Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves
Federal RegisterApr 1, 2003
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF20
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Reclassify and Remove the Gray Wolf From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in Portions of the Conterminous United States; Establishment of Two Special Regulations for Threatened Gray Wolves
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) hereby changes the classification of the gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We establish three distinct population segments (DPS) for the gray wolf in the conterminous United States. Gray wolves in the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS are reclassified from endangered to threatened, except where already classified as threatened or as an experimental population. Gray wolves in the Southwestern DPS retain their previous endangered or experimental population status. All three existing gray wolf experimental population designations are retained and are not affected by this rule. Gray wolves are removed from the protections of the Act in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. We establish a new special regulation under section 4(d) of the Act for the threatened Western DPS to increase our ability to respond to wolf-human conflicts outside the two experimental population areas in the Western DPS. A second section 4(d) special regulation applies provisions similar to those previously in effect in Minnesota to most of the Eastern DPS. We find that these special rules are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Western DPS and the Eastern DPS. The classification, under the Act, of captive gray wolves is determined by the location from which they, or their ancestors, were removed from the wild. This final rule does not affect the protection currently afforded by the Act to the red wolf (
Canis rufus
), a separate species found in the southeastern United States that is listed as endangered.
DATES:
This rule becomes effective April 1, 2003. The explanation of the need for an immediate effective date is found in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section under the heading
Need for Immediate Implementation.
ADDRESSES:
The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Midwest Regional Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Call 612-713-5350 to make arrangements. The comments and materials we received during the comment period are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at this and other Regional Offices and several of our Ecological Services field offices. Use the contact information in the next paragraph to obtain the addresses of those locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
Direct all questions or requests for additional information to the Service using the Gray Wolf Phone Line—612-713-7337, facsimile—612-713-5292, the general gray wolf electronic mail address—
GRAYWOLFMAIL@FWS.GOV,
or write to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056. Additional information is also available on our World Wide Web site at
http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf
. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This rule begins with discussions on the biology, ecology, taxonomy, and the historical range of the gray wolf. We then describe previous Federal listing actions taken for the gray wolf. Next we provide information concerning specific issues related to this rulemaking, including our Vertebrate Population Policy, experimental population designations, and wolf-dog hybrids. We conclude this introductory section with a discussion on the recovery of the gray wolf.
We next provide a summary of the many and diverse comments and recommendations on the proposal. All substantive issues that were raised during that comment period are described, and we present our response to each of those issues.
A detailed discussion is then presented for the five listing factors as required by the Act. We analyze these factors for the reclassification of certain populations in response to the current status of the species, which encompasses present and future threats and conservation efforts. We designate three distinct population segments (DPSs), and we also discuss how this listing affects wolves in captivity and their role in wolf recovery.
We next describe the differences between our July 13, 2000, proposal (65 FR 43450) and this final rule. In our proposal, we identified a variety of alternative actions that we considered but did not propose, and we explained the reasons for selecting the proposed action. We also requested comments on those alternatives. Those alternatives will not be discussed in this rule except in the cases where they were adopted or partially adopted in our final decision, or were otherwise addressed in substantive comments that we received.
Separate sections explain the two special regulations that are being adopted and how these special regulations are consistent with the conservation of the gray wolf within their respective DPSs. We also explain the conservation measures that are being provided to the species by this rule. The text of the regulatory changes for the gray wolf is found at the end of this document.
A. Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves
Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg)(40 to 175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and subspecies (Mech 1974). The average weight of male wolves in Wisconsin is 35 kg (77 lb) and ranges from 26 to 46 kg (57 to 102 lb), while females average 28 kg (62 lb) and range from 21 to 34 kg (46 to 75 lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) 1999a). In the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, adult male gray wolves average just over 45 kg (100 lb), while the females weigh slightly less. Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black. Wolves may appear similar to coyotes (
Canis latrans
) and some domestic dog breeds (such as the German shepherd or Siberian husky) (
C. familiaris
). However, wolves' longer legs, larger feet, wider head and snout, and straight tail distinguish them from both coyotes and dogs.
Wolves primarily are predators of medium and large mammals. Wild prey species in North America include white-tailed deer (
Odocoileus virginianus
) and mule deer (
O. hemionus
), moose (
Alces alces
), elk (
Cervus canadensis
), woodland caribou (
Rangifer caribou
) and barren ground caribou (
R. arcticus
), bison (
Bison bison
), muskox (
Ovibos moschatus
), bighorn sheep (
Ovis canadensis
) and Dall sheep (
O. dalli
), mountain goat (
Oreamnos americanus
),
beaver (
Castor canadensis
), and snowshoe hare (
Lepus americanus
), with small mammals, birds, and large invertebrates sometimes being taken (Mech 1974, Stebler 1944, WI DNR 1999a). In the Midwest, during the last 22 years, wolves have also killed domestic animals including horses (
Equus caballus
), cattle (
Bos taurus
), sheep (
Ovis aries
), goats (
Capra hircus
), llamas (
Lama glama
), pigs (
Sus scrofa
), geese (
Anser sp.
), ducks (
Anas sp.
), turkeys (
Meleagris gallopavo
), chickens (
Gallus sp.
), pheasants (
Phasianus colchicus
), dogs, and cats (
Felis catus
) (Paul 2001, Wydeven
et al.
2001a). Since 1987, wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have also killed domestic animals, including llamas, horses, cattle, sheep, and dogs (Service
et al.
2002).
Wolves are social animals, normally living in packs of 2 to 12 wolves. However, 2 packs within Yellowstone National Park (NP) had 22 and 27 members in 2000, and Yellowstone's Druid Peak pack increased to 37 members in 2001 (Service
et al.
2001, 2002). Packs are primarily family groups consisting of a breeding pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from the previous year, and occasionally an unrelated wolf. Packs typically occupy, and defend from other packs and individual wolves, a territory of 50 to 550 square kilometers (sq km) (20 to 214 square miles (sq mi)). However, in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains territories tend to be larger, usually from 520 to 1,040 sq km (200 to 400 sq mi), and in Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada, territories of up to 2,700 sq km (1,042 sq mi) have been recorded (Carbyn
in litt.
2000). Normally, only the top-ranking (“alpha”) male and female in each pack breed and produce pups. Litters are born from early April into May; they can range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally include 4 to 6 pups (Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) 1997; Service 1992a; Service
et al.
2001). Normally a pack has a single litter annually, but producing 2 or 3 litters in one year has been documented in Yellowstone NP (Service
et al.
2002). Yearling wolves frequently disperse from their natal packs, although some remain with their natal pack. Dispersers may become nomadic and cover large areas as lone animals, or they may locate suitable unoccupied habitat and a member of the opposite sex and begin their own territorial pack. Dispersal movements on the order of 800 km (500 mi) have been documented (Fritts 1983; James Hammill, Michigan DNR,
in litt.
2001).
The gray wolf historically occurred across most of North America, Europe, and Asia. In North America, gray wolves formerly occurred from the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico. The only areas of the conterminous United States that apparently lacked gray wolf populations since the last glacial events are parts of California and portions of the eastern and southeastern United States (an area occupied by the red wolf). In addition, wolves were generally absent from the extremely arid deserts and the mountaintops of the western United States (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, Nowak 2000). (Refer to the
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
section below for additional discussion.)
European settlers in North America and their cultures often had superstitions and fears of wolves. Their attitudes, coupled with perceived and real conflicts between wolves and human activities along the frontier, led to widespread persecution of wolves. Poisons, trapping, and shooting-spurred by Federal, State, and local government bounties-resulted in extirpation of this once widespread species from more than 95 percent of its range in the 48 conterminous States. At the time of the passage of the Act, likely only several hundred wolves occurred in northeastern Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan, and possibly a few scattered wolves in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Montana, and the American Southwest.
Researchers have learned a great deal about gray wolf biology, especially regarding the species' adaptability and its use of nonwilderness habitats. Public appreciation of the role of predators in our ecosystems has increased, and we believe that the recovery of the species is widely supported. Most importantly, within the last decade the prospects for gray wolf recovery in several areas of their former historical United States range have greatly increased. In the western Great Lakes area, wolves have dramatically increased their numbers and occupied range. Gray wolf reintroduction programs in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains have shown great success. Additionally, the reintroduction and recovery program of the Mexican wolf in the American Southwest, although in its initial stages, is beginning to show similar progress after only a few years.
The gray wolf (
Canis lupus
) is one of two North American wolf species currently protected by the Act. The other is the red wolf (
C. rufus
), a separate species that is listed as endangered throughout its range in the southeastern United States and extending west into central Texas. The red wolf is the subject of a separate recovery program. This final rule does not affect the current listing status or protection of the red wolf.
B. Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
Both the 1978 and 1992 versions of the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf were developed to recover the gray wolf subspecies
Canis lupus lycaon
, commonly known as the eastern timber wolf.
C. l. lycaon
was believed to be the gray wolf subspecies historically occurring throughout the northeastern quarter of the United States east of the Great Plains (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974). Since the publication of those recovery plans, various studies on the subspecific taxonomy of the gray wolf have been conducted with conflicting results (Nowak 1995, 2000; Wayne
et al.
1995; Wilson
et al.
2000).
At the time we prepared the July 13, 2000, gray wolf reclassification proposal, new information had recently become available that called into question the identity of the large canid in southeastern Canada, an area with an extant wolf population adjacent to the northeastern United States. However, we believed that the preponderance of available data supported the position that the historical canid in the northeastern United States was a subspecies of the gray wolf, probably
Canis lupus lycaon.
An alternative position advanced by Wilson
et al.
(2000) appears to be gaining wider acceptance. That view is that the wolf currently occurring in Algonquin Provincial Park, and possibly the ancestral wolf of southeastern Canada and the northeastern United States, is a smaller form of wolf that is similar to or indistinguishable from the red wolf (
C. rufus
). Still others argue that ecologically, the ancestral wolf in northern Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, where moose and woodland caribou were the predominant ungulate prey (Hall 1981), was likely to be a large-bodied
C. lupus,
rather than a smaller, deer-eating wolf such as the red wolf (Daniel Harrison, University of Maine, pers. comm.).
The coyote is the dominant canid in the northeastern United States today, although wolf genetic material is also present in these animals. Prey species' ranges in the Northeast have undergone significant changes in the last hundred-plus years as the whitetail deer has expanded north into Canada, while the
caribou has disappeared from the northeastern United States, and the moose has repopulated northern and central New England and are newly reestablished in the Adirondacks of northern New York. Changes in prey base may trigger accompanying changes in the primary predator, because smaller canids and smaller canid social groups are able to subsist on deer, but are less well suited to preying on caribou and moose. All of these changes have proceeded with surprising rapidity, as has the eastern expansion of the coyote. Clearly, it becomes extremely difficult to determine the genetic identity of the wolf (or wolves) that occurred in the Northeast prior to European settlement. Bounty records, old trapper notes, and discovery of heretofore unknown mounted specimens may hold clues that will be investigated. However, the ranges of specific forms of wolf may have changed over time or intermingled along contact zones, and scientific consensus on one ancestral form of wolf for the Northeast may not be possible.
Currently, the existing molecular genetic and morphological data suggest several plausible identities for the large canid that historically occupied the Northeast. Nowak's morphological data continue to support the contention that
Canis lupus lycaon,
a subspecies of the gray wolf, occupied part of the Northeast and adjacent southeastern Canada; however, his more recent work suggests a smaller United States range (and a possible hybrid origin) for that subspecies and a consequent larger range for the red wolf (Nowak 1995, 2000). The recent molecular genetics studies (Wilson
et al.
2000) identify this canid as something other than a gray wolf, which they tentatively refer to as
C. lycaon.
Under this scenario the historical northeastern United States wolf could either be the red wolf (
C. rufus
) or a separate subspecies of
C. lycaon.
Due to the extreme uncertainty over wolf taxonomy, at this time we are adopting no final position on the identity of the wolf (or wolves) that historically existed in the northeastern United States. Instead, we are encouraging additional research on that question, and we are maintaining the listing of the gray wolf in the northeastern United States because there are insufficient data showing that listing to be in error.
C. Historical Range of the Gray Wolf
Until the molecular genetics studies of the last few years, the range of the gray wolf prior to European settlement was generally believed to include most of North America. The only areas that were believed to have lacked gray wolf populations are southern and interior Greenland, the coastal regions of Mexico, all of Central America south of Mexico, coastal and parts of California, the extremely arid deserts and the mountaintops of the western United States, and parts of the eastern and southeastern United States (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, and Nowak 1995). (However, some authorities question the reported historical absence of gray wolves from parts of California (Carbyn
in litt.
2000, Mech
in litt.
2000)). Authors are inconsistent on their views of the precise boundary of historical gray wolf range in the eastern and southeastern United States. Some use Georgia's southeastern corner as the southern extent of gray wolf range (Young and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others believe gray wolves didn't extend into the southeast at all (Hall 1981) or did so to a limited extent, primarily at somewhat higher elevations (Nowak 1995). The southeastern and mid-Atlantic States have generally been recognized as being within the historical range of the red wolf, and it is not known how much range overlap historically occurred between these competing canids. Recent morphological work by Nowak (2000) supports extending the historical range of the red wolf into southern New England or even further northward, indicating that the historical range of the gray wolf in the eastern United States may have been more limited than previously believed. Another possibility is that the respective ranges of several wolf species expanded and contracted in the eastern and northeastern United States, intermingling along contact zones, in post-glacial times.
The results of the recent molecular genetic (Wilson
et al.
2000) and morphometric studies (Nowak 1995, 2000) may help explain some of the past difficulties in establishing the southern boundary of the gray wolf's range in the eastern United States. It may be shown by additional genetics investigation that the red wolf, or another wolf species, historically populated the entire east coast of the United States, and the gray wolf did not occur there at all. However, until additional data convincingly show that gray wolves did not historically occur in the northeastern States, we will view the historical range of the gray wolf as including those areas north of the Ohio River, the southern borders of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and southern Missouri; and west from central Texas and Oklahoma. This boundary is a reasonable compromise of several published accounts, being somewhat south of that shown by Nowak (2000) and north of the range boundary shown by Young and Goldman (1944) and Mech (1974). The historical range boundary we are using most closely approximates that given in Hall (1981).
D. Previous Federal Action
The eastern timber wolf (
Canus lupus lycaon
) was listed as endangered in Minnesota and Michigan, and the northern Rocky Mountain wolf (
C. l. irremotus
) was listed as endangered in Montana and Wyoming in the first list of species that were protected under the 1973 Act, published in May 1974 (USDI 1974). A third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (
C. l. baileyi
), was listed as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17740) with its known range given as “Mexico, USA (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas).” On June 14, 1976, (41 FR 24064) the subspecies
C. l. monstrabilis
was listed as endangered (using the nonspecific common name “Gray wolf”), and its range was described as “Texas, New Mexico, Mexico.”
To eliminate problems with listing separate subspecies of the gray wolf and identifying relatively narrow geographic areas in which those subspecies are protected, on March 9, 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607) relisting the gray wolf at the species level (
Canus lupus
) as endangered throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened (refer to Map 1 below, located after the
Changes from the Proposed Rules
section). In addition, critical habitat was designated in that rulemaking. In 50 CFR 17.95(a), we describe Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, and Minnesota wolf management zones 1, 2, and 3 (delineated in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(1)) as critical habitat. We also promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolf management program in Minnesota at that time. The depredation control portion of the special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793; December 12, 1985); these special regulations are found in 50 CFR 17.40(d)(2).
On November 22, 1994, we designated areas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as nonessential experimental populations in order to initiate gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area (59 FR 60252, 59 FR 60266). On January 12, 1998, a nonessential experimental population was established for the Mexican gray wolf in portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (63 FR 1752). These experimental population designations also contain special
regulations that govern take of wolves within these geographic areas (codified at 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (k)). (Refer to
Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves,
section below, for more details.) We have received several petitions during the past decade requesting consideration to delist the gray wolf in all or part of the 48 conterminous States. We subsequently published findings that these petitions did not present substantial information that delisting gray wolves in all or part of the conterminous 48 States may be warranted (54 FR 16380, April 24, 1989; 55 CFR 48656, November 30, 1990; 63 FR 55839, October 19, 1998).
On July 13, 2000, we published a proposal (65 FR 43450) to revise the current listing of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States (Refer to Map 2 following
Changes from the Proposed Rules
section below). That proposal also included recommended wording for 3 special regulations that would apply to those wolves proposed for reclassification to threatened status. The proposal was followed by a 4-month public comment period, during which we held 14 public hearings and many additional informational meetings in those areas of the country where wolves and people would be most affected by the proposed changes.
Following the development of our July 2000 proposal, but prior to its publication, we received petitions from Mr. Lawrence Krak, of Gilman, Wisconsin, and from the Minnesota Conservation Federation. Mr. Krak's petition requested the delisting of gray wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Minnesota Conservation Federation requested the delisting of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes DPS. Because the data reviews that would result from the processing of these petitions would be a subset of the review begun by our July 2000 proposal, we did not initiate separate reviews in response to those two petitions.
Subsequent to our proposal, but after the close of the comment period, we received petitions from Defenders of Wildlife to list gray wolf DPSs in the southern Rocky Mountains, northern California—southern Oregon, and western Washington, and to grant endangered status to gray wolves in those DPSs. Because wolves were already protected as endangered in those areas, we took no action on these petitions. Additionally, there are no wolf populations in those areas, and a DPS cannot be designated for an area that is unoccupied by a population of the species of concern.
Since then, we have received a petition from Mr. Karl Knuchel on behalf of the Friends of Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd Inc. Mr. Knuchel's petition requested the delisting of gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains. Because the data review that would result from the processing of this petition would be a subset of the review begun by this rulemaking, we will not initiate action on this petition until after publication of this rule.
E. Summary of Issues Related to This Final Rule
Purpose and Definitions of the Act
The primary purpose of the Act is to prevent animal and plant species endangerment and extinction. One of the ways the Act does this is to require the Service to identify species that meet the Act's definitions of endangered and threatened species, to add those species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, respectively), and to plan and implement conservation measures to improve their status to the point at which they no longer need the protections of the Act. When that protection is no longer needed, we take steps to remove (delist) the species from the Federal lists. If a species is listed as endangered, we may first reclassify it to threatened status as an intermediate step before its eventual delisting; however, reclassification to threatened status is not required prior to delisting.
Section 3 of the Act provides the following definitions that are relevant to this rule:
Endangered species
—Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range;
Threatened species
—Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range; and
Species—
Includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. (See additional discussion in the Distinct Population Segments Under Our Vertebrate Population Policy section, below.)
Distinct Population Segments Under Our Vertebrate Population Policy
The Act's definition of the term “species” includes “any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, we, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, adopted a policy governing the recognition of distinct population segments (DPSs) for purposes of listing, reclassifying, and delisting vertebrate species under the Act (61 FR 4722). This policy, sometimes referred to as the “Vertebrate Population Policy,” guides the Services in recognizing DPSs that satisfy the definition of “species” under the Act. To be recognized as a DPS, a group of vertebrate animals must satisfy tests of discreteness and significance.
To be considered discrete, a group of vertebrate animals must be markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon by physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors or by an international governmental boundary that coincides with differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms. A population does not have to be completely isolated by such factors from other populations of its parent taxon in order to be considered discrete.
The significance of a potential DPS is assessed in light of its importance to the taxon to which it belongs. Evidence of significance includes, but is not limited to, the use of an unusual or unique ecological setting; a marked difference in genetic characteristics; or the occupancy of an area that, if devoid of the species, would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
If a group of vertebrate animals is determined to be both discrete and significant, it is then evaluated to determine whether it meets the definition of threatened or endangered based on the five listing factors (section 4(a)(1) of the Act). If it is recovered, a DPS can be delisted.
Although the Vertebrate Population Policy does not allow State or other intra-national governmental boundaries to be used in determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, a State boundary may be used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the geographic area included within a DPS designation when the State boundary incidentally separates two DPSs that are judged to be discrete on other grounds.
It is important to note that a DPS is a listed entity under the Act, and is treated the same as a listed species or subspecies. It is listed, protected, subject to interagency consultation, and recovered just as any other threatened or endangered species or subspecies. A DPS frequently will have its own recovery plan and its own recovery goals. As with a species or subspecies, a DPS recovery program is not required to seek restoration of the animal
throughout the entire geographic area of the listed entity, but only to the point at which it no longer meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species.
Distinct Population Segments and Experimental Populations
The Act does not provide a definition for the term “population.” However, the Act uses the term “population” in two different concepts—distinct population segments and experimental populations. These two concepts were added to the original Act at different times and are used in different contexts. The term “distinct population segment” is part of the statutory definition of a “species” and is significant for listing, delisting, and reclassification purposes, under section 4 of the Act. Our Vertebrate Population Policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) defines a DPS as one or more groups of members of a species or subspecies within a portion of that species' or subspecies' geographic distribution that meets established criteria regarding discreteness and significance. Congress included the DPS concept in the Act, recognizing that a listing, reclassification, or delisting action may, in some circumstances, be more appropriately applied over something less than the entire area in which a species or subspecies is found or was known to occur in order to protect and recover organisms in a more timely and cost-effective manner.
In contrast, Congress added the experimental population concept to give the Secretary another tool to aid in the conservation of “species” (
i.e.
, species, subspecies, or DPSs) that have already been listed under the Act. The Act also requires that an experimental population must be geographically separate from existing populations of the species. The term “population” as used in the experimental population program is necessarily a flexible concept, depending upon the organism involved and its biological requirements for successfully breeding, reproducing, and establishing itself in the reintroduction area.
For purposes of gray wolf reintroduction by means of experimental populations in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park, we needed to examine the biological characteristics of the species to determine if the reintroduced wolves would be geographically separate from other gray wolf populations. We defined a wolf population to be two breeding pairs, each successfully raising two or more young for two consecutive years in a recovery area (Service 1994a). This wolf population definition was used to evaluate all wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains to determine if, and where, gray wolf populations might exist. We determined that gray wolves in northwestern Montana qualified as a wolf population under this definition and that this population was geographically separated from the potential experimental population areas. We therefore designated the two experimental population areas and began gray wolf reintroductions to establish the two experimental populations.
Because of these different purposes for experimental populations and distinct population segments, a DPS can contain several experimental populations, or a combination of experimental and nonexperimental populations.
Refer to the
Designation of Distinct Population Segments
section below, for further discussion and analysis of how our Vertebrate Population Policy has been applied in this rule.
F. Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves
Section 10(j) of the Act gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to designate populations of listed species that are reintroduced outside their current range, but within their probable historical range, as “experimental populations” for the purposes of promoting the recovery of those species by establishing additional wild populations. Such a designation increases our flexibility in managing reintroduced populations, because experimental populations are treated as threatened species under the Act. Threatened status, in comparison to endangered status, allows somewhat more liberal issuance of take permits for conservation and educational purposes, imposes fewer permit requirements on recovery activities by cooperating States, and allows the promulgation of special regulations that are consistent with the conservation of the species.
For each experimental population, the Secretary is required to determine whether it is essential to the continued existence of the species. If the Secretary determines that an experimental population is “nonessential,” then for the purposes of section 7 of the Act (Interagency Cooperation), the population is treated as a species proposed to be listed as a threatened or endangered species, except when the population occurs within areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System. Proposed species are subject to the advisory section 7(a)(4) conference process rather than the formal section 7(a)(2) consultation process.
The Secretary has designated three nonessential experimental population areas for the gray wolf, and wolves have subsequently been reintroduced into these areas. These nonessential experimental population areas are the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area, the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area, and the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area. The first two of these are intended to further the recovery of gray wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, and the third is part of our Mexican wolf recovery program, as described in their respective recovery plans (Service 1982, 1987) (Refer to Map 1, after the
Changes from the Proposed Rules
section below.)
The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15; that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana border; and all of Wyoming (59 FR 60252; November 22, 1994).
The Central Idaho Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho that is south of Interstate Highway 90 and west of Interstate 15; and that portion of Montana south of Interstate 90, west of Interstate 15, and south of Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR 60266; November 22, 1994).
The special regulations for these two experimental populations allow flexible management of wolves, including authorization for private citizens to take wolves in the act of attacking livestock on private land. These rules also provide a permit process that similarly allows the taking, under certain circumstances, of wolves in the act of attacking livestock grazing on public land. In addition, they allow opportunistic noninjurious harassment of wolves by livestock producers on private and public grazing lands, and designated government employees may perform lethal and nonlethal control efforts to remove problem wolves under specified circumstances.
On January 12, 1998, we established a similar third nonessential experimental population area to reintroduce the Mexican gray wolf into its historical habitat in the southwestern States. The Mexican Gray Wolf Nonessential Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Arizona lying south of Interstate Highway 40 and north of Interstate Highway 10; that portion of New Mexico lying south of Interstate Highway 40 and north of Interstate Highway 10 in the west and north of the Texas-New Mexico border
in the east; and that part of Texas lying north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR 1752).
This final rule will not affect any of these three existing nonessential experimental populations for gray wolves, nor will it affect the existing special regulations that apply to them.
G. Gray Wolf-Dog Hybrids
The many gray wolf-dog hybrids in North America have no value to gray wolf recovery programs and are not provided the protections of the Act. Wolf-dog hybrids, when they escape from captivity or are intentionally released into the wild, can interfere with gray wolf recovery programs in several ways. They are familiar with humans, so they commonly are attracted to the vicinity of farms and residences, leading to unwarranted fears that they are wild wolves hunting in pastures and yards. In such situations they may exhibit bold behavior patterns and show little fear of humans, leading to human safety concerns. They generally have poor hunting skills; thus, they may resort to preying on domestic animals, while the blame for their depredations is commonly and mistakenly placed on wild wolves. These behaviors, when reported in the media or spread by word of mouth, can erode public support for wolf recovery efforts. In addition, although unlikely, feral wolf-dog hybrids may mate with wild wolves, resulting in the introduction of dog genes into wild wolf populations. For these reasons, this rule does not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog hybrids, regardless of the geographic location of the capture of their pure wolf ancestors.
In recovery programs for other threatened or endangered species, hybrids and hybridization could perhaps play an important role. This decision to not extend the protections of the Act to gray wolf-dog hybrids should not be taken as an indication of our position on the potential importance of hybrids and hybridization to recovery programs for other species. Determining the importance and treatment under the Act of hybrids requires a species-by-species evaluation.
H. Conservation and Recovery of the Gray Wolf
Understanding the Service's strategy for gray wolf recovery first requires an understanding of the meaning of “recover” and “conserve” under the Act. “Conserve” is defined in the Act itself (section 3(3)) while “recovery” is defined in the Act's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02. Conserve is defined, in part, as “the use of all measures and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” Recovery is defined as “improvement in the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.” Essentially, recover and conserve both mean to bring a species to the point at which it no longer needs the protections of the Act, because the species is no longer threatened or endangered.
Important Principles of Conservation Biology
Representation, resiliency, and redundancy are three principles of conservation biology that are generally recognized as being necessary to conserve the biodiversity of an area (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Although the Act is not a biodiversity conservation statute, in some ways it functions as such on a single species level. Thus, we can and should apply these principles when establishing goals for individual species' recovery under the Act.
The principle of representation is the need to preserve “some of everything”—every species, every habitat, and every biotic community—so biodiversity can be maintained. At the species level it also calls for preserving the genetic diversity that remains within a species, in order to maximize the species' ability to cope with short-term environmental variability and to adapt and evolve in response to long-term environmental change.
Redundancy and resiliency both deal with preserving “enough to last,” but they address it at distinctly different levels. Redundancy addresses the need for a sufficient number of populations of a species, while resiliency deals with the necessary size (numerical and geographic) of those individual populations that are needed for species' persistence over time. Larger populations are more resilient to environmental changes and other threats to their existence. The redundancy that comes from preserving multiple populations provides additional assurances of species' survival. (In the broader conservation biology context, these two principles are also applied to biotic communities and ecosystems.)
Due to the vast array of life forms that are potentially subject to the protections of the Act, and the variety of physical, biological, and cultural factors acting on them, these three principles must be applied on a species-by-species basis to determine the appropriate recovery goals. For example, addressing the need for redundancy and resiliency for nonmotile organisms, species of limited range (for example, island or insular species), or those species restricted to linear features of the environment (stream or shoreline species) should be expected to result in recovery goals that are quite different from goals developed for habitat generalist, widely distributed, and/or highly mobile species.
Application of These Principles to the Gray Wolf DPSs
Because this rule finalizes three new DPS listings for the gray wolf (see “Designation of Distinct Population Segments” below), we evaluated what is necessary for long-term extinction avoidance in each DPS, and the extent of progress made to date toward that goal in each DPS. This examined whether recovery is underway across a significant portion of each DPS to ensure long-term viability when that recovery is completed. Each DPS evaluation used the principles of conservation biology and focused on the size, number, makeup, and distribution of wolves in the individual DPSs, and the threats manifest there, in order to determine if the gray wolf is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of the respective DPS.
Eastern DPS
The original Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf and the 1992 revision of that plan (Service 1978, 1992a) established and reiterated criteria to identify the point at which long-term population viability would be assured in the eastern United States (Recovery Plans for the gray wolf are discussed in more detail below). Although the 1978 Recovery Plan predated the scientific field of conservation biology, it embodied conservation biology tenets in its recovery criteria, and those criteria were carried forward unchanged in the 1992 revised recovery plan. The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team was subsequently queried by the Service in 1997, and at that time the Eastern Team reviewed the criteria and found them to be adequate and sufficient to ensure long-term population viability (Peterson
in litt.
1997).
The principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy are fully incorporated into the recovery criteria developed by the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team. The need to maintain the Minnesota wolf population is believed to be vital, because the remaining genetic diversity of gray
wolves in the eastern United States was carried by the several hundred wolves who survived in the State into the early 1970s. The Eastern Team insisted that the remnant Minnesota wolf population must be maintained and expanded to achieve wolf recovery in the eastern United States, and the successful growth of that remnant population has maximized the representation of that genetic diversity among Midwestern gray wolves. Furthermore, the Eastern Team specified that the Minnesota wolf population would increase to 1250-1400 animals, which would increase the likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long-term, and would provide the resiliency to reduce the adverse impacts of unpredictable chance demographic and environmental events. The Minnesota wolf population currently is estimated to be double that numerical goal.
The need for redundancy was clearly recognized by the Eastern Team members, and they specified that it be accomplished by establishing a second population of gray wolves in the eastern United States. They identified several potential locations for the second population. To ensure that the second population also had sufficient resiliency to survive chance demographic and environmental fluctuations, the Recovery Teams specified a minimum size that must be maintained for a minimum of five years by the second population. If the second population was isolated from the larger Minnesota wolf population, the recovery criteria required that the second population contain at least 200 wolves for a minimum of 5 years. However, if it was near the Minnesota wolf population, the 2 populations would function as a metapopulation rather than as 2 separate and isolated populations; in that case the second population would be viable if it maintained 100 wolves for at least 5 years. A metapopulation is a conservation biology concept whereby the spatial distribution of a population has a major influence on its viability. In nature many populations exist as partially isolated sets of subpopulations-termed “metapopulations.” A metapopulation is widely recognized by conservation biologists as being more secure over the long-term than are several isolated populations that contain the same total number of packs and individuals (Service 1994a, Appendix 9, Dr. Steven Fritts). This is because adverse affects 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.
The close proximity to the larger Minnesota population would allow wolves to move between the two populations and would provide substantial genetic and demographic support for the smaller second population. Therefore, the Recovery Team specified a lower recovery goal of 100 wolves if a second population would develop in a location that would allow it to be closely tied to (that is, less than 200 miles from) the Minnesota wolf population. Such a second wolf population has developed in Wisconsin and the adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This second population is less than 200 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, and it has had a late winter population exceeding 100 animals since 1994.
As described elsewhere in this final rule, there is no convincing evidence in recent decades of another wild gray wolf population in the United States east of Michigan, so the wolves in the western Great Lakes States represents all the known gray wolf genetic diversity found in the Eastern DPS. In other words, the area in the western Great Lakes States where the wolf currently exists represents the entire range of the species within the Eastern DPS. Furthermore, the number of wolves in the Eastern DPS greatly exceeds the recovery goals of (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota and (2) a second population of 100 wolves for 5 successive years, and thus contains sufficient numbers and distribution (resiliency and redundancy) to ensure the long-term survival of gray wolves within the DPS. The wolf's progress toward recovery in the Eastern DPS, together with the threats that remain to the wolf within the DPS, indicates that the gray wolf is not in danger of extinction in its entire range within the DPS. Moreover, the progress towards recovery of each of the two populations that comprise the metapopulation within the western Great Lakes States demonstrates that the species is not in danger of extinction in any significant portion of the range of the species within the DPS. We therefore conclude that gray wolves are no longer properly classified as endangered in the Eastern DPS.
Western DPS
Similarly, the reclassification and recovery criteria that were found in the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1987) have been subsequently revised following peer review (Bangs 2002) to provide sufficient representation, resiliency, and redundancy to ensure the species is no longer endangered in the Western DPS when those criteria are met. Large numbers of wolves in three widely-spaced locations in the Northern U.S. Rockies achieve the desired resiliency and redundancy. Furthermore, the recovery program is based on 3 founder populations from 3 different Canadian source populations having high levels of genetic diversity (Forbes and Boyd 1997, Fritts
et al.
1997). This has achieved sufficient representation of the genetic diversity from the closest thriving wolf populations in Canada, and allowed the Northern U.S. Rockies wolves to benefit from the local adaptions of those source populations. Additionally, the northwest Montana population remains connected to the Canadian wolf population, providing a conduit for continuing genetic exchange with wolves farther to the north. This connection is exemplified by wolves such as “Opal,” which was radio collared in Banff National Park in Alberta, Canada, and subsequently moved south and successfully raised pups as the alpha female of the Boulder Pack in northwestern Montana.
The three initially isolated gray wolf populations in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area have expanded in range and increased in numbers to the point that they are no longer isolated from each other and the movement of individual wolves from one to another is becoming more common. Wolf dispersal and interbreeding has been documented between all three core recovery areas within the northern Rocky Mountains (see
Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves
). They are now functioning as a large metapopulation rather than as three isolated populations. The revised recovery criteria specify that at least 30 packs, comprising at least 300 wolves, should exist across the metapopulation's range for a minimum of 3 years. Twenty packs (200 or more wolves) across the metapopulation for 3 years would indicate the species is no longer endangered in the DPS and should be considered for reclassification to threatened status. There have been at least 300 wolves in a minimum of 30 packs since the end of 2000, and at the end of 2001 there were 563 wolves in 34 packs in the Northern U.S. Rockies. There have been over 200 wolves in at least 20 packs since the end of 1997.
The gray wolf's substantial success in meeting the revised recovery criteria for the Northern Rocky Mountains area ensures the wolf's long-term survival within its range in the Western DPS (
i.e.
, the area inhabited by the
metapopulation of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains). We conclude, based both on the wolf's recovery progress, and on our assessment of the threats that will remain once the wolf is reclassified as threatened (including the continuation of the nonessential experimental population designation and its special regulations), that the gray wolf is not in danger of extinction throughout its range within the Western DPS. Because the three initially isolated populations in the Western DPS now function as a single large metapopulation, and because there is no other population of wolves within the DPS, this conclusion applies to all parts of the wolf's range in the DPS, and so we also conclude that the wolf is not in danger of extinction within any significant portion of its range in the DPS. The gray wolf therefore is no longer endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the Western DPS.
Southwestern DPS
The recovery program for the Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf is based upon reintroductions of captive reared Mexican wolves to portions of their historical range in the Southwestern U.S. and Mexico. These captive-reared wolves are the products of a carefully managed breeding program designed to preserve the remaining genetic diversity of the historical wolves in those areas and maximize the genetic diversity in the reintroduced population. This propagation and reintroduction program ensures that the principle of representation is achieved in the Mexican wolf recovery program.
At this point, the Mexican wolf recovery program lacks a recovery goal. A prime objective of 100 self-sustaining wolves in the wild was set in the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1982), but the Plan states that goal is preliminary, and is focused more on assuring the survival of wolves in the Southwest and Mexico, rather than on recovering and delisting them. As more is learned about wolves and their conservation in the Southwest, the Service will endeavor to develop reclassification (endangered to threatened) and delisting criteria for the Mexican wolf. When delisting criteria are developed, they too will incorporate the principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to assure the long-term survival of the Mexican wolf.
However, at this time we believe their geographic distribution, low numbers and population density, and relatively low rate of population increase indicate that the Mexican wolf recovery program has not achieved sufficient redundancy and resiliency to assure the long-term survival of the gray wolf in the Southwest and Mexico. We conclude that the gray wolf continues to be in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future in the Southwestern DPS, and it remains properly classified as endangered in the DPS except where part of a nonessential experimental population.
I. Gray Wolf Recovery Plans
Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for listed species. In some cases, we appoint recovery teams of experts to assist in the writing of recovery plans and oversight of subsequent recovery efforts. Once a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened it is considered to be recovered and must be delisted. Therefore, the restoration of a species throughout its historical range, or even throughout all the remaining suitable habitat, may not be necessary before a species may be delisted.
We initiated recovery programs for the originally listed subspecies of gray wolves by appointing recovery teams and developing and implementing recovery plans. Recovery plans describe criteria that are used to assess a species' progress toward recovery, contain specific prioritized actions believed necessary to achieve the recovery criteria and objectives, and identify the most appropriate parties to implement the recovery actions.
Recovery plans contain criteria that are intended to trigger our consideration of the need to either reclassify (from endangered to threatened) or to delist a species due to improvements in its status. Criteria are based upon factors that can be measured or otherwise objectively evaluated to document improvements in a species' biological status. Examples of the type of criteria typically used are numbers of individuals, numbers and distribution of subgroups or populations of the species, rates of productivity of individuals and/or populations, protection of habitat, and reduction or elimination of threats to the species and its habitat.
The reclassification and recovery criteria contained in our recovery plans must be viewed in terms of the other currently available information. In some cases, new information will demonstrate that reclassification or delisting is appropriate independent of the information in the recovery plan. For example, our knowledge of a species and its conservation needs may be incomplete when the recovery plan is prepared. The criteria are based on the best available scientific data and analysis at the time the plan is developed. However, as recovery progresses and our knowledge of a species increases, we may need to reinterpret the original recovery goals, or even add or drop one or more recovery criteria. If appropriate, and if funding and timing allow, we may revise or update recovery plans to reflect our new knowledge and modified recovery criteria. However, revision of recovery plans or recovery criteria is not a required precursor to species reclassification or delisting.
The first gray wolf recovery plan was written for the eastern timber wolf, and it was approved on May 2, 1978 (Service 1978). This recovery plan was later revised and was approved on January 31, 1992 (Service 1992a). The 1978 Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Eastern Plan) and its revision were intended to recover the eastern timber wolf,
Canus lupus lycaon,
believed at that time to be the only gray wolf subspecies that historically inhabited the United States east of the Great Plains. Thus, the Eastern Plan covers a geographic triangle extending from Minnesota to Maine and into northeastern Florida. The recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf was based on the best available information on wolf taxonomy at the time of its publication. Since the publication of those recovery plans, various studies have produced conflicting results regarding the identity of the wolf that historically occupied the eastern States. Therefore, this recovery program has focused on recovering the gray wolf population that survived in, and has expanded outward from, northeastern Minnesota, regardless of its subspecific identity. (See the
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
section above).
The Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain Plan) was approved in 1980 and revised in 1987 (Service 1980, 1987). The Rocky Mountain Plan states in its introduction that it should be understood to refer to “gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the contiguous 48 States, rather than to a specific subspecies.” The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses recovery efforts in Idaho, most of Montana, and Wyoming.
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1982 (Service 1982). Based on a review of Southwestern (Mexican) subspecies of the gray wolf by Bogan and Mehlhop (1983), the plan combines the historical ranges of
Canus lupus baileyi, C. l. monstrabilis,
and the
presumed extinct
C. l. mogollonensis
(which historically occurred in parts of New Mexico and Arizona) to define the portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico where recovery of the Mexican wolf would be appropriate.
J. Recovery Progress of the Eastern Gray Wolf
The 1992 revised Eastern Plan has two delisting criteria. The first criterion states that the survival of the wolf in Minnesota must be assured. We, and the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team (Rolf Peterson, Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team,
in litt.
1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b), believe that this first delisting criterion remains valid. It identifies a need for reasonable assurances that future State and tribal wolf management practices and protection will maintain a viable recovered population of gray wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the foreseeable future. While there is no specific numerical recovery criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, the Eastern Plan identified State subgoals for use by land managers and planners. The Eastern Plan's subgoal for Minnesota is 1,251 to 1,400 wolves.
The second delisting criterion in the Eastern Plan states that at least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. The Eastern Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second viable wolf population. If it is located more than 100 miles from the Minnesota wolf population, it would be considered “isolated,” and the frequency of movement of individuals and genetic material from one population to the other would likely be low or nonexistent. Such an isolated population, in order to be self-sustaining, should consist of at least 200 wolves for at least 5 years (based upon late winter population estimates) to be considered viable. Alternatively, if the second population is located within 100 miles of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the Minnesota wolf population), a reestablished population having a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years would be considered viable. Such a smaller population would be considered to be viable, because its proximity would allow frequent immigration of Minnesota wolves to supplement it numerically and genetically.
The Eastern Plan does not specify where in the eastern United States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the second population could be located anywhere within the triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida land area covered by the Eastern plan, except on Isle Royale, Michigan and within Minnesota. While the 1978 Eastern Plan identified potential gray wolf restoration areas throughout the eastern States, extending as far south as the Great Smoky Mountains and adjacent areas in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia, the revised 1992 Eastern Plan dropped from consideration the more southern potential restoration areas, because recovery efforts for the red wolf were being initiated in those areas (Service 1978, 1992a).
The 1992 Eastern Plan recommends reclassifying wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan from endangered to threatened status separately, recognizing that progress towards recovery may occur at differing rates in these two States. The Plan specifies that wolves in Wisconsin could be reclassified to threatened if the population within the State remained at or above 80 wolves (late winter estimates) for 3 consecutive years. The Plan does not contain a reclassification criterion for Michigan wolves. Instead, it states that if Wisconsin wolves reached their reclassification criterion, consideration should also be given to reclassifying Michigan wolves. However, with the subsequent increase in Michigan wolf numbers, it has frequently, but unofficially, been assumed that the “80 wolves for 3 years” criterion also would be applied to Michigan. In other words, each State could be considered for reclassification if its wolf population reached 80 individuals or more for 3 successive years. The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team used these criteria in its recommendation that the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes States be reclassified to threatened as soon as possible (Peterson
in litt.
1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
The Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team clarified the second population delisting criterion, which considers the wolves in northern Wisconsin and the adjacent Upper Peninsula of Michigan to be a single population. The Recovery Team stated that the numerical delisting criterion for the Wisconsin-Michigan population will be achieved when 6 successive late winter wolf surveys document that the population equaled or exceeded 100 wolves (excluding Isle Royale wolves) for 5 consecutive years (Rolf Peterson,
in litt.
1998). Because the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population was first known to have exceeded 100 wolves in the late winter 1993-94 survey, the numerical delisting criterion was satisfied in early 1999, based upon late winter 1998-99 data (Beyer
et al.
2001, Wydeven
et al.
1999).
The Eastern Plan has no goals or criteria for the gray wolf population on the 546-sq km (210-sq mi) Isle Royale, Michigan. This small and isolated wolf population is not expected to make a significant numerical contribution to gray wolf recovery, although long-term research on this wolf population has added a great deal to our knowledge of the species.
Over the last several years, the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Team has consistently recommended that we designate a DPS in the western Great Lakes area and proceed with reclassification of wolves in that DPS to threatened status as soon as possible. The Eastern Team recommended that the DPS include a wide buffer around the existing populations of wolves in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. This buffer was described as lands that may not be regularly occupied by wolves but which may be temporarily used by dispersing wolves. Thus, the Eastern Team suggested the DPS also include the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio (Peterson
in litt.
1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b).
Minnesota
During the pre-1965 period of wolf bounties and legal public trapping, wolves persisted in the more remote northeastern areas of Minnesota. Estimates of population levels of Minnesota wolves prior to listing under the Act in 1974 include 450 to 700 in 1950-53 (Fuller
et al.
1992, Stenlund 1955), 350 to 700 in 1963 (Cahalane 1964), 750 in 1970 (Leirfallom 1970), 736 to 950 in 1971-72 (Fuller
et al.
1992), and 500 to 1,000 in 1973 (Mech and Rausch 1975). While these estimates were based upon varying methodologies and are not directly comparable, they all agree in estimating the wolf population in Minnesota, the only significant population in the Lower 48 States during those time-periods, at 1,000 or fewer animals preceding their listing under the Act.
Various population estimates in Minnesota have indicated increasing numbers after the wolf was listed as endangered under the Act. A population of 1,000 to 1,200 was estimated by L. David Mech for 1976 (Service 1978), and 1,235 wolves in 138 packs were estimated for the winter of 1978-79 (Berg and Kuehn 1982).
In 1988-89, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) repeated the 1978-79 survey, and also used a second method to estimate wolf numbers in the State. The resulting
independent estimates were 1,500 and 1,750 wolves in at least 233 packs (Fuller
et al.
1992).
During the winter of 1997-98, a Statewide wolf population and distribution survey was repeated by MN DNR, using methods similar to those of the two previous surveys. Field staff of Federal, State, tribal, and county land management agencies and wood products companies were queried to identify occupied wolf range in Minnesota. Data from five concurrent radio telemetry studies tracking 36 packs, representative of the entire Minnesota wolf range, were used to determine average pack size and territory area. Those figures were then used to calculate a Statewide estimate of pack numbers and the overall wolf population in the occupied range, with single (nonpack) wolves factored into the estimate (Berg and Benson 1999).
The 1997-98 survey concluded that approximately 2,445 wolves existed in about 385 packs in Minnesota during that winter period. This figure indicates the continued growth of the Minnesota wolf population at an average rate of about 3.7 percent annually. The Minnesota wolf population has shown approximately this average annual rate of increase since 1970 (Berg and Benson 1999, Fuller
et al.
1992). No rigorous survey of the Minnesota wolf population has been conducted since the winter of 1997-98, but biologists generally accept that the population has increased, and will continue to increase, perhaps at a slower rate and with occasional fluctuations (Mech 1998, Paul 2001).
Simultaneous with the increase in wolf numbers in Minnesota there has been a parallel expansion of the area in which wolves are routinely found. During 1948-53 the major wolf range was estimated to be about 31,080 sq km (11,954 sq mi) (Stenlund 1955). A 1970 questionnaire survey resulted in an estimated wolf range of 38,400 sq km (14,769 sq mi) (calculated by Fuller
et al.
1992 from Leirfallom 1970). Fuller
et al.
(1992), using data from Berg and Kuehn (1982), estimated that Minnesota primary wolf range included 36,500 sq km (14,038 sq mi) during winter 1978-79. By 1982-83, pairs or breeding packs of wolves were estimated to occupy an area of 57,050 sq km (22,000 sq mi) in northern Minnesota (Mech
et al.
1988). That study also identified an additional 40,500 sq km (15,577 sq mi) of peripheral range, where habitat appeared suitable but no wolves or only lone wolves existed. The 1988-89 study produced an estimate of 60,200 sq km (23,165 sq mi) as the contiguous wolf range at that time in Minnesota (Fuller
et al.
1992), an increase of 65 percent over the primary range calculated for 1978-79. The 1997-98 study concluded that the contiguous wolf range had expanded to 88,325 sq km (33,971 sq mi), a 47 percent increase in 9 years (Berg and Benson 1999). The wolf population in Minnesota has recovered to the point that its contiguous range covered approximately 40 percent of the State during 1997-98.
Wisconsin
Wolves were considered to have been extirpated from Wisconsin by 1960. No formal attempts were made to monitor the State's wolf population from 1960 until 1979. From 1960 through 1975 individual wolves and an occasional wolf pair were reported. However, no evidence exists of any wolf reproduction occurring in Wisconsin, and the wolves that were reported may have been dispersing animals from Minnesota.
Wolf population monitoring by the WI DNR began in 1979 and estimated a Statewide population of 25 wolves at that time. This population remained relatively stable for several years, then declined slightly to approximately 15 to 19 wolves in the mid-1980s.
In the late 1980s, the Wisconsin wolf population began an increase that continues today. WI DNR intensively monitors its wolf population, using a combination of aerial, ground, and satellite radio telemetry, snow tracking, and wolf sign surveys (Wydeven
et al.
1995, 2001a). The number of wolves in each pack is estimated based on the totality of ground and aerial observations made of the individual packs over the winter. During the winter of 2000-01, 30 of Wisconsin's 66 wolf packs (45 percent) had members carrying active radio transmitters much of the season. Twenty-seven of these monitored wolves were located 20 or more times during the mid-September to mid-April period. Five additional radio-tracked wolves were loners, and one was in an adjacent Minnesota pack. Minimum wolf population estimates (late-winter counts) for 1994 through 2001 are 57, 83, 99, 148, 178, 205, 248, and 257 animals, comprising 14, 18, 28, 35, 47, 57, 66, and 66 packs respectively (Wydeven
et al.
2001a). WI DNR preliminarily estimated that about 320 wolves in 70 to 80 packs were in the State in late winter 2001-2002 (WI DNR 2002, Wydeven
et al.
2002). Because the monitoring methods focus on wolf packs, it is believed that lone wolves are undercounted in Wisconsin, and that, as a result, these population estimates are probably slight underestimates of the actual wolf population within the State.
In 1995, wolves were first documented in Jackson County, Wisconsin, an area well to the south of the northern Wisconsin area occupied by other Wisconsin wolf packs. The number of wolves in this central Wisconsin area has dramatically expanded since that time. During the winter of 2000-2001, there were 34 wolves in 9 packs, plus 3 lone wolves, in and around Jackson County (Wydeven
et al.
2001a).
During the winter of 2000-2001, 10 wolves occurred on Native American reservations in Wisconsin, and this increased to at least 13 wolves in the winter of 2001-2002 (WI DNR 2002, Wydeven pers. comm. 2002). These animals were on the Bad River (8) and Lac Courte Oreilles Reservations (5). There also is evidence of individual wolves on the Lac du Flambeau and Menominee Reservations, with a high likelihood of wolf packs developing on these reservation in the near future (Wydeven pers. comm. 2002).
Wolf numbers in Wisconsin alone greatly surpassed the second population goal of 200 animals identified in the Eastern Plan and exceeded its reclassification criterion several years ago. Although population growth nearly stalled between 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, a resumption of the steady upward trend was again quite apparent in the preliminary late-winter 2001-2002 estimate of 320. (Refer to the
Disease or predation
section below for additional discussion.)
Michigan
Michigan wolves were extirpated as a reproducing population long before they were listed as endangered in 1974. Prior to 1991, and excluding Isle Royale, the last known breeding population of wild Michigan wolves occurred in the mid-1950s. As wolves began to reoccupy northern Wisconsin, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MI DNR) began noting single wolves at various locations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In the late 1980s, a wolf pair was verified in the central Upper Peninsula and produced pups in 1991. Since that time, wolf packs have spread throughout the Upper Peninsula, with immigration occurring from both Wisconsin on the west and Ontario on the east. They now are found in every county of the Upper Peninsula.
The MI DNR annually monitors the wolf population in the Upper Peninsula by intensive late winter tracking surveys that focus on each pack. Pack locations are derived from previous surveys, citizen reports, and ground tracking of radio-collared wolves. During the winter of 2000-2001 at least 50 wolf packs
were resident in the Upper Peninsula. Approximately 40 percent of these packs had members with active radio tracking collars (Hammill pers. comm. 2002.) Care is taken to avoid double-counting wolves, and a variety of evidence is used to distinguish adjacent packs and accurately count their members (Beyer
et al.
2001).
These annual surveys have documented the following minimum late winter estimates of wolves occurring in the Upper Peninsula from 1994 through 2001: 57 wolves in 1994, 80 in 1995, 116 in 1996, 112 in 1997, 140 in 1998, 174 in 1999, 216 in 2000, and 249 in 2001. In recent years the annual rate of increase has been about 24 percent (MI DNR 1997, 1999a, 2001). The MI DNR estimated a minimum of 278 wolves in the Upper Peninsula in late winter 2001-2002 (MI DNR 2002).
The Upper Peninsula Michigan wolf population has exceeded the unofficial criterion of 80 animals for reclassification from endangered to threatened status. Similar to the situation in Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula wolf population by itself has surpassed the goal of 200 wolves for a second population, as specified in the Eastern Plan.
During the winter of 1997-98, one wolf pack composed of four animals lived on lands of the Keewenaw Bay Indian Community. No other wolves are known to be primarily using tribal lands in Michigan (Hammill
in litt.
1998).
The wolf population of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, is not considered to be an important factor in the recovery or long-term survival of wolves in the western Great Lakes States. This population is small, varying from 12 to 29 animals over the last 15 years, and is almost completely isolated from other wolf populations (Peterson
et al.
1998, pers. comm. 1999). For these reasons, the Eastern Plan does not include these wolves in its recovery criteria and recommends only the continuation of research and complete protection for these wolves (Service 1992a).
Although there have been reports of wolf sightings in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, including a 1997 report of 2 large canids believed to be wolves on the ice west of the Mackinaw Bridge, there is no evidence that there are resident wolves in the Lower Peninsula. However, recognizing the likelihood that small numbers of gray wolves will eventually move into the Lower Peninsula, MI DNR has begun a revision of its Wolf Management Plan to incorporate provisions for wolf management there (see issue U, “State Wolf Management Plans”).
Northeastern United States
Wolves were extirpated from the northeastern United States by 1900. Few credible observations of wolves were reported in the Northeast during most of the 20th century. However, in 1993 a single female wolf was killed in western Maine, and in 1996 a second wolf or wolf-like canid was trapped and killed in central Maine. Another wolf-like canid was mistaken for a coyote and killed in 1997 in northern Vermont. In early 2002 a 29 kg (64 lb) apparent wolf was killed by a trapper in southeastern Quebec, 20 miles from the New Hampshire border; tissue samples are undergoing genetic analysis. These records and other observations and signs of large, unidentified canids in Maine during recent years led to speculation that wolves may be dispersing into the northeastern United States from nearby occupied habitat in Canada. Many of the characteristics of the unidentified canids are consistent with an animal intermediate between the eastern coyote and the gray wolf. Private conservation organizations, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Service are continuing to seek evidence of the presence of wild wolves in northern New York and New England. However, at this time there is no firm evidence that a breeding population of wolves or wolf-like animals exists in the northeastern United States.
A recent Geographic Information System analysis evaluated the potential for wolf dispersal from southern Quebec and Ontario into the northeastern United States (Harrison and Chapin 1998). The study also estimated the amount of suitable wolf habitat present in northern New York and other New England States, and with Wydeven
et al.
(1998) evaluated the likelihood of natural wolf colonization from existing occupied wolf range in Canada. These studies, and Mladenoff and Sickley (1998), found that sufficient suitable wolf habitat is available in the Adirondack Park region of New York and in Maine and northern New Hampshire. However, the New York habitat is relatively isolated, and the authors concluded that natural recolonization is unlikely to occur there. Furthermore, while there are relatively narrow potential dispersal corridors connecting expansive wolf habitat in Maine and New Hampshire with existing wolf populations north of Quebec City, there are significant barriers to dispersal, including about 18 km (11 mi) of the St. Lawrence River, an adjacent four lane highway, rail lines, and dense human developments that may preclude the movement of a sufficient number of wolves from Canada into Maine (Harrison and Chapin 1997).
In the study on the feasibility of wolf reintroduction in the Adirondacks, Paquet
et al.
(1999) found that suitable habitat for sustaining a small population of gray wolves is present, but that habitat fragmentation within the Adirondack Park and the lack of linkages to occupied wolf areas to the north suggest that wolves would not persist there without periodic human intervention. As a result, the authors conclude that the ecological conditions in the Adirondack Park dictate against a successful reintroduction of gray wolves.
Other Areas in the Eastern United States
The increasing numbers of wolves in Minnesota and the accompanying expansion of their range westward and southwestward in the State have led to an increase in dispersing, mostly young, wolves that have been documented in North and South Dakota in recent years. An examination of skull morphology of North and South Dakota wolves indicates that of eight examined, seven likely had dispersed from Minnesota; the eighth probably came from Manitoba, Canada (Licht and Fritts 1994). Genetic analysis of an additional gray wolf killed in 2001 in extreme northwestern South Dakota indicates that it, too, originated from the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population (Straughan and Fain 2002). The low potential for the establishment of a viable and self-sustaining wolf population in North and South Dakota, and the belief that all or most wolves in the Dakotas are biologically part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population, leads us to conclude that any wolves in these States should be included in the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS.
In October 2001, a wolf was killed in north-central Missouri by a farmer who believed it was a coyote. The wolf's ear tag identified it as having originated from the western portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where it had been captured as a juvenile in July of 1999.
Wolves like these and others described below in the Western DPS are expected to continue to disperse from the core recovery populations and move into areas where wolf numbers are extremely low or nonexistent. Unless they return to a core recovery population and join or start a pack there, they are unlikely to contribute to wolf recovery. While it is possible for them to disperse and encounter another wolf, mate, and even reproduce,
throughout much of the Midwest the lack of large expanses of unfragmented public land will make it difficult for wolf packs to persist in new areas without causing significant conflicts with agricultural and other human activities.
Because gray wolf recovery in the eastern United States can be achieved by restoring the species to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, we do not intend to undertake wolf recovery programs in other areas of the Midwest. However, we may provide technical assistance to States and tribes who wish to develop wolf recovery plans beyond those which we have undertaken.
K. Recovery Progress of the Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf
In 1974, an interagency wolf recovery team was formed, and it completed the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan in 1980 (Service 1980). The Rocky Mountain Plan focuses wolf recovery efforts on the large contiguous blocks of public land from western Wyoming through Montana to the Canadian border.
The revised Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan (Service 1987) identifies a recovery criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as a male and female capable of reproduction) for 3 consecutive years in each of the 3 recovery areas—(1) northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), and (3) the Yellowstone National Park area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public lands). The Plan states that if one of these recovery areas maintains a population of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, wolves in that recovery area can be reclassified to threatened status. If 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs (totaling about 200 adult wolves) for 3 successive years, gray wolves across the coverage area of the Rocky Mountain Plan can be reclassified to threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population can be considered as fully recovered and can be delisted. The wolf population would be about 300 adult wolves upon attainment of full recovery. The Plan also recommends that wolves be reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park area as an experimental population. Additionally, if natural recovery has not resulted in at least two packs becoming established in central Idaho within 5 years, the Rocky Mountain Plan states that other measures, including reintroduction, would be considered to recover wolves in that area. The goals identified in the Rocky Mountain Plan are intended to ensure a well distributed and viable population in the Rocky Mountains, goals that could be met in a variety of ways while still adhering to the “biological intent” of the recovery plan.
Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944). After human-caused mortality of wolves in southwestern Canada was regulated in the 1960s, populations expanded southward (Carbyn 1983). Dispersing individuals occasionally reached the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States (Ream and Mattson 1982, Nowak 1983), but lacked legal protection there until 1974 when they were listed as endangered.
In 1982, a wolf pack from Canada began to occupy Glacier National Park along the United States-Canada border. In 1986, the first litter of pups documented in over 50 years was born in the Park. In recognition of the ongoing natural recovery of wolves arising from these Canadian dispersers, the Rocky Mountain Plan was revised in 1987 (Service 1987). The revised Rocky Mountain Plan recommends that recovery be focused in areas with large blocks of public land, abundant native ungulates, and minimal livestock. Three recovery areas were identified— northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area. Promotion of natural recovery was advocated for Montana and Idaho (unless no breeding pairs formed in Idaho within 5 years), but recovery in the Yellowstone area was believed to require a reintroduction program.
By 1989, we formed an interagency wolf working group, composed of Federal, State, and tribal agency personnel. The group conducted four basic recovery tasks, in addition to the standard enforcement functions associated with any take of listed species. These tasks were—(1) monitor wolf distribution and numbers, (2) control wolves that attacked livestock by either moving or killing them, (3) research wolves' relationships to ungulate prey, livestock, and people, and (4) provide accurate information to the public through reports and mass media so that people could develop their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed perspective.
In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada to remote public lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts
et al.
1997, Bangs
et al.
1998). We designated these wolves as nonessential experimental populations to increase management flexibility and address local and State concerns (59 FR 60252 and 60266; November 22, 1994). Wolves in northwestern Montana remain listed as endangered, the most protective category under the Act; they are not included within the nonessential experimental population areas. (Refer to the
Currently Designated Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves
section above, for additional details.)
The reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho in 1995 and 1996 greatly expanded the numbers and distribution of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. Because of the reintroduction, wolves soon became established throughout central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area. In 1995, an estimated 8 breeding pairs (using the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) definition of a male and female successfully raising 2 pups until December 31), within a total population of about 101 individual wolves, produced pups in the northern Rocky Mountains. By 1996, a total population of 152 wolves containing 14 breeding pairs were producing pups. In 1997, 213 wolves with 20 breeding pairs produced pups. In 1998, there were 275 wolves and 21 breeding pairs. In 1999 there were 322 wolves with 24 breeding pairs. December 1999 ended the third successive year in which over 20 wolf breeding pairs successfully produced pups in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In 2000 there were 433 wolves with 30 breeding pairs. As of December 2001 the wolf population was about 563 wolves, with 34 breeding pairs producing pups (Service
et al.
2002).
The presence of 20 breeding pairs (using the EIS definition of a male and female successfully raising 2 pups) distributed in 3 recovery areas for 3 successive years, exceeded the biological criteria of having 10 breeding pairs (defining as a male and female capable of reproduction) in only 2 recovery areas as recommended in the 1987 recovery plan. For this reason the Service proposed to reclassify the wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains and adjacent States in July
2000. Because the wolf population has continued to expand since that time, it no longer warrants listing as endangered.
Northwestern Montana
Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers. By 1993 the number of wolves had grown to about 55 wolves in 4 packs. However, since 1993 the number of breeding groups and number of wolves has slowed or perhaps stabilized, varying from 5 to 7 packs and from 48 to 84 wolves. The reasons for this are unknown, but are being investigated. The lack of continuing steady growth in documented wolf numbers may be due to a dramatic reduction of white-tailed deer numbers throughout northwestern Montana (Caroline Sime, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm. 1998) due to the severe winter of 1996-97, which we believe was responsible for the record high level of livestock depredations and correspondingly high level of wolf control in northwestern Montana during summer 1997. Our 1998 estimate was a minimum of 49 wolves in 5 reproducing packs. In 1999, and again in 2000, 6 breeding pairs appear to have produced pups, and the northwestern Montana population increased to about 63 wolves. In 2001, there were an estimated 84 wolves in 7 breeding pairs (Service
et al.
2002).
Wolf conflicts with livestock have increased with the growing wolf population and with fluctuations in prey populations. For example, in 1997, following a severe winter that reduced white-tailed deer populations, wolf conflicts with livestock increased dramatically. That year alone accounted for nearly 50 percent of all the wolf livestock depredations that were confirmed and subsequent lethal wolf control actions that were taken in northwestern Montana during the period 1987-1999 (Bangs
et al.
1998). Wolf numbers should increase as prey numbers rebound, but, for now, the need for wolf control measures has subsided. Unlike Yellowstone National Park or the central Idaho Wilderness, northwestern Montana lacks a core refugia that also contains overwintering ungulates. Therefore, wolf numbers are not ever likely to be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in central Idaho and northwest Wyoming.
Central Idaho
In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves captured in Alberta, Canada, were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts
et al.
1997, Bangs
et al.
1998). During January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British Columbia were released. In 1998 the population consisted of a minimum of 114 wolves, including 10 packs that produced pups (Bangs
et al.
1998). In 1999 it had grown to about 141 wolves in 10 reproducing packs. By 2000 Idaho had 192 wolves in 10 breeding pairs and in 2001 the population was about 261 wolves in 14 breeding pairs (Service
et al.
2002).
Greater Yellowstone Area
In January 1995, 14 wolves from Alberta, representing three family groups, were placed in 3 pens in Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and Fritts 1996, Fritts
et al.
1997). The groups were released in late March. Two of the three groups produced young in late April. In January 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves from British Columbia, representing 4 family groups, for release in early April. Two of those groups produced pups in late April. Furthermore, as the result of a September 1996 wolf control action in northwestern Montana, 10 5-month-old pups were transported to a pen in the Park. These pups and 3 adults from the Greater Yellowstone Area, which were originally reintroduced from Canada, were released in spring 1997. By 1998, the Greater Yellowstone Area population consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 packs that produced 10 litters of pups. The 1999 population consisted of 118 wolves, including 8 breeding pairs. In 2000 Yellowstone had 177 wolves, including 14 breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including 13 breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service
et al.
2002).
Dispersal of Western Gray Wolves
Significant numbers of pups (9 in 1995, 25 in 1996, 99 in 1997, and steadily increasing to about 150 in 2000, and nearly 200 in 2001 and 2002) born to reintroduced wolves are becoming sexually mature and are dispersing from their natal packs. Because dispersing wolves may travel extensively and often settle in areas without resident packs, we expect that these wolves will continue to initiate significant expansion in the number and distribution of wolf packs in the northern Rocky Mountains. Dispersal will increase management costs and controversy, because many of these wolves will not be radio-collared and will attempt to colonize areas of private land used for livestock production. This geographic expansion of wolf presence will also increase the amount of needed agency wolf control, particularly lethal control. Wolves that disperse southward in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area will increasingly encounter the full range of domestic livestock, including sheep, which are more susceptible to predation and multiple-mortality incidents than are other domestic livestock (Bangs
et al.
1995, Fritts
et al.
1992).
We predicted that these three populations eventually would expand and begin to overlap, resulting in one meta-population of gray wolves in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains. In 1994 we believed that the most likely direction for wolf dispersal and population growth would be from northwestern Montana southward into the experimental areas. Wolves most commonly disperse toward other wolves even when separated by great distances, and we speculated that the presence of reintroduced wolves in the central Idaho and Yellowstone experimental areas would increase the likelihood for wolf dispersal into those areas from northwestern Montana. At that time, we believed that wolves in the northwestern Montana recovery area would be the first to reach 10 breeding pairs. We now believe that the severe winter of 1996-97 temporarily depressed the number of wolves in northwestern Montana and limited the number of dispersal-aged wolves in that area (Service 1994a, Bangs
et al.
1998).
In contrast, the wolves reintroduced into central Idaho and Yellowstone have increased their numbers greatly, and nearly two-thirds of those wolves are young, dispersal-aged animals that may move from those areas over the next several years. We now believe that wolves that are offspring of the reintroduced animals will increasingly disperse into northwestern Montana and elsewhere. A recent study of wolf genetics among wolves in northwestern Montana and the reintroduced populations found that wolves in those areas were as genetically diverse as their source populations in Canada and that genetic diversity was not a wolf conservation issue in the northern Rocky Mountains at this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997). To date, from radio telemetry monitoring we have documented routine wolf movement between wolves in Canada and northwestern Montana, occasional wolf movement between wolves in Idaho and Montana, and at least two wolves that have traveled into Idaho from northwestern Wyoming. Additionally,
in 2001-2002 a wolf from Yellowstone dispersed 240 km (150 mi) into northwestern Montana, and a wolf from Idaho dispersed over 480 km (300 mi) to northwestern Wyoming. Since two-thirds of the wolf population is not radio-collared, additional dispersal has undoubtedly occurred in addition to that documented by radio-collared wolves. Because of the long dispersal distances and the relative speed of natural wolf movement between Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we anticipate that wolves will continue to maintain high genetic diversity in the three States. If significant genetic concerns do arise at some future time, our experience with wolf relocation shows that we could effectively remedy those concerns with occasional wolf relocation actions.
We also anticipate additional movement of wolves from the northern U.S. Rockies and Canada into western Washington and Oregon and into the Cascade Range. For example, one radio-collared wolf from northwestern Montana was found dead in 1994 from unknown causes in eastern Washington, and a radio-collared young female wolf from central Idaho dispersed into eastern Oregon in early 1999. She was recaptured and returned to the Central Idaho Recovery Area where she would have a better opportunity to find a mate. Since 1999, 2 other dead wolves (1 radio-collared in Idaho and one not radio-collared) were found in eastern Oregon. These wolves were killed by a vehicle collision and an illegal shooting, respectively. Furthermore, suitable habitat and prey conditions exist in other areas to which wolves may be able to disperse from current populations. Given that wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains have dispersed over 800 km (500 mi), it is reasonable to assume that occasional but routine wolf dispersal will continue to occur within 400 km (250 mi) of the current boundaries of the wolf population.
Observation data indicate that the wolves outside of the core recovery areas mostly occur as individuals, although several wolf family units have been reported in the North Cascades (Almack and Fitkin 1998). However, because efforts to locate family units have been unsuccessful, we are not sure whether wolves are reproducing in the North Cascades. Under this final rule, any animals outside the core recovery areas are protected by the Act as threatened wolves, and we will continue to provide protection recommendations for den and rendezvous sites to Federal agencies on a site-specific basis.
While habitat that could support wolves certainly exists in several areas, we have no plans to initiate new wolf restoration efforts for any areas in the western United States outside of those already underway in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and the southwestern States. However, this final rule continues the protections of the Act for any wolves in the wild within all States that are included within the boundaries of the Western DPS. Therefore, any new gray wolf restoration programs undertaken by States or tribes within the boundaries of the DPS would benefit from the protections of the Act as long as the DPS remains listed as threatened.
While we have no plans to actively pursue wolf restoration in other areas of the Western DPS, we will not act to routinely prevent natural wolf recolonization in such areas. Wolves that naturally disperse into other States will be managed on a case-by-case basis, and we have the authority to manage these wolves. Generally, if there are no conflicts with human activities, such wolves will likely not be returned to the area of their origin. If wolves move outside of the recovery areas and depredate livestock, they will be killed rather than moved. In addition, States or tribes considering wolf restoration planning for lands under their jurisdiction may request us to provide technical assistance for those efforts.
Reclassification and Recovery Goals for the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains
The criteria for threatened and recovered wolf populations in the northern Rocky Mountains have been the subject of intense interest and several peer review efforts (Fritts and Carbyn 1995). The 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1987) defined a recovered wolf population as securing and maintaining a minimum of 10 breeding pairs in each of 3 recovery areas for a minimum of 3 successive years. A breeding pair was defined as “Two wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring.” Recovery areas were relatively small and separate areas in northern Montana, central Idaho, and the Greater Yellowstone Area.
The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) review (Appendix 9, in Service 1994a) indicated that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a minimal recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. Fritts (Appendix 9, in Service 1994a) specifically reviewed the issue of a viable wolf population in the EIS on wolf reintroduction. He concluded that “Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some +300 wolves in a metapopulation with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have a high probability of long-term persistence.” Further, Fritts stated, “My conclusion is that the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years is reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat conservative, however, and should be considered minimal.” In his review, a breeding pair was defined 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.” His review was based upon abutting recovery areas that were much larger than those recommended in the 1987 plan. This proximity would allow wolves to occasionally move from one recovery population to another, thus producing the metapopulation structure that was inherent to Fritts' analysis, but was absent from the 1987 Recovery Plan goal.
The Service (Bangs 2002) conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf population in late 2001 and early 2002. Relevant literature was reviewed, and responses were received and evaluated from 50 of 88 experts contacted. That review showed that there is a wide variety of professional opinion about wolf population viability. However, that review supported and reaffirmed Fritts' earlier conclusions that 30 breeding pairs of wolves (using Fritts' definition of a breeding pair) widely distributed in a metapopulation structure (that is, populations within dispersal distance to promote movement between recovery populations) throughout the mountainous portions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 successive years would exceed the minimum biological requirements of a viable and recovered wolf population. The experts also compared the 1987 recovery plan recommendation of a recovered wolf population with Fritts' recommendation and concluded that Fritts' definition was more likely to define a viable wolf population than the 1987 recovery plan definition.
Therefore, in place of the 1987 Recovery Plan goal, we have adopted the definition of wolf population viability and recovery developed in the 1994 EIS (Service 1994a). That definition is “Thirty breeding pairs of wolves (defined as an adult male and an adult female that raise at least 2 pups until December 31 of the year of their birth), comprising some +300
individuals in a metapopulation with some genetic exchange between subpopulations, for three successive years.”
A minimum of 30 breeding pairs was first documented in 2000, and a minimum of 34 breeding pairs was documented in 2001. We fully expect to confirm in early 2003 that the wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains will have again exceeded 30 breeding pairs in 2002, thus achieving the wolf population recovery goal. At that point the Service could propose to delist the wolf population.
The 1987 recovery plan recommended that wolves be downlisted to threatened status throughout the northern Rocky Mountains at the time each of 2 recovery areas had maintained a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years. In 2000, when the Service proposed to reclassify these wolves to threatened status, the year 2000 was the fourth successive year of having 20 or more breeding pairs in the northern Rocky Mountains. The Service considered this to fully meet the intent of the downlisting goal. Since that time, the wolf population has continued to grow even larger and should no longer be considered endangered.
L. Recovery Progress of the Southwestern (Mexican) Gray Wolf
The objectives of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (Service 1982) are to maintain a captive breeding program and to reestablish a population of at least 100 Mexican wolves within its historical range. The plan contains no numerical criteria that would support either revision of the endangered status of the Mexican wolf to threatened or delisting. We consider the current recovery plan objective for the wild population to be an essential first step toward the eventual recovery of the Mexican wolf. A revised recovery plan for the Mexican wolf will contain numerical criteria for reclassifying to a threatened status and for delisting. Because recovery of the Mexican wolf is in its very early stages, we are establishing a Southwestern Gray Wolf DPS, but we are making no changes to the protective legal status of the Mexican gray wolf at this time.
Through managed breeding, the captive population of Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolves had increased to 247 animals as of August 2002. Forty-five zoos and wildlife sanctuaries throughout the United States and Mexico cooperate in the maintenance and breeding of the captive wolves. The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), an 18,000-sq km (7000-sq mi) area, has been designated for the re-establishment of a wild population of at least 100 wolves. This area includes all of the Apache and Gila National Forests in eastern Arizona and western New Mexico.
Re-establishment of a wild population began with the release of 13 captive-reared Mexican gray wolves in eastern Arizona in 1998. Releases have occurred each year since then, and as of August 2002, an additional 61 wolves, including uncollared pups, had been released in the BRWRA. A minimum of 24 Mexican wolves representing 8 packs were free-ranging in the wild as of January 2003. During 2002, we documented surviving wild-conceived offspring from the past 3 breeding seasons and documented the production of the first second-generation wild-conceived, wild-born offspring. Efforts are ongoing to capture uncollared wolves living in the population. The documentation of the birth of second-generation wild-born offspring and breeding pairs forming on their own are both key signs that a Mexican wolf population is establishing itself in the BRWRA. Additional releases are planned to occur as they are needed to reach the current goal of a wild population of 100 wolves. This reintroduced population of wolves, like those in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area, has been designated nonessential experimental (63 FR 1752-1772, January 12, 1998); these wolves can be legally killed by ranchers if the wolves attack livestock on private land. Other provisions of the special regulation designating the population as nonessential experimental give agency managers flexibility to address wolf-human conflicts. Defenders of Wildlife, a private conservation organization, compensates ranchers whose livestock are killed by these wolves.
Designation of Distinct Population Segments
Previously, the gray wolf was listed as threatened in Minnesota and as endangered in the other 47 conterminous States, effectively establishing a Minnesota DPS that was delimited by State boundaries in the absence of any other indications of discreteness (Map 1). This separate designation of Minnesota gray wolves as threatened was established in 1978, before our adoption of the 1996 Vertebrate Population Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996); this final rule brings the current listing of the gray wolf into compliance with the policy.
As discussed above in the
Distinct Population Segments Under Our Vertebrate Population Policy
section, our Vertebrate Population Policy requires that we consider the concepts of “discreteness” and “significance” when deciding if a vertebrate population meets the requirements for a DPS designation. If the population is determined to be discrete and significant, then we evaluate the conservation status of the population to determine if it is threatened or endangered. The discussion of discreteness and significance for each DPS follows the descriptions of the geographic area included in each DPS.
Based on the Vertebrate Population Policy, this rule reclassifies the gray wolf by establishing the following 3 DPSs within the conterminous 48 States (Map 3).
Eastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment.
Consisting of gray wolves within the States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine; and those gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area. This DPS includes all the areas that we proposed in July 2000 for the Western Great Lakes DPS and the Northeastern DPS, as well as 12 additional States.
Western Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment.
The exterior boundary of the Western DPS encompasses the States of California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Utah north of U.S. Highway 50, and Colorado north of Interstate Highway 70. Gray wolves in this geographic area are included in the Western DPS, except for gray wolves that are part of an experimental population. Gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area are also included in the Western DPS.
Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment.
The exterior boundary of the Southwestern DPS encompasses the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah south of U.S. Highway 50, Colorado south of Interstate Highway 70, those parts of Oklahoma and Texas west of Interstate Highway 35, and Mexico. Gray wolves in this geographic area are included in the Southwestern DPS, except for gray wolves that are part of an experimental population. Gray wolves in captivity that originated from, or whose ancestors originated from, this geographic area are also included in the Southwestern DPS.
Discreteness.
To date, we have no evidence that any wolves from any of these DPSs have dispersed across these DPS boundaries, although we expect
such dispersals to occur. The current gray wolf populations within each of these DPSs are separated from the gray wolf populations in the other DPS by large areas that are not occupied by breeding populations of resident wild gray wolves. Although small numbers of dispersing individual gray wolves have been seen in some of these unoccupied areas, and it is possible that individual dispersing wolves can completely cross some of these gaps between occupied areas and may therefore join another wolf population, we believe that the existing geographic isolation of wolf populations in each of these three DPSs from the other far exceeds the Vertebrate Population Policy's criterion for discreteness of each DPS. (Refer to the
Change to the Boundary Between the Western DPS and the Southwestern DPS
section, below, for additional discussion on establishing these DPS boundaries.)
The Vertebrate Population Policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution of the species extends across that border. Therefore, we will continue to use the United States-Canada border to mark the northern portions of the boundaries of the Western and Eastern DPSs due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries. In general, wolf populations are more numerous and wide-ranging in Canada; therefore, wolves are not protected by Federal laws in Canada and are publicly trapped in most Canadian provinces.
Along our border with Mexico, the situation is quite different. Gray wolves have been extirpated, or nearly so, from Mexico. However, the captive animals that have been used to start the Mexican wolf recovery program in the United States are of Mexican origin, and Mexico is closely cooperating with the Service in the Mexican wolf recovery program in a number of ways. The current Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (1982) is a bi-national recovery plan, signed by both the U.S. and Mexico. This bi-national recovery effort will continue with plans for Mexico and the Service to jointly revise the bi-national recovery plan for the Mexican wolf. Because of the cooperative gray wolf conservation efforts we have with Mexico across our southern border, our Southwestern DPS does not end at the Mexican border, but rather it includes all historical gray wolf range in Mexico.
Significance.
We further believe that all three of these wolf populations satisfy the significance criterion of the Vertebrate Population Policy under examples 2 and 4, as provided in the Policy—significant range gaps and genetic characteristics.
In our Vertebrate Population Policy, example 2 states that “evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon” shows that the population meets the significance criterion. Loss of the discrete wolf populations in either the Eastern DPS, the Western DPS, or the Southwestern DPS would clearly produce huge gaps in current gray wolf distribution in the 48 States.
Our Vertebrate Population Policy also states (example 4) that “[E]vidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics” is another indication that the population satisfies the significance test. Although genetic studies are continuing, and the subspecific taxonomy of the gray wolf remains to be conclusively determined, several studies agree that these three recovery programs are recovering different evolutionary lineages of the gray wolf (Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, Nowak 1995, Wilson
et al.
2000). Even various gray wolf subspecies maps, which show vastly different numbers and ranges of subspecies and are still being disputed, all agree that the wolves currently being recovered in the Midwest, the northern U.S. Rockies, and in the Southwest are of different subspecific origins (Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, Hall 1981, Nowak 1995, 2000, Young and Goldman 1944). At a minimum, even if these three groups of gray wolves are not separate subspecies, strong indications suggest that they are separate reservoirs of diversity that differ from each other and therefore are significant to the species (Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, Nowak 1995, Wilson
et al.
2000).
The existence of large areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat and prey resources in parts of northern New York and northern New England, occurrence records of a few wolves or wolf-like canids during the 1990s, and the presence of wolf populations in neighboring areas of eastern Canada caused us to propose a DPS for the gray wolf in the Northeast (Map 2). At the time of the proposal, we had limited information on extant wolves in the Northeast, and we specifically requested additional data and other information on Northeastern wolves. However, no new data were provided to substantiate that a wolf population exists in the Northeast.
A wolf population must exist in an area in order for us to designate it as a DPS. Therefore, as discussed above in the
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
section, we do not have sufficient data on the identity of historical northeastern United States wolves or the current existence of wolves in the Northeast to support the designation of a DPS there. However, we are retaining the listing of gray wolves in these States under the Act in order to preserve the ability to protect wolves that may occur there. Because a separate DPS cannot be designated in the Northeast due to the lack of evidence of an extant wolf population, this area is being combined with the proposed Western Great Lakes DPS and with other States, and is being designated as part of the Eastern Gray Wolf DPS. The future possibility of establishing a Service wolf recovery program in the Northeast remains possible if it is demonstrated to be necessary for the recovery of a wolf “species,” as defined in the Act.
We emphasize that the expansion of the boundaries of these three DPSs from our July 2000 proposal does not reflect any intent of the Service to expand our current gray wolf recovery programs beyond their current geographic areas, or to initiate new gray wolf restoration efforts in these DPSs.
Peer Review
In accordance with our longstanding practice and with our July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), Interagency Cooperative Policy on Peer Review (Peer Review Policy), we requested the expert opinions of independent specialists regarding pertinent scientific or commercial data and assumptions relating to supportive biological and ecological information in the proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decision is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input from appropriate experts and specialists.
Our Peer Review Policy requires that we solicit expert opinions of three independent specialists. Because of the complexity, geographic scope, and expected controversial nature of the proposed actions, we requested reviews from 14 independent experts and received comments from 11 of them during the comment period. We contacted individuals who possess expertise on gray wolf biology and ecology, threats to wolves, and wolf health and diseases. In order to adhere to the Policy's requirement for independent reviewers, this peer review did not use employees of the Service, or of States that have a significant stake in the outcome of this rulemaking. The reviewers that we chose are from Alaska and Canada, as well as from across wolf range in the conterminous States. They
were asked to review the proposed rule and the supporting data, and to point out any mistakes in our data or analysis, and to identify any relevant data that we might have overlooked. We have incorporated their comments into the final rule, as appropriate, and have briefly summarized their observations below.
Of the peer reviewers who specifically expressed support for, or opposition to, our various proposed actions, all supported the DPS approach, that is, dividing the current listing into smaller geographic units that better reflect recovery progress and recovery needs, and providing the protections that are appropriate to that progress and those needs. All but one supported reclassification of the wolves in the western Great Lakes area to threatened status, and that dissenting reviewer recommended that we go a step further and delist those wolves instead of reclassifying them. Most peer reviewers supported reclassification of the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population to threatened, but one questioned whether this is appropriate before the reclassification criteria of the 1984 Recovery Plan have been achieved. Another reviewer supported reclassification of the Western DPS, but stated that delisting should not occur until each of the 3 recovery segments exceed 10 breeding pairs. One reviewer suggested reducing the recovery goal for northwestern Montana to fewer than 10 breeding pairs.
Of those who specifically commented on it, all peer reviewers supported the proposed establishment of a separate Northeastern DPS. There was general support for gray wolf delisting in areas where wolf restoration was not necessary and not feasible, but there was some disagreement on where those areas were. Delisting in the Southeast was supported, but delisting in California and Nevada was opposed by two reviewers. Delisting the Dakotas (instead of reclassifying to threatened, as we proposed) was recommended by one reviewer. Five of the reviewers also recommended that the southern Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Utah, and the northern parts of Arizona and New Mexico) either be established as a separate DPS, or be included in the proposed endangered Southwestern (Mexican) DPS rather than in the threatened Western DPS. One reviewer recommended that a Northwestern DPS be established, composed of California and the western halves of Washington and Oregon.
Numerous suggestions for technical corrections were provided by the peer reviewers, and they also pointed out parts of the proposal that needed clarification.
The recommendations of the peer reviewers, as well as the comments we received from other sources during the comment period, are discussed in the following section. We also provide explanations for why the recommendations were, or were not, adopted in our final decision.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In our July 13, 2000, proposed rule and associated notifications, we requested that all interested parties submit comments, data, or other information that might aid in our decisions or otherwise contribute to the development of this final rule. The comment period for the proposed rule was open from July 13, 2000, through November 13, 2000. During that period we publicized and conducted 14 public hearings and numerous public informational meetings in order to explain the proposal, respond to questions concerning gray wolf protection and recovery, and receive input from interested parties. We contacted appropriate Federal, State, and tribal agencies, scientific organizations, agricultural organizations, outdoor user groups, environmental organizations, animal rights groups, and other interested parties and requested that they comment on the proposal. We conducted two national press conferences to promote wide coverage of our proposed rule in the print media, and we published legal notices in many newspapers across the range of the gray wolf announcing the proposal and hearings, and inviting comments. We posted the proposal and numerous background documents on our Web site, and we provided copies upon request by mail or E-mail and at our hearings and informational meetings. We established several methods for interested parties to provide comments and other materials, including verbally or in writing at public hearings, by letter, E-mail, facsimile, or on our Web site.
During the 4-month comment period and at our 14 public hearings we received nearly 16,000 separate comments, including comments from 329 individuals who spoke at public hearings and comments from 11 peer reviewers. We also received form letters and “petitions” with over 27,000 additional signatures. Comments originated from addresses in all 50 States, including the District of Columbia.
We revised and updated the proposed rule in order to make the final rule reflect comments and information we received during the comment period. In the following paragraphs we address the substantive comments that we received concerning various aspects of the proposed rule. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together under subject headings (referred to as “Issues” for the purpose of this summary) below, along with our response to each. In addition to the following discussion, refer to the
Changes from the Proposed Rule
section (also below) for more details.
A. Technical and Editorial Comments
Issue 1:
Numerous technical and editorial comments and corrections were provided by respondents, including the peer reviewers. Clarification and consistent usage of terms such as “public lands,” “tamed,” “domesticated,” and “breeding pair” was recommended.
Response:
We have corrected and updated numbers and other data wherever appropriate. Wolf population estimates made during 1999 have been replaced with the final numbers calculated in late December 2001. We also clarified numerous discussion points and have provided clearer terminology in several locations. We have substituted “domesticated” for “tamed” and have standardized our use of the phrase “breeding pair.”
Issue 2:
Commenter pointed out inconsistencies between the text of the proposed Western DPS 4(d) rule, the text explaining that proposed rule, and the table that compared it to the experimental populations special rules and the normal protections of the Act. In addition, the phrase “public land” is used several times in the table but is not defined there.
Response:
We have revised the table, the explanatory text, and the wording of that 4(d) rule to make sure they are consistent. For example, as defined in the 4(d) rule, the term public lands refers only to federally administered lands unless specifically defined otherwise in State or tribal wolf management plans (see issue U, “State Wolf Management Plans”). Other public lands such as city, county, or State lands would be treated the same as private land for the purposes of wolf management under the Western DPS 4(d) rule.
B. Compliance With Laws, Regulations, and Policies
Issue 1:
Commenters expressed concern that the proposal was not in compliance with the Act and implementing regulations.
Response:
We have carefully reviewed the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. We believe this final rule, as well as the process by which it was developed and finalized, complies with all provisions of the Act and applicable regulations. The Act requires that we identify and protect species that are endangered or threatened, develop and implement recovery programs for those species, and delist them when they are no longer threatened or endangered. These actions are not discretionary, but are mandated by the Act. We do this to the extent possible under the funds appropriated to us each year and in accordance with priorities established by Congress, and by us pursuant to the provisions of the Act. However, the Act does not require us to restore a species across its historical range, or to all remaining areas of suitable habitat. Rather, we restore it to the point that the threats to its continued existence are reduced to the point that it no longer is threatened or endangered. Our detailed analysis of the threats for each DPS is found in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
section below.
Issue 2:
A number of commenters stated that establishing numerical quotas for endangered or threatened species is contrary to the intent of the Act and that we should not use such quotas in reclassification or delisting decisions for the gray wolf.
Response:
The Act (section 4(f)(1)) requires us to develop recovery plans that contain “objective, measurable criteria” that we are to use in making our determination of whether a species is recovered or is making significant progress toward recovery. Our longstanding practice is to include numerical criteria in our recovery plans as one means to trigger consideration of delisting or reclassification. However, we agree with the commenters that these numerical criteria should not be the sole basis for delisting or reclassification decisions. As required by the Act (section 4(a)(1)), we also conduct an evaluation of the factors (threats) that currently affect the species and the factors that would impact the species, or would increase their impact, if the species were to be delisted or reclassified.
Issue 3:
Other commenters questioned our compliance with the Vertebrate Population Policy and stated that we must list more DPSs in order to comply with that Policy.
Response:
The Act gives us the authority to list by species, subspecies, or DPS. However, Congress directed that we use our authority to list by DPS sparingly. The DPS policy identifies the criteria that must be met for a vertebrate group to qualify as a DPS, but it does not require that we designate a DPS in all cases where a vertebrate group meets the DPS criteria. The Service has the discretion to list, reclassify, or delist at the subspecies or species level instead of the DPS level, as we believe to be most appropriate to carry out our listing and recovery programs.
Issue 4:
The Service should reclassify and delist the wolf on a State-by-State basis.
Response:
The previous listing of the gray wolf, in which wolves in Minnesota were listed as threatened while wolves in adjacent States, including Wisconsin, are endangered, was done prior to our 1996 Vertebrate Population Policy, and that previous listing did not conform to the 1996 Policy. The Policy states that listings not in conformance with the Policy will be brought into conformance whenever the listing status of that taxon is changed.
While the policy allows us to use boundaries between States as boundaries of convenience between two populations if those populations are already discrete in relation to each other, we cannot use a boundary between States to subdivide a single biological population in an effort to artificially create a discrete population. Thus, although Minnesota wolves were listed separately in the past, we no longer list, or delist, them separately from the Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population because they are not biologically discrete. By reclassifying wolves throughout the Midwest from endangered to threatened status and joining them into a single DPS, we have brought the listing into conformance with the Vertebrate Population Policy and given the overall Midwest wolf population a threatened designation, which is biologically more appropriate than is an endangered designation.
Issue 5:
One respondent believes that the proposal was in conflict with our mission statement, which is “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”
Response:
We believe the proposal portrays an example of doing exactly what is intended by our mission statement. Gray wolf recovery programs involve many partners in the private and public sector, at all levels of government, and include numerous Federal agencies. The wolf recovery successes described in the proposal resulted from working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance gray wolf populations in several areas across their historical range. Those successes have now reached a point where several of those wolf populations no longer qualify for protection as endangered, so we are reclassifying them to threatened. Congress, through its enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, stated that such programs benefit our nation and the American people. Furthermore, we have provided extensive opportunities and numerous pathways for all interested parties to become involved in the reclassification process.
Issue 6:
A commenter believes that the proposal is not in compliance with our National Policy Issuance 96-06, which is also known as the “10-point Plan for the Endangered Species Act.”
Response:
The relevant points in this March 6, 1995 policy are these: base our listing/delisting decisions on sound and objective science; minimize social and economic impacts of our actions; treat landowners fairly and with consideration; promptly recover and delist threatened and endangered species; and provide State, tribal and local governments with opportunities to play a greater role in carrying out the provisions of the Act. To the extent allowed by the Act and other Federal laws and regulations, we have conducted gray wolf recovery and reclassification in a manner that fully adheres to the points of this Policy. We have used the best available scientific data, we have developed special regulations and depredation control programs that reduce social and economic impacts, we are reclassifying and intend to delist at the appropriate time, and we have provided State, tribal, and other governments many opportunities to participate in wolf recovery and in this rulemaking. In many ways, gray wolf recovery and this reclassification is an excellent example of following National Policy Issuance 96-06.
Issue 7:
The proposal was not in compliance with National Policy Issuance 95-03 and Director's Order No. 110, both dealing with using the “ecosystem approach.”
Response:
This 1995 Policy and 1999 Order state that the Service will apply an ecosystem approach in carrying out our programs for fish and wildlife conservation. The goal of an ecosystem approach is for the Service, when carrying out its various mandates and functions, to strive to contribute to the effective conservation of natural biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems.
Preserving and recovering endangered and threatened species is one of the more basic aspects of an ecosystem approach to conservation. Successful
recovery of a rare species requires that the necessary components of its habitat and ecosystem be conserved, and that diverse partnerships be developed to ensure the long-term protection of those components. Thus, the recovery success demonstrated for gray wolves is also a demonstration of the ecosystem approach, including the various partnerships that are needed for success.
Issue 8:
The Service has not adequately consulted with Native American tribes, as required by Secretarial Order 3206. (Refer to issue V, Native American Concerns, below, for additional Native American concerns.)
Response:
During the development of the proposal and this final rule, we endeavored to consult with Native American tribes and Native American organizations in order both to provide them with a complete understanding of the proposed changes and also to enable ourselves to gain an appreciation of their concerns with those changes. Although we must base the decision on whether a species should be listed, reclassified, or delisted under the Act purely on scientific data concerning the threats and commercialization of the species, the manner in which we carry out listing, reclassification, or delisting vary so that we can address the cultural and spiritual importance of a species to Native Americans. As we have become aware of Native American concerns through consultation with them, we have tried to address those concerns to the extent allowed by the Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and other Federal statutes.
For example, the proposed 4(d) rule for lethal control of depredating wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan has caused concern among several tribes that have, or expect to soon have, wolves living on their reservations. We are currently working with the Bad River Band and the WI DNR to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for the cooperative management of wolves in the area surrounding the Bad River Reservation (Wisconsin), in order to minimize the impacts that off-reservation depredation control actions by the WI DNR might have on reservation wolves. This agreement may serve as a prototype for other tribes and States.
We acknowledge that our early consultation efforts could be improved. Early consultation efforts were hampered primarily by the geographic scope and complexity of the proposal. We tried to remedy this issue by making additional efforts to contact and inform tribes during the comment period.
Issue 9:
The Service should propose critical habitat for the gray wolf.
Response:
Critical habitat was designated in 1978 for the gray wolf in parts of northeastern and north-central Minnesota and on Isle Royale, Michigan (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We are not making any changes to the currently designated critical habitat, because we do not believe it is appropriate to do so.
The Endangered Species Act amendments of 1982 specified that, for any critical habitat designation for a species already listed as threatened or endangered at the time of enactment of the 1982 amendments, the procedures for revisions to critical habitat would apply (Pub. L. 97-304, section 2(b)(2)). Consequently, designation of critical habitat for the gray wolf is subject to the procedures for revisions to critical habitat. As such, it is not mandatory for the Service to designate critical habitat for the gray wolf. Section 4(a)(3)(B) provides that the Service “may” make revisions to critical habitat “from time-to-time * * * as appropriate” (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)). The Service has determined that there currently are no likely benefits to be derived from additional critical habitat designations, and it therefore is not appropriate to designate additional critical habitat. Wolf populations in both the Eastern and Western DPSs are at their numerical recovery goals as a result of past and current protections, but the currently designated critical habitat played a negligible role in wolf recovery. This is attributable to the fact that gray wolves are habitat generalists, and their numbers and range are not limited by a lack of suitable habitat or by any degradation of any essential habitat features. Designating critical habitat would be an inappropriate use of our limited listing funds if done for a species that is successfully recovering without such designation, and at a time when we have determined that it is more appropriate to reduce, rather than increase, the Federal protections for the species.
It should also be noted that the Act (section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii)) prohibits us from designating critical habitat for the nonessential experimental populations established in the Western DPS and the Southwestern DPS. Furthermore, 50 CFR 424.12(h) prohibits the designation of critical habitat in foreign countries.
Issue 10:
The Service should have conducted additional public meetings and hearings, or extended the comment period to provide additional opportunities to learn more about the proposal and to provide comments. We should have used the postmark date, rather than the received date, to determine whether comments were made during the open comment period.
Response:
The Act requires that we provide at least a 60-day comment period and that we conduct one public hearing if we are requested to do so. We recognized that the proposal would be controversial, would require more explanation than most of our proposals, and would result in a large number of comments. Therefore, we went well beyond the basic requirements of the Act and other Federal rulemaking procedures. We established a comment period that was twice the required length. We prearranged 14 hearings from Maine to Washington State. We conducted two national press conferences and two Congressional briefings. We conducted multiple informational meetings. We provided a variety of informational materials at hearings and meetings, by mail and e-mail, and on our Web site. We established mechanisms for interested parties to ask questions and to submit comments verbally, in writing, by e-mail or fax, and on our Web site.
Finally, while the Service sometimes uses the postmark date to determine whether comments were received before a deadline in rulemakings, our normal practice is to use the date of receipt, and our intent to use that cutoff method at the close of the 4-month comment period was clearly stated in all our documents that referred to comment submission. We believe we provided extensive, varied, and sufficient opportunities for interested partied to ask questions, obtain additional information, and provide input for our consideration.
Issue 11:
The Service should conduct Population Viability Analyses (PVA) before reclassifying anywhere.
Response:
The Act requires that we use the best scientific data available when we make decisions to list, reclassify, or delist a species. The Service recognizes that PVAs are a tool that can provide some insight into the vulnerability of species, and we have conducted PVAs for a number of species, usually as an aid in establishing recovery goals or identifying the most critical gaps in our knowledge in order to prioritize research needs. While we have found PVAs to be useful in some circumstances, in other cases the analyses provided little or no new information, or the outcome was not considered to be reliable.
PVAs can be a valuable as a tool to help us understand the population dynamics of a rare species (White 2000). They can be useful in identifying gaps in our knowledge of the demographic parameters that are most important to a species' survival, but they cannot tell us how many individuals are necessary to
avoid extinction. The difficulty of applying PVA techniques to wolves has been discussed by Fritts and Carbyn (1995). Problems include our inability to provide accurate input information for the probability of occurrence of, and impact from, catastrophic events (such as a major disease outbreak or prey base collapse; we know of no catastrophic events that have significantly impacted large wolf populations except for human persecution), providing realistic inputs for the influences of environmental variation (such as annual fluctuations in winter severity and the resulting impacts on prey abundance and vulnerability), temporal variation, and individual heterogeneity, as well as dealing with the spatial aspects of extreme territoriality and the long-distance dispersals shown by wolves. Each of these factors can be a powerful determinant of the outcome of a gray wolf PVA, and relatively minor changes in any of these input values can result in vastly different outcomes.
PVAs are also useful for studying small populations. In a small-population study, the modeling exercise can provide clues to which demographic, genetic, or environmental parameters may have the greatest likelihood of influencing a species' survival, and thus possible insight into areas where initial conservation actions should be focused. However, for obviously recovering entities like the gray wolf populations of the Northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and the Midwest, PVA modeling exercises may largely be an exercise in quantifying the recovery of a species whose increases, and the reasons for them, are already qualitatively quite apparent. In the case of species like the gray wolf—a species that has been well studied and is well along the road to recovery—generally little is to be learned from a PVA.
The WI DNR conducted a PVA for the State's wolf population several years ago when its wolf population was considerably smaller than it is today. Most scenarios that were modeled by WI DNR (varying the probability of catastrophic events, reproductive rates, and environmental variability) resulted in very low probabilities of extinction even with the maximum wolf population limited to only 500 animals (WI DNR 1999a). The model treated the Wisconsin wolf population as a totally isolated population (that is, with no possibility of wolf immigration from Minnesota or Michigan), so even those low extinction probabilities were overestimates. Because this reclassification reduces Federal protection of wolves only slightly, a PVA would not be expected show any resultant significant change in the risk of extinction.
Finally, we note that none of the 11 peer reviewers of the proposal indicated that there was any need for the Service to conduct a PVA or minimum viable population analysis for the 2 gray wolf populations for which we proposed changes in July 2000. One reviewer stated that PVAs are of little value and may even be misleading.
Issue 12:
The Service should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for this rule.
Response:
As stated in the proposal, the question of whether environmental assessments or environmental impact statements need to be prepared was addressed by our previous determination (48 FR 49244; October 25, 1983) in which we stated that such documents do not have to be prepared for regulations developed under section 4(a) of the Act.
Issue 13:
A better notification process is needed for our public hearings.
Response:
We did a great deal to alert interested parties to the details of public hearings. Public hearing times and locations were announced in the
Federal Register
, posted on our Web site, publicized in local and national press releases, and, in some areas of the Midwest, advertised on local radio stations. Notification letters were sent to numerous organizations so they could alert their memberships. In addition, parties who requested to be added to our wolf electronic mailing list received information on hearings and public meetings electronically. However, we acknowledge that, despite all these efforts, some interested parties did not learn of the hearings in time to attend. We are interested in receiving ideas to further improve our efforts to publicize our public hearings in the future. However, in this case there were numerous avenues, in addition to public hearings, for interested individuals to obtain information and submit comments on the proposal. All comments received during the comment period, whether presented at a public hearing or provided in another manner, received the same review and consideration.
Issue 14:
The Service should consider how to delist nonessential experimental populations.
Response:
For the gray wolf, the nonessential experimental populations in the Northern Rocky Mountains are part of a larger recovery program that also includes the northwestern Montana wolves. They will be delisted at whatever time the Western DPS is delisted.
Issue 15:
One commenter stated that we cannot use wolves in experimental populations to count toward recovery or reclassification goals, because such populations can only be used for research purposes.
Response:
The term “experimental” is used in the Act to describe these populations; however, this designation does not mean these populations may only be used for research purposes. Reintroductions of plants and animals are often experimental in the sense that they may use techniques that are newly developed, untested on that species or locality, or uncertain in success rate for other reasons. The authority to designate and establish experimental populations was added to the Act for the specific purpose of assisting the Service in establishing additional populations to further the recovery of the species. We have used this authority for many species to help achieve recovery goals by expanding occupied range. In the case of the two nonessential experimental populations (NEPs) in the northern U.S. Rockies, the final rule establishing those two NEPs indicated specifically that they were being established to help achieve the Western Plan's goals to establish viable wolf populations in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
C. Comments Regarding the Number of Distinct Population Segments and Recovery Programs Necessary for Gray Wolf Recovery
Issue:
A large number of comments expressed the opinion that additional gray wolf DPSs should be established, and that the Service should initiate additional recovery programs in order to achieve gray wolf recovery as mandated by the Act. Additional DPSs and recovery programs were suggested for Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa; Virginia and Kentucky; the Carolinas, Georgia, and Tennessee; California and Nevada; Colorado, Utah, and the northern portions of New Mexico and Arizona; Oregon and Washington; the Pacific Coast; the Cascade Range; West Virginia; Missouri; Florida; and Utah. In addition, some respondents recommended that gray wolves should be reintroduced and recovered throughout their historical range or “in all States.”
Response:
These comments appear to reflect a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Act and confusion regarding the meaning of “recover” under the Act. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Conservation is defined 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. When a species no longer meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act, it is recovered, and we are to delist it.
The meaning given to “recover” in common conversational usage is “to restore to a previous, or to the original, condition.” However, incorrectly ascribing this common meaning to “recover” as used in the Act has led some individuals to mistakenly believe the Act functions as a biodiversity restoration program. The goal of the Act—preventing species extinctions—is much narrower that the rangewide wolf restoration and biodiversity restoration goals implicit in these comments.
We have evaluated, in light of the conservation biology principles discussed previously, our three continuing recovery programs for the gray wolf in the context of its previous listing across the 48 conterminous States and Mexico. We have concluded that sufficient redundancy and resiliency will be achieved by establishing three separate viable wolf populations or metapopulations in widely spaced areas of that geographic area. If each of these three populations contains enough reproducing packs so that it is a viable and self-sustaining population, its numerical size and geographic extent will provide the resilience needed for it to bounce back from newly developing or expanding adverse factors (
e.g.
, disease, massive wildfire, or the temporary decline of a prey species' population) in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, if these three populations are widely spaced and somewhat isolated from one another it is very unlikely that all three populations would simultaneously, or in rapid sequence, suffer from the same catastrophic event.
Once they are completed, the Service's three current gray wolf recovery programs will result in wolf populations of sufficient size and relative isolation to provide the necessary resiliency and redundancy. For example, the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population—now at recovery levels—exceeded 560 animals at the end of 2001, and preliminary results from the end of 2002 indicate a population of approximately 660 wolves (Tom Meier, Service,
in litt.
2003). The Midwestern gray wolf population—which has exceeded the numerical goals of the Eastern Gray Wolf Recovery Plan—is estimated to be over 3000 wolves. (Final recovery goals have not yet been established for the Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf recovery program, but they will be designed to ensure long-term viability of that wolf population.) The currently occupied areas of the Eastern and Northern Rockies populations are separated by approximately 1000 kilometers (600 mi), and a similar distance currently separates the Greater Yellowstone Area wolf packs from the reintroduced wolves in the Southwest. Each of these gray wolf populations will be viable and self-sustaining when their recovery programs are completed, and the distances between them, while not providing total isolation, will provide a great deal of protection from multi-population catastrophic events.
Both the Northern Rocky Mountain and Eastern gray wolf recovery programs—when all recovery goals are achieved—will each cover sufficient geographic area and have enough wolves in a population or metapopulation structure to be sufficiently resilient to respond to adverse factors that may arise in the future. The Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf recovery program, when a final recovery goal is established and attained, similarly will have sufficient distribution and number of wolves. Thus, the conservation biology principle of resiliency is satisfied by the achievement of the respective recovery goals of these 3 recovery programs.
Commenters suggested that additional gray wolf populations should be established in the western United States in order to maximize the species' long-term survival and minimize the likelihood of extinction. However, the Act does not mandate maximizing species survival, nor does it require undertaking widespread species restorations to minimize extinction risk. Rather, as discussed above, its mandate is to recover species to the point that they are “not likely” to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. We believe the “not likely” standard will be exceeded by establishing three geographically widespread gray wolf populations that are independently viable, because it is highly unlikely that future threats will endanger multiple widely separated wolf populations. Thus, the conservation biology principle of redundancy is satisfied by our three current recovery programs.
The concept of representation, when applied to the conservation of the gray wolf, argues that we should preserve enough of its remaining genetic diversity so that future genetic problems are unlikely to lead to its extinction. These problems may include genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and diminished ability to survive as new environmental conditions develop. The three current gray wolf recovery programs are preserving all of what remains of the species' genetic diversity in the 48 States and Mexico. The current genetic diversity of the wolves in the western Great Lakes is a product of the remnant wolf population that survived in northeastern Minnesota, Canadian wolves from southwestern Ontario and Manitoba that moved into Minnesota, as well as southern Ontario wolves that moved into the eastern portion of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The Northern Rockies wolf population is a mixture of southern Canadian wolves that repopulated the Glacier National Park area and wolves from Alberta and British Columbia, Canada that were brought into central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. These two recovery programs are preserving all the remaining genetic material of the gray wolves that formerly inhabited those areas. Both the Midwestern and Northern Rockies wolf populations are believed to contain sufficient genetic diversity to survive over the long term, even if they were to become completely and permanently isolated from neighboring wolves across the Canadian border.
The reintroduced Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf population originated from small captive populations composed of individuals captured in the wild in Mexico and identified in captive facilities in Mexico and the United States (Hedrick
et al.
1997). Detailed records and careful selection of captive breeding pairs has ensured the conservation of this founding Mexican wolf genome. This recovery program is utilizing all the remaining genetic material that has been preserved from the wild Southwestern and Mexican wolf population, and when completed, it will ensure the long-term survival of that unique genetic diversity and maximize the ability of this isolated population to cope with, adapt to, and evolve in response to environmental change.
Thus, our three current wolf recovery programs are doing all that can be done to preserve the remaining genetic material from the gray wolves that previously occupied the 48 conterminous States and Mexico. Establishing additional populations would provide no additional genetic benefits to wolf recovery under the Act (with the possible exception of the Northeast; see below). Therefore, the conservation biology principle of representation is satisfied by these three gray wolf recovery programs.
Based upon the above points, the Act's mandate to recover the gray wolf will be satisfied by the restoration of three viable populations of the species, located in the Midwest, Northern U.S. Rockies, and Southwest. Therefore, in order to recover the gray wolf, the Service intends to continue focusing its gray wolf recovery activities in the current core areas (
i.e.
, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona) of those recovery programs.
We do not intend to initiate new gray wolf recovery programs in any area—except possibly the Northeast, pending ongoing genetic and taxonomic studies and efforts to locate a listable and recoverable wolf population there—because new recovery programs are not necessary to achieve recovery of the gray wolf under the Act either as formerly listed in the 48 States and Mexico or under the new listings established by this final rule.
Once wolf recovery goals are achieved in any one of the DPSs, we will proceed to delist the entire DPS, even if some of the States within the DPS lack wild gray wolves. The presence or absence of gray wolves outside of core recovery areas is not likely to have a bearing on the long-term viability of the three wolf populations after their recovery goals have been achieved, and therefore such presence or absence will not be a factor in our consideration of delisting each DPS.
We have determined that the level of threats faced by wolf populations in the Eastern DPS and in the Western DPS warrant reclassification of each DPS to threatened. These threatened DPS listings, along with the three retained nonessential experimental population designations and the retained endangered listing for the Southwestern DPS, will continue to provide the Act's protections to all wild gray wolves. Furthermore, we believe that the delisting criteria for the Eastern DPS and the Western DPS can be achieved without establishment of additional populations within each DPS.
The Act gives us the authority to list by species, subspecies, or DPS. The DPS policy identifies the criteria that must be met in order for a vertebrate group to qualify as a DPS. In order for us to designate a DPS, a population must exist. Most of the States have no wolves or in the States that do have some wolves, those wolves are part of a metapopulation. However, our DPS policy does not require that we designate a DPS in all cases where a vertebrate group meets the DPS criteria; Congress directed that we use our DPS authority sparingly. The Service has the discretion to list, reclassify, or delist at the subspecies, species, or DPS level, as we believe to be most appropriate to carry out our listing and recovery programs.
As described in the
Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in the Eastern United States
section above, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the identity of the large canid (or canids) that occurred historically in the Northeastern States. At the time our proposal was developed, we believed that the canid was likely a gray wolf, although we were uncertain as to its subspecific identity. However, subsequent molecular genetic and morphometric information has cast doubt on that interpretation of the evolutionary relationship of North American canids. Although far from certain at this time, increasing scientific evidence suggests that the historical large canid in the Northeastern States was more closely related to the red wolf than to the gray wolf. We will reevaluate our retained listing of the gray wolf in the Northeastern States a
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.