least 45 breeding pairs and more than 450 wolves in the NRM. The
NRM wolf population: (1) Has at least this number of reproductively
successful packs and this number of individual wolves each winter (near
the low point in the annual cycle of a wolf population); (2) is
equitably distributed within the 250,000 km\2\ (100,000 mi\2\) area
containing 3 areas of large core refugia (National Parks, wilderness
areas, large blocks of remote secure public land) and at least 170,228
km\2\ (65,725 mi\2\) of suitable wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically
diverse and has demonstrated successful genetic exchange through
natural dispersal and humanassisted migration management between all
three core refugia. It therefore no longer needs the protections of the Act and is a viable and fully recovered wolf population.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 4495225, extension 204. Individuals who are hearingimpaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 18008778337 for TTY assistance.