Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2008-008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]

RIN 1018-AU53

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we or us), hereby establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (

Canis lupus

) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States (U.S.) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, the NRM DPS is no longer an endangered or threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

). The NRM DPS has exceeded its biological recovery goals, and all threats in the foreseeable future have been sufficiently reduced or eliminated.

The States of Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) adopted State laws and management plans that meet the requirements of the Act and will conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In 2007, following a change in State law, Wyoming drafted and approved a revised wolf management plan (Wyoming 2007). We have determined that this plan meets the requirements of the Act as providing adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. Our determination is conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law (W.S. 11-6-302

et seq.

and 23-1-101,

et seq.

in House Bill 0213) being fully in effect and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming statutes. If the law is not in effect (discussed in more detail below) within 20 days from the date of this publication, we will withdraw this final rule and replace it with an alternate final rule that removes the Act's protections throughout all of the DPS, except the significant portion of the gray wolf's range in northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks.

DATES:

This rule becomes effective March 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the Internet at

http://www.regulations.gov.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena office (see

ADDRESSES

) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) (40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black (Gipson

et al.

2002, p. 821).

Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the U.S., they poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).

Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 243; Service

et al.

2007, Tables 1-3). Packs typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square kilometers (km

2

) (200 to 500 square miles (mi

2

)) and defend these areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 11-17).

Typically, only the top-ranking (“alpha”) male and female in each pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith

et al.

2006, pp. 243-4; Service

et al.

2007, Tables 1-3). Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may annually produce young until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service

et al.

1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive until winter (Service

et al.

1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan

et al.

2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM is less than 4 years (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 245). Pup production and survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability per wolf increases (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 186). Pack social structure is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; Brainerd

et al.

2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 181-183; Service

et al.

2007, Table 4).

For detailed information on the biology of this species see the “Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves” section of the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Previous Federal Actions

In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered, including the NRM gray wolf (

Canis lupus irremotus

), the eastern timber wolf (

C.l. lycaon

) in

the northern Great Lakes region, the Mexican wolf (

C.l. baileyi

) in Mexico and the southwestern U.S., and the Texas gray wolf (

C.l. monstrabilis

) of Texas and Mexico (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (

C. lupus

) throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, critical habitat was designated in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. On February 8, 2007, we established a Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052).

On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act including the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). These designations, which are found at 50 CFR 17.40(i), assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in States with Service-approved post-delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4270, January 28, 2008). The revisions are at 50 CFR 17.84(n).

The NRM wolf population is a metapopulation comprised of three core recovery areas. It has a range (wolf breeding pairs, wolf packs, and routine dispersing wolves) that encompasses all of Idaho, most of Montana and Wyoming, and parts of adjacent States (Service 2005, p. 1-2). It achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the third successive year (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4). To meet the Act's requirements, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post-delisting wolf management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms would exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 2004, the Service determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels (see Recovery section). However, we determined the 2003 Wyoming legislation and wolf management plan (Wyoming 2003) were not adequate to assume that Wyoming's portion of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels (Williams 2004). Wyoming challenged this determination, but the Federal District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision, and on April 3, 2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision (442 F. 3rd 1262).

On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by establishing a NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal District Court (

State of Wyoming, et al.

v.

USDOI

, CA No. 06CV0245J). Wyoming has indicated that they will deem the claims in the pending litigation settled and will request that the court dismiss the litigation upon publication of this final rule by February 28, 2008 (Freudenthal 2007b).

On February 8, 2007, we proposed to designate the NRM DPS of the gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal noted that the area in northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks (i.e., YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway) would only be delisted in the final rule if adequate State regulatory mechanisms were developed. On July 6, 2007, the Service extended the comment period in order to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf management plan and State law that we believed, if implemented, could allow the wolves in northwestern Wyoming to be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then determined this plan provides adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1-2). Our determination was conditional upon the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law being fully in effect and the wolf management plan being legally authorized by Wyoming statutes. The plan automatically goes into effect upon the Governor's certification to the Wyoming Secretary of State that all of the provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming wolf management law have been met (W.S. §§ 23-1-101

et sec.;

discussed in further detail in Factor D below) (Freudenthal 2007b, p. 1-3).

For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 2003 reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the 2006 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006), the 12-month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to designate the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to indicate that listing any species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). Under this policy, three factors are considered in a decision regarding the establishment and listing, reclassification, or delisting of a DPS. The first two factors determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS—(1) discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS. Then the third factor, the population segment's conservation status, is evaluated in relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS

We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated for DPS status based on discreteness and

significance as defined by our DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade (e.g., road or highway) boundary to be used as a boundary of convenience for clearly identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. Specifically, the DPS includes that portion of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, the NRM DPS includes that portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The center of these roads is deemed the border of the NRM DPS (See Figure 1).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

ER27FE08.025

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2006 (Service

et al.

2007,

Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did not persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs from 2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) through 2006 (Service

et al.

2003-2007, Figure 1; Bangs

et al.

in press). Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we used the 2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634). Wolf packs have been documented in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming so we include these three States in the DPS.

Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the boundaries for the NRM DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances of over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 2005 (Jimenez

et al.

in prep.). These data indicate that the average dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez

et al.

in prep; Thiessen 2007, p. 33). We determined that 300 km (190 mi), three times the average dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for unusually long-distance dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories (Jimenez

et al.

in prep., Figure 2 and 3). Only 10 wolves (none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed farther outside the core population areas and remained in the United States. None of these wolves returned to the core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only dispersal from the NRM wolf packs to areas within the United States was considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine the appropriate NRM DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal distance because the distribution of suitable habitat and wolves and level of human persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the U.S., potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support intermittent additional pack establishment from the core recovery areas given the availability of patches of nearby suitable habitat (Service 2005, p. 1-2). Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not be applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 13-16).

We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western U.S. (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 538; Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-30) by comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and predictions of those models (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 541; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 32; Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559) were similar in many respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic sheep (

Ovis sp.

), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs

et al.

1998, Figure 1; Service

et al.

1999-2007, Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3). The models indicate little habitat is suitable to support wolf packs within the portion of the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah (See Factor A).

Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries of the NRM DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) and Carroll

et al.

(2003, pp. 540-541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations during the past 20 years (Bangs

et al.

2004, p. 93; Service

et al.

2007, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to human-caused mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a broad boundary separating the NRM DPS from both the southwestern and midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the western U.S.

We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because—(1) These areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf population and routinely used by dispersing wolves; (2) lone dispersing wolves have been documented in these areas more than once in recent times (Jimenez

et al.

in prep.); (3) these areas contain some suitable habitat (see Factor A); and (4) the potential for connectivity exists between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS. If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat suitability models suggest these nearby areas would likely be more connected to the core recovery areas in central Idaho and northwestern Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might become established in other large blocks of potentially suitable habitat farther beyond the NRM DPS border. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the NRM DPS from other large patches of suitable habitat to the west or south (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 541).

Although we have received reports of individual wolves and wolf packs in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 7-13), agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.). Intervening unsuitable habitat makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM DPS have dispersed to the North Cascades in recent history. However, if wolves dispersed into this area, they would remain protected by the Act as endangered because it is outside of the NRM DPS.

We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2) expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only unsuitable habitat and does not affect the distinctness of the NRM DPS. Although including all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including portions of the Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do not consider these areas to be suitable wolf habitat because of their size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing wolves. Oakleaf

et al.

(2006,

pp. 558-559) chose not to analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming because they are fairly intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed by, private land, making pack establishment and persistence unlikely. While Carroll

et al.

(2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current conditions these areas were largely sink habitat and that by 2025 (within the foreseeable future) they were likely to be ranked as low occupancy because of human population growth and road development.

We chose not to extend the NRM DPS border east beyond Montana and Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of gray wolves from the NRM. In addition, the available information on potentially suitable habitat indicates that Colorado and additional areas of Utah to the south and west of the NRM DPS include large areas of potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 541). The current distribution of wolf packs in the NRM wolf population encompasses most of the suitable habitat, that area is surrounded by unsuitable habitat, and the nearest other blocks of suitable habitat are far beyond the expected dispersal distance of wolves that might form new breeding pairs. Therefore, we concluded that a smaller NRM DPS that contains the core recovery areas and the adjacent areas of largely unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, but that excludes contiguous blocks of potentially suitable habitat to the west and south that are outside the routine wolf dispersal area is representative of the current and future status of the existing NRM wolf population and consistent with our DPS policy.

Analysis for Discreteness

Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions—(1) Is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon

—The eastern edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the western edge of the WGL DPS core wolf population (eastern Minnesota) and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat (see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS border is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental populations of wolves in the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. No wild wolves have been confirmed west of the NRM DPS boundary (although occasionally we get unconfirmed reports and 2 wolves were killed close to that boundary). While one dispersing wolf was confirmed east and one south of the NRM DPS boundary, no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from other U.S. wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the NRM DPS.

Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166-167; Ream

et al.

1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.; Wabakken

et al.

2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM wolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 10 of over 200 confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core recovery areas (Boyd and Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.). Undoubtedly many other dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been radio-collared. All but two of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the NRM DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form packs or breed in the U.S. (Jimenez

et al.

in prep.).

The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond the border of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. Video footage of a black wolf-like canid taken near Walden in northern Colorado in early 2006, suggests another dispersing wolf may have traveled into Colorado. The subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was found along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed it was a wolf that had dispersed from the GYA. We expect that occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse between and beyond the core recovery areas in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into States adjacent to the NRM DPS. However, pack development and persistence outside the NRM DPS is unlikely because wolves that disperse as individuals typically have low survival (Pletscher

et al.

1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is limited and distant (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 541) from the NRM DPS.

No connectivity currently exists between the NRM, WGL, and Southwestern gray wolf populations, nor are there any resident wolf packs in intervening areas. While it is theoretically possible that a lone wolf might traverse over 644 km (400 mi) from one population to the other, movement between these populations has never been documented and is extremely unlikely because of both the distance and the large areas of unsuitable habitat between the populations. Furthermore, the DPS policy does not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations, but instead requires some “marked separation.” Thus, if occasional individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the NRM DPS could still display the required discreteness. Based on the information presented above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly separated from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.

Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf Populations

—The DPS policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher

et al.

1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). When delisted, States in the NRM DPS would carefully monitor and manage to retain populations above the recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the U.S.-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the NRM DPS due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation

status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.

Analysis for Significance

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

Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting

—Within the range of holarctic wolves, the NRM has among the highest diversity of large predators and native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, and vegetation (Smith

et al.

2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves share habitats with black bears (

Ursus americanus

), grizzly bears (

U.arctos horribilis

), cougars (

Felis concolor

), lynx (

Lynx canadensis

), wolverine (

Gulo gulo

), coyotes (

Canis latrans

), foxes (

Vulpes vulpes

), badgers (

Taxidea taxus

), bobcats (

Felis rufus

), fisher (

Martes pennanti

), and marten (

Martes americana

). The unique and diverse assemblage of native prey include elk (

Cervus canadensis

), mule deer (

Odocoileus hemionus

), white-tailed deer (

Odocoileus virginianus

), moose (

Alces alces

), woodland caribou (

Rangifer caribou

), bighorn sheep (

Ovis canadensis

), mountain goats (

Oreamnos americanus

), pronghorn antelope (

Antilocapra americana

), bison (

Bison bison

) (only in the GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to unique dramatic and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in YNP. While these effects likely still occur at varying degrees elsewhere, they are increasingly modified and subtle the more an area is affected by humans (Smith

et al.

2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell

et al.

2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite

et al.

2005, p. 2135; Garrott

et al.

2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and competition with other native ungulates in YNP. These complex interactions may increase streamside willow production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes also may be occurring with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a year-round source of food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers

et al.

2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf population in the NRM has extended the southern range of the contiguous gray wolf population in western North America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into a much more diverse, ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of species than is found elsewhere within occupied wolf habitat in most of the northern hemisphere.

Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon

—Wolves once lived throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15-degree latitudinal or over 1,600-km (1,000-mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts, such as behavioral changes in elk that reduced browsing pressure and allowed increased willow growth in riparian areas that can then support beaver or nesting song birds, would occur in the NRM, most noticeably in the most pristine and wildest areas (Smith

et al.

2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell

et al.

2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press, p. 1-6).

Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, recovery in the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and currently constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 States.

We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, it is a valid DPS. The conservation status of the DPS is discussed below (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section).

Recovery

Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria—

Shortly after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts

et al.

1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.

The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to re-establish and maintain viable populations of the NRM wolf (

Canis lupus irremotus

) in its former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). The revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) specifies a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 core recovery areas—(1) Northwestern

Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), and (3) the YNP area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, but that connectivity between them be encouraged. However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, p. 1-15, 16; Service 1999; p. 2). The recovery plan states that if 2 recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to threatened status, and if all 3 recovery areas maintain a minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, then the NRM wolf population can be considered fully recovered and can be considered for delisting.

The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) on wolf reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals because we were concerned that the 1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). The Service conducted a thorough literature review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations, surveyed the opinions of 43 wolf experts, of which 25 responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's EIS and in a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26-38). Our analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We agree with Fritts and Carbyn (1995, p. 26) that “Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than indicated by theory” and theoretical treatments of population viability “have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population size”. Based on our analysis and peer review comments, we concluded that “Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have a high probability of long-term persistence” because such a population would contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing packs distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas to be viable for the long term (Service 1994, pp. 6:75). A population at or above this size would contain at least 30 successfully reproducing packs and ample individuals to ensure long-term population viability. In addition the metapopulation configuration and distribution throughout secure suitable habitat would ensure that each core recovery area would provide a recovered population that would be distributed over a large enough area to provide resilience to natural or man-caused events that may temporarily affect one core recovery area. No wolf population of this size and distribution has gone extinct in recent history unless it was deliberately eradicated by humans (Boitani 2003, 321-331). We further determined that a metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three core recovery areas within the area we now identify as the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.

We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We surveyed 86 biologists, of which 50 responded, with expertise in wolves and population viability from North America and Europe for their professional opinions regarding a wide range of issues related to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs 2002, p. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought connectivity (either natural or human-facilitated) was important to maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population viability. Reviewers also recommended other concepts/numbers for recovery goals but most were slight modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78%) supported our 1994 conclusions that a metapopulation of at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves would provide for a viable wolf population, they also concluded that wolf population viability was enhanced by higher (500 or more wolves) rather than lower population levels (300) and longer (more than 3 years) rather than shorter (3 years) demonstrated time frames. The more numerous and widely distributed a species is, the higher its probability of population viability will be. However, the Act requires us to ensure a species is no longer threatened or endangered not that its viability would be theoretically maximized. A wolf metapopulation of at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves ensures it will remain viable and recovered. A slight majority indicated that the 1987 recovery goal, of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female capable of breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas, may be viable, given the persistence of other small wolf populations in other parts of the world. The results of previous population viability analysis for other wolf populations varied widely, and similar to our 1994 analysis, reviewers concluded that theoretical results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75).

We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use “breeding pairs” to describe successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002, p. 7-8; Mitchell

et al.

in press). Breeding pairs are only measured in winter because most wolf mortality occurs in spring/summer/fall and winter is the beginning of the annual courtship and breeding season for wolves. Often we do not know if the specific pack actually contains an adult male, adult female, and two pups in winter; however, pack size has proven to have a strong correlation with breeding pair status and by simply knowing the size of wolf packs in mid-winter we can reliably estimate the number of breeding pairs (Ausband 2006; Mitchell

et al.

in press). In the future, the States will be able to use pack size in winter as a surrogate to reliably identify each pack's

contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf population recovery.

We have also determined that an essential part of achieving recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and individual wolves among the three States and the three core recovery areas. A wolf metapopulation that is equitably distributed among the three core recovery areas provides each area with enough successfully reproducing packs and individuals to withstand any threats to it and to allow for local adaptation to the ecological conditions within each area (e.g., bison in the GYA, white-tailed deer in northwestern Montana, or steep terrain of central Idaho). In addition, a minimum number of successfully reproducing packs and individual wolves in each core recovery area ensures a consistent strong source of dispersing individuals between and among the three recovery areas to consistently occupy suitable habitat, form new or join existing packs, and provide the opportunity for genetic and demographic mixing within the population to maintain its viability and resilience. Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery and long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-distributed population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM.

Following the 2002 review, we began to use States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service

et al.

2003-2007, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be conserved by equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States. This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume all of the responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared core recovery area. State regulatory authorities and traditional management of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State basis. Management by State would still maintain a robust wolf population in each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural refugia from high levels of human-caused mortality (e.g., National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of dispersing wolves in each State.

Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery areas and promote a minimum level of potential natural dispersal to and from each population segment. This approach also will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is shared by all three States. Wyoming alone has committed to maintain at least 15 breeding pairs (with at least 7 of those breeding pairs outside the National Parks) and 150 wolves, so wolves in the Montana and Idaho portion of the GYA would be in addition to those required to exceed minimal recovery area levels. A large and well-distributed population within the GYA is especially important because it is the most isolated core recovery area within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 554; vonHoldt

et al.

2007, p. 19).

The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum number of breeding pairs and wolves needed to achieve recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf population continues to exceed the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, Montana (2003), Idaho (2002; 2007), and Wyoming (2007) have committed to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves per State in mid-winter and maintain its metapopulation structure. Because the recovery goal components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be much higher than these minimal goals. At this point in time, it is unknown how many wolves and breeding pairs will ultimately result from implementation of the State management plans except that each State plan's management objectives assure that the NRM DPS will certainly be well over a combined total of 45 breeding pairs and 450 wolves. Each State has committed to manage for at least 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs by regulating human-caused mortality. If each of the States managed to have only 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves (which is extremely unlikely since each would have to be at their lowest allowable level at the same time and wolves will still also be present in National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote public lands where sharp reductions in wolf numbers are unlikely), then 45 breeding pairs would likely result in more than 450 wolves. Service data since 1986 indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each breeding pair has corresponded to 14 wolves in mid-winter (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4).

These goals were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy for its long-term conservation (See Summary of Threats Analysis section for details). We have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly re-evaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1). After evaluating all available information, we conclude the best scientific and commercial data available continues to support the ability of these recovery goals to ensure the population does not again become in danger of extinction.

Monitoring and Managing Recovery

—In 1989, we formed an Interagency Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts

et al.

1995, p. 109; Service

et al.

1989-2007, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic recovery tasks (Service

et al.

1989-2007, p. 1-2), in addition to the standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; (2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting other non-lethal measures, or killing them (Bangs

et al.

2006, p. 7); (3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based information to the public and mass media so that people could develop their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed perspective.

The size and distribution of the NRM wolf population is estimated by the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is published in an interagency annual report (Service

et al.

1989-2007, Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored over 940 wolves in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve conflict with livestock. The Working

Group's annual population estimates represent the best scientific and commercial data available regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population size and trends, as well as distributional and other information.

Recovery by State

—At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 breeding pairs and over 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (Service

et al

. 2001, Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). This minimum recovery goal was exceeded every year since 2000 (Service

et al.

2002-2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 when 663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were present (Service

et al.

2003, Table 4). At the end of 2007, the NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal for 8 consecutive years (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; Service

et al.

2001-2007, Table 4; Service 2007a).

For the State-by-State recovery goals, Idaho and Wyoming first achieved the minimum recovery goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in 2000, and Montana first achieved them in 2002. All three States have met or exceeded this goal every year since it was first achieved. In late 2007, preliminary estimates indicate there are 394 wolves in 37 breeding pairs in Montana, 788 wolves in 41 breeding pairs in Idaho, and 362 wolves in 27 breeding pairs in Wyoming for about 1,545 wolves in 105 potential breeding pairs in the NRM wolf population (Service 2007a). The NRM wolf population increased about 24 percent annually from 1995 to 2006 (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4). Figure 2 illustrates wolf population trends by State from 1979 to 2006.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

ER27FE08.026

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

As discussed previously, after the 2002 peer review of the wolf recovery efforts, we began using States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward recovery goals (Service

et al.

2003-2007, Table 4). However, because the original recovery plan included goals for core recovery areas we have included the following discussion on the history of the recovery efforts and status of these core recovery areas, including how the wolf population's distribution and metapopulation structure is important to maintaining its viability and how the biological characteristics of each core recovery area differ (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4).

Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area

— The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km

2

(33,386 mi

2

) includes: Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves there are listed as endangered.

Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream

et al.

1989). The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 17-19), the interim control plan (Service 1988, 1999), and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, p.7-13). By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, since 1997, the estimated number of breeding pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partly due to actual population size and partly due to monitoring effort. It varied from 4 to 12 breeding pairs and from 49 to 171 wolves (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4) but generally increased. In 2007, we estimated 214 wolves in 24 breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area (Service 2007a).

The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat and it is more fragmented (Oakleaf

et al.

2006. p. 560). Some of the variation in our wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the areas' thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly on white-tailed deer, resulting in smaller packs and territories, which makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) since 2005 were likely responsible for some of the higher population estimates. Wolf numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves but were not documented simply due to less intensive monitoring those years (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4; Service 2007a). Wolf numbers in northwestern Montana have exceeded 100 wolves and 10 breeding pairs for at least the past 3 years, and probably the last 6 years (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4).

Routine dispersal of wolves has been documented among northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and adjacent Canadian populations, demonstrating that northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically and genetically linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in central Idaho (Pletscher

et al.

1991, pp. 547-8; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.). Because of fairly contiguous but fractured suitable habitat, wolves dispersing into northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or form new packs and supplement this portion of the overall NRM wolf population (Boyd

et al.

1995, p. 140; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Jimenez

et al.

in prep; vonHoldt

et al.

2007, p. 19; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4).

Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness complex, northwestern Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large numbers of overwintering wild ungulates and few livestock. Therefore, wolf numbers may not ever be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in the Central Idaho or GYA core recovery areas. However, this portion of the NRM DPS has persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and habitat there is capable of supporting 200 wolves (Service

et al.

2007, Table 4). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan (2003), will ensure this portion of the NRM DPS continues to thrive (see Factor D).

Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area

—The Central Idaho Recovery Area's 53,600 km

2

(20,700 mi

2

) includes: The Selway Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in central Idaho; and adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts

et al.

1997, p. 7). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from British Columbia were released (Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 787). Central Idaho contains the greatest amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559). Consequently, the central Idaho area population has grown continuously and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in its wolf population estimate was due to an increased monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). By 2007, we estimated 885 wolves in 48 potential breeding pairs in the central Idaho recovery area (Service 2007a). This marks ten successive years (1998-2007) that this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves (Service

et al.

2007; Service 2007a).

Recovery in the GYA

—The GYA Recovery Area (63,700 km

2

[24,600 mi

2

]) includes: YNP; the Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas (the National Park/Wilderness units); adjacent public and private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent parts of Idaho and Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). The wilderness portions of the GYA are only seasonally used by wolves due to high elevation, deep snow, and low productivity in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate populations (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 3). In 1995, 14 wolves representing 3 family groups from Alberta were released in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts

et al.

1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). In 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves representing 4 family groups from British Columbia. Finally, 10 five-month-old pups removed from northwestern Montana were released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 787). Only 2 survived past 9 months but both became breeding adults. By 2007, we estimated 455 wolves in 34 potential breeding pairs in the GYA (Service 2007a). This marks eight successive years (2000-2007) that this recovery area contained at least 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves (Service

et al.

2007; Service 2007a).

Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service

et al.

2006, Table 4). The population recovered in 2006, primarily because numbers outside YNP in Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs (Service

et al.

2007). Most of this decline occurred in YNP (which declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 (Service

et al.

2005, 2006, Tables 1-4) and likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared to limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when reintroduction took place (Vucetich

et al.

2005, p. 259; White and Garrott 2006, p. 942); and (4) a suspected 2005 outbreak of disease (canine parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper (CD)) reduced that years” pup survival to 20 percent (Service

et al.

2006, Table 2; Smith

et al.

2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20). By 2007, the YNP wolf population had rebounded and was estimated to contain 186 wolves in 12 breeding pairs (Service 2007a). Additional significant growth in the National Park/Wilderness portions of the Wyoming wolf population is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with resident wolf packs. Maintaining wolf populations above recovery levels in the GYA of the NRM DPS will depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park/Wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana.

For further information on the history of NRM wolf recovery, recovery

planning (including defining appropriate recovery criteria), population monitoring (through the end of 2007), and cooperation and coordination with our partners in achieving recovery, see the “Recovery” section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month status review (71 FR 43411-43413), Service weekly wolf reports (1995-2007), and the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Interagency Annual Reports (Service

et al.

1989-2007) at

http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov

. The NRM Wolf Interagency Annual Report for 2007 (Service

et al.

2008) should be available about the time this rule is published.

Public Comments Solicited

In accordance with our Interagency Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994) and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, we solicited independent review of the science in the proposed delisting rule from eight well-published North American scientists with extensive expertise in wolf biology. The purpose of this review was to ensure that our decision to establish and delist the NRM gray wolf DPS was based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, analyses, and conclusions. All eight peer reviewers submitted comments on the proposed delisting rule during the initial 90-day comment period (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007). Five of those experts reviewed the proposal again after we reopened the comment period (73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007) to allow consideration of Wyoming's revised wolf management plan and its impact upon our proposal.

Six of seven peer reviewers who specifically stated an opinion on the soundness of our overall initial delisting proposal confirmed that our approach was generally reasonable and science-based and that appropriate literature was cited. Five of the eight experts volunteered the opinion that the Service's rejection of the Wyoming 2003 wolf management framework appeared warranted. Two reviewers questioned whether delisting anywhere in the NRM DPS should proceed without an approved Wyoming wolf management plan. All of the experts who reviewed Wyoming's revised plan and commented during the reopened comment period indicated delisting was appropriate. Generally, the reviewers agreed with our conclusion that the wolf population in the NRM DPS is biologically recovered and is no longer threatened as long as the States adequately regulate human-caused mortality. The reviewers provided many valuable thoughts, questions, and suggestions for improving the document. Issues identified by reviewers included: Suggestions to expand the discussion related to the recovery criteria (connectivity, foreseeable future, metapopulation, and breeding pairs); the adequacy of State wolf management plans and their future commitments; how the DPS border and criteria for suitable habitat were developed; not delisting northwestern Wyoming within the NRM DPS; and the effect of human-caused mortality on the wolf population.

We considered their comments and recommendations as we made our final decision on the proposal. As a result of these comments, we incorporated many changes into the document. All other substantive peer reviewer comments are addressed under the appropriate Issue/Response sections, which follow.

Summary of Public Comments

In our proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit information, data, comments, or suggestions (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007). The comment period was open from February 8, 2007, through May 9, 2007 (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007). On July 6, 2007, we reopened the comment period for an additional 30 days (73 FR 36939). During the comment periods, we held eight public hearings and eight open houses (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007; 73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007). To further promote interest and awareness in the proposal, we also: conducted numerous press interviews; published legal notices in newspapers; and posted on our website, and otherwise made available, the proposal and numerous background documents. Comments could be hand delivered to us or submitted to us via e-mail, mail, the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, fax, or public hearing testimony. Because the

Federal Register

notices listed one email address and the press releases listed another email address, we considered comments submitted to either email address. During the public comment process, we received 410 oral statements, 103 written testimony statements, over 283,000 emailed public comments, and 434 mailed and faxed comments. Comments were submitted by a wide array of parties, including the general public, environmental organizations, outdoor recreation, agricultural agencies and organizations, and Tribal, Federal, State, and local governments.

We reviewed all comments from peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed rule. Substantive comments received during the comment period have been addressed below or incorporated directly into this final rule. Comments of a similar nature are grouped together under subject headings in a series of “Issues” and “Responses.”

Technical and Editorial Comments

Issue 1:

Numerous technical and editorial comments and corrections were provided by respondents on nearly every part of the proposal. Several peer reviewers and others suggested or provided additional literature to consider in the final rule.

Response 1:

We corrected and updated numbers and other data wherever appropriate and possible. We edited the rule to make its purpose and rationale clearer. We shortened and condensed several sections by not repeating information that was already contained in the references cited.

The literature used and recommended by the peer reviewers and others has been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in this final rule. We also reviewed and added literature in development and in press to our reference list when it represents the best scientific and commercial data available. The list of literature cited in this rule will be posted on our website.

Compliance With Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Issue 2:

Numerous parties suggested that delisting the NRM DPS does not comply with our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities.

Response 2:

We have carefully reviewed the legal requirements of the Act, its implementing regulations, and relevant case law, all relevant Executive, Secretarial, and Director Orders, Departmental and Service policy, and other federal policies and procedures. We believe this rule and the process by which it was developed fully satisfies all of our legal, regulatory, and policy responsibilities.

Issue 3:

Some commenters suggested that a new NEPA analysis on the 1995 reintroduction was needed because wolves have exceeded levels analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Others suggested NEPA compliance on the delisting was needed for other reasons.

Response 3:

The 1994 EIS was limited to the NRM wolf reintroduction efforts and is not applicable to the delisting process. As noted in the proposed rule, NEPA compliance documents, such as environmental assessments or

environmental impact statements, need not be prepared in connection with actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act (listings, delistings, and reclassifications). A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in the

Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Issue 4:

The Service has not adequately consulted with Native American Tribes, as required by Secretarial Order 3206.

Response 4:

The Service has engaged in a wide variety of efforts to consult with Native American Tribes. During the development of the proposal and this final rule, we endeavored to consult with Native American Tribes and Native American organizations to provide them with a complete understanding of the proposal and to enable us to gain an understanding of their concerns. We made additional efforts to contact and inform Tribes during the comment period, including providing the opportunity for informational meetings with Tribal representatives before the open houses and hearings on the delisting proposal. As we have become aware of Native American concerns, we have tried to address those concerns to the extent allowed by the Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and other Federal statutes. We continue to work closely with and fund the Nez Perce Tribe and we assisted the Wind River Tribes in developing a Tribal Wolf Management Plan (Wind River Tribes 2007) that we approved in June 2007.

Recovery Goals, Recovery Criteria, and Delisting

Issue 5:

Some commenters suggested that we should not use numerical quotas in reclassification or delisting decisions for the gray wolf. Commenters offered a multitude of reasons why delisting is warranted/not warranted or premature/overdue.

Response 5:

The Act specifies that objective and measurable criteria be developed for recovering listed species. For a detailed discussion of the NRM wolf recovery criteria see the Recovery section. This final delisting determination is based upon the species' status relative to the Act's definition of threatened or endangered and considers potential threats to the species as outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Population numbers and status provide useful information for assessing the species' vulnerability to these factors. Therefore we believe that it is appropriate to use numerical information in our analysis if delisting is warranted. As described in detail in this rule, the species no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered, thus, delisting is warranted.

Issue 6:

Some commenters requested that we further explain the recovery criteria.

Response 6:

The rule now provides a fuller explanation of the recovery goals (see the

Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria section

).

Issue 7:

Several commenters used the higher numbers of wolves required for recovery of wolves in the WGL DPS as evidence that the NRM wolf population is too low to delist.

Response 7:

The recovery goals for the WGL DPS and the NRM DPS differ because the biological circumstances (such as prey type and density, wolf density, habitat suitability, terrain, other ecological conditions, the history of recovery and planning efforts, and potential for human conflict) in each area differ. However, the standards for achieving recovery have the same biological foundation. Each set of recovery goals required a metapopulation structure, numerical and distribution delisting criteria to be exceeded for several years, State plans that would adequately regulate wolf mortality, and sufficient elimination or reduction of threats to the population. The standards for achieving recovery in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS are both scientifically valid and realistically reflect the biological similarities and differences between each area.

Issue 8:

Some suggested that the 1994 recovery goal was inadequate to ensure the continued viability of the NRM DPS. Specifically, it was suggested that the 1994 EIS could not properly evaluate the recovery goals because predicting the number of wolves the two then-unoccupied recovery zones might support was not possible in 1994. Some thought that the wolf recovery goals should be reevaluated given historic or recent wolf numbers and distribution throughout the NRM. Others suggested that additional protection of the ecosystem on which the NRM wolves depend would be necessary to accomplish successful recovery in areas of historic occupancy. Some questioned the objectivity of the peer review process for the recovery goals. Others suggested that the wolf population be reduced to the minimum recovery goal of 300 wolves in 30 breeding pairs.

Response 8:

We do not dispute the fact that the NRM can support a wolf population that is several times higher than the minimum numerical recovery goal. However, under the Act, species recovery is considered to be the return of a species to the point where it is no longer threatened or endangered. Recovery under the Act does not require restoring a species to historic levels or even maximizing possible levels of genetic diversity, density, or distribution. The Service has reviewed the NRM wolf recovery goal to ensure it is adequate (see discussion in Recovery section). We determined that a three-State wolf metapopulation that does not fall below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State in mid-winter is biologically recovered. Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have committed to maintain the NRM wolf population above those minimum numerical and distributional levels.

We used an extensive unbiased scientific peer review and public review process and our own expertise to help investigate, and modify as necessary, the recovery goals. We continue to believe these goals are adequate to ensure the species does not again become threatened or endangered. Additionally, peer reviews of the State wolf management plans and the rulemaking process also confirmed the adequacy of the recovery goals to maintain a recovered wolf population in the NRM.

Regarding habitat, we believe the NRM DPS contains sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to maintain a healthy and viable wolf population in the long-term (as discussed in Factor A below). Thus, we do not believe there is a need for additional habitat protections in the NRM DPS.

Finally, the Act does not require or authorize the Service to manage a listed species to keep it from surpassing minimum recovery goals.

Future Wolf Numbers

Issue 9:

Many pointed out that the States will manage the NRM wolf population for fewer wolves than currently exist. Others recommended that we recognize that wolf numbers can fluctuate dramatically.

Response 9:

The delisted NRM DPS wolf population may be reduced from its current levels of around 1,500 wolves after delisting. However, the three States containing all habitat occupied by persistent wolf packs and most of the suitable habitat in the NRM DPS have each committed to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves so the population never goes below recovery levels. These States have indicated that they will likely manage the population at around 883-1,240 wolves in 69-96 breeding pairs (see

Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria

section and Factor D.). We believe maintenance well above the minimum recovery goal is more than sufficient to maintain wolf recovery in the NRM. We and our State partners recognize that all

wildlife populations, including wolves, can fluctuate widely over a relatively short period of time. By managing for at least 50 percent above the minimal recovery levels, the States provide an adequate safety margin. This margin, combined with the States' commitment to adaptively manage the species as needed, adequately addressed concerns about population fluctuations.

Additional Recovery Efforts

Issue 10:

Some commenters suggested that the Service should initiate additional recovery programs in order to achieve gray wolf recovery before any delisting occurs. Others thought additional recovery efforts in these areas were unwise and unnecessary. The adjacent States of California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and Washington were mentioned most frequently for additional recovery programs.

Response 10:

Possible future wolf recovery programs are beyond the scope of this rulemaking as such actions are not necessary to ensure the NRM DPS remains unlikely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Issue 11:

Several commenters thought that wolf recovery should require re-colonization of all historical range or, at least, the portions of the historical range that could be made suitable. Some suggested that wolves should remain listed to promote wolf restoration within unoccupied portions of the species historic range, both in and beyond the NRM DPS. Others indicated that the conservation biology concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation need to be addressed over a much broader area. Some believed that our interpretation of recovery led us to focus on occupied habitat and controlling excessive rates of human-caused mortality rather than “true recovery.” It was suggested that “true recovery” requires natural connectivity or linkage, protection and enhancement of existing population levels, widespread habitat protection and restoration, and very protective regulatory mechanisms.

Response 11:

Many of these comments would expand the purpose of the Act and the meaning of “recover” under the Act. The purpose of the Act is to prevent species extinctions and 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. According to our implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.11), a species is recovered when the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that it no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

Restoration of historically occupied areas can play a role in achieving this goal. In the case of the NRM DPS, occupancy has been restored and will be sustained across a sufficiently large area to ensure the recovered status of the NRM DPS is never compromised. Occupancy across larger portions of the historical range, unless required to preclude the NRM DPS from again becoming threatened or endangered, are beyond the requirements of the Act.

Resiliency, redundancy, and representation (described in detail in the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis section below) are important factors in the long-term conservation status of any species (Shaffer and Stein 2000). The principles of resiliency and redundancy are satisfied by the metapopulation structure of the NRM DPS, the numeric and distributional elements of the recovery goal, the core of highly protected public lands that provide secure habitat in each core recovery area, and the natural biological resiliency and adaptability of wolves. The concept of representation, when applied to the conservation of the gray wolf, indicates that we should preserve enough genetic diversity so that future genetic problems are unlikely to lead to extinction. These problems may include genetic drift (random fluctuations of gene frequencies in a population) and inbreeding depression (decreased vigor in terms of growth, survival, or fecundity), which would result in a diminished ability to survive or evolve as new environmental conditions develop. Within the NRM DPS, the current gray wolf recovery program preserves all of what remains of the species' genetic diversity in that area (Leonard

et al.

2005, p. 1) (See discussion of genetics in Factor E.). The three wolf populations in the lower 48 States (WGL DPS, NRM DPS, and the wolf population in the southwest) contain all of the remaining genetic material of the gray wolf that formerly inhabited those areas. Additionally, the species remains abundant in many areas of the northern hemisphere. Collectively, this information shows that the conservation biology principle of representation is satisfied.

We disagree with the assertion that we have inappropriately focused our recovery efforts on occupied habitat and mortality control. In fact, we have focused recovery efforts on wolf population levels, distribution, habitat, connectivity, all forms of mortality, wolf/human conflicts, diseases and parasites, predation, human attitudes, genetics, and dispersal (Service

et al.

2007). We have also worked to maintain public tolerance of wolves by limiting damage to private property. These recovery efforts led to significant increases in wolf numbers and range, allowing wolves to reoccupy habitats they were absent from since the 1930s. Our efforts also provided demographic, genetic, and habitat security. Wolves now occupy most of the suitable habitat within the NRM DPS. This comprehensive approach to recovery will be continued under State management in the future. Additional conservation actions that would result in a more widely distributed and numerically abundant wolf population in the NRM DPS are not necessary to meet the definition of recovered under the Act.

Issue 12:

Many suggested that we failed to recognize the ecological importance or trophic cascades (the ripple effect in predator, herbivore, plant, and scavenger communities caused by restoring a keystone species like wolves) and ecological effects emanating from wolf restoration in the NRM. Some suggested that the Act mandates that a species be “ecologically effective.” Still others thought we should use an “ecosystem approach” when implementing recovery. Finally, some suggested delisting does not fulfill parts of the Service mission which includes, “working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

Response 12:

We recognize that wolf recovery appears to have caused trophic cascades and ecological effects that affect numerous other animal and plant communities, and their relationships with each other. One example is changes in elk density and behavior that reduce browsing pressure in riparian areas that allow increased willow growth and survival, which then provides habitat for beaver, fish fry, and nesting song birds. These effects have been most pronounced when wolf populations are at natural carrying capacity, such as in YNP (Smith

et al.

2003, pp. 330-340; Robbins 2004, pp. 76-85; Campbell

et al.

2006, pp. 360-363). While some believe we should stall delisting until these cascading ecological effects are restored throughout the NRM DPS or beyond, this approach is not supported by the Act. Instead, when a species no longer meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act, it is

recovered, and should be delisted. Similarly, the Act does not require that we achieve or maintain “ecological effectiveness” (

i.e.

, occupancy with densities that maintain critical ecosystem interactions and help ensure against ecosystem degradation) (Soule

et al.

2003, p. 1239).

Service policy intends that we apply an ecosystem approach in carrying out our programs for fish and wildlife conservation (National Policy Issuances 95-03 and 96-10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 1994). The goal of such an approach is to strive to contribute to the effective conservation of natural biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems when carrying out our various mandates and functions. Preserving and recovering endangered and threatened species is one of the more basic aspects of an ecosystem approach to conservation. Successful recovery of a threatened or endangered species requires that the necessary components of its habitat and ecosystem be conserved, and that diverse partnerships be developed to ensure the long-term protection of those components. Thus, the recovery success demonstrated for gray wolves, a keystone or “highly interactive species” (as defined by Soule

et al.

2003), incorporated an ecosystem approach.

Finally, we believe the delisting portrays successful implementation of our mission statement. Gray wolf recovery programs involve many partners in the private and public sector, at all levels of government, and include numerous other State and Federal agencies. The gray wolf recovery successes described in this rule resulted from working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance gray wolf populations in the NRM DPS. That success has now reached a point where the NRM DPS is no longer threatened or endangered and thus no longer requires the protections of the Act.

Issue 13:

Some commenters suggested that we should delist gray wolves in areas outside the proposed DPS because: wolves are common elsewhere (in other areas of the lower 48 States or in Alaska and Canada); wolves have recovered (in that area or elsewhere); wolves are extirpated in many areas and could be delisted on the basis of extinction in those areas; keeping wolves listed where there is little or no suitable habitat results in irresolvable conflicts; and a State can manage a resident species better than the Federal government.

Response 13:

The Federal status of wolves under the Act outside of the NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this action. An evaluation of these areas for either delisting or additional recovery efforts will be addressed in subsequent efforts.

Designating the NRM Distinct Population Segment

Issue 14:

Some commenters suggested that we improperly designated the NRM DPS.

Response 14:

As described above, the NRM DPS is biologically based, appropriate, and was developed in accordance with the Act and the DPS Policy. The Service has the authority to list, reclassify, or delist at the subspecies, species, or DPS level, as we believe to be most appropriate to carry out the purpose of the Act.

Issue 15:

Some commenters suggested that the NRM gray wolf population is not a DPS because all populations in the lower 48 States were once connected. Thus, the population should not be considered discrete.

Response 15:

A comprehensive evaluation of the NRM gray wolf population's discreteness is included in the “Analysis for Discreteness” section above. The Act and the DPS Policy require that a DPS be discrete from other existing populations. Historical distribution has no bearing on the NRM population's current discreteness. The boundaries of the NRM DPS are based on likely dispersal distances and surrounding unsuitable habitat.

We believe a continuous uninterrupted population throughout most of the lower 48 States, as existed historically, is not achievable. The best scientific and commercial information available suggests the NRM population will remain markedly separated from other gray wolf populations in the lower 48 States. Occupancy in the vast majority of intervening areas is unsustainable because most of those areas have been too modified by people for wolf packs to persist.

Issue 16:

Several commenters suggested that the DPS policy is to be used only in listing decisions and that using it in a delisting decision violates Congressional intent and the legislative and statutory structure of the Act.

Response 16:

The Act, its implementing regulations, and our DPS policy provide no support for this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether “any species” is endangered or threatened. Numerous sections of the Act refer to adding and removing “species” from the list of threatened or endangered plants and animals. Section 3(15) defines “species” to include any subspecies “* * * and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife * * *” The Act directs us to list, reclassify, and delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate species. It contains no provisions requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be treated in a different manner than species or subspecies when carrying out the listing, recovery, and delisting functions mandated by section 4. Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that the policy is intended for “the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the Act” (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and that it “guides the evaluation of distinct vertebrate population segments for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying under the Act” (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996).

These comments also overlook the untenable situation that would arise if DPSs could be listed, but could never be delisted, after they have been successfully recovered. Clearly Congress did not envision such an outcome when amending the definition of species to include vertebrate DPSs.

Issue 17:

It was pointed out that the designation of the NRM DPS created a remnant population. Some suggested this violates the Act as the Act allows us to “consider listing only an

entire

species, subspecies, or DPS” (

Alsea Valley Alliance

v.

Evans,

161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, we cannot declare part of a listed species a DPS without also designating the remaining listed species as DPS(s). We should reconsider the status of all other wolf populations in the lower 48 States simultaneously and should not delist the NRM population until we consider recovery goals and planning for all other wolf populations/areas in the lower 48 States.

Response 17:

While in some situations it may be appropriate to designate multiple DPSs simultaneously, the Act does not require it. This flexibility allows the Service to subsequently list or delist additional DPSs when additional information becomes available or as the conservation status of the taxon changes. Importantly, the court held that the Act allows this flexibility. In

National Wildlife Federation

v.

Norton

(385 F. Supp. 2d 553, 565 (D. Vt. 2005), the court found that “Nowhere in the Act is the Secretary prevented from creating a ‘non-DPS remnant' designation, especially when the remnant area was already listed * * *” Our current designation of a NRM DPS, while retaining the remaining other wolves listed as endangered or nonessential experimental, is consistent with this aspect of the District Court's ruling.

Issue 18:

Some suggested that the Service should use subspecies to

designate DPSs across the gray wolf's historical range and these DPSs should replace or supplement the current recovery zones. Others thought the current program illegally restored the wrong subspecies of wolf to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Response 18:

The subspecific classification for the gray wolf identified by Hall (1984, pp. 2-11) is no longer in accordance with accepted, although evolving, scientific taxonomic literature and approaches (Service 1994, p. 1-21-22; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 353; Nowak 1995, p. 375; Nowak 2003, pp. 248-50), including new genetic analysis (Wayne and Vila 2003, pp. 223-4; Leonard

et al.

2005; p. 1; Leonard and Wayne 2007, p. 1). Newer molecular techniques indicate distinct subspecies classifications or ranges are not appropriate when evaluating natural diversity and evolution in wolves. We accept the holarctic species (

Canis lupus

) concept without regard to theoretical historic subspecies designations. Therefore, we do not consider the wolves we reintroduced from Canada as a separate subspecies. Theoretical use of multiple DPSs to reestablish wolf populations in areas outside the recovered NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Issue 19:

It was suggested that a wolf dispersing outside of the DPS boundaries (e.g., into Colorado) may create confusion among State, Federal, and Tribal agencies regarding the status of that wolf. To address this confusion, some believed that any wolf originating from the NRM DPS should be considered part of that DPS, regardless of where they are geographically.

Response 19:

Consistent with Section 4(c) of the Act, the status of individual members of any species, subspecies, or DPS is dependent on its geographic location. We used easily identifiable boundaries, such as the center line of major highways or State borders, to minimize management confusion. Once this rule goes into effect, if a wolf goes beyond the NRM DPS boundary it attains the listing status of the area it has entered (i.e., endangered in much of the lower 48 States except where listed as nonessential experimental or delisted, as in the WGL DPS). Similarly, if a wolf enters the NRM DPS, it would not be listed and would be managed according to the relevant State management plan. State and Federal agencies adjacent to the NRM DPS are aware of and understand the management implications of the DPS boundaries. While we believe that future dispersal and conflicts outside the DPS will be rare, we will continue to work with any affected States or Tribes to resolve them.

Issue 20:

Numerous comments suggested the border of the DPS was improperly developed. Some suggested the DPS should have been larger, while others thought it should have been smaller. Some believe that because the boundaries were mainly highways or State borders, they were arbitrary and not based on sound biological principles or natural features like rivers. The adjacent States requested that the NRM DPS boundary be changed to include most of Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, some of eastern North and South Dakota, and none of Washington.

Response 20:

The boundary of the NRM DPS was established by analyzing the distribution of potentially suitable and unsuitable habitat for wolves in the NRM and the documented dispersal distances of radio-collared wolves. These are the most likely factors to influence a split between the NRM DPS and other potential areas of occupancy. A smaller DPS might split the biological entity. A larger DPS might split a neighboring biological entity, should one ever be established. According to our DPS policy, an artificial or manmade boundary (such as Interstate, Federal, and State highways, or State borders) may be used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the geographic area included within the DPS. We believe such use of easily understood boundaries will promote public understanding of the decision. In this case, the NRM DPS boundaries were defined along easily identifiable boundaries that represent the most appropriate DPS for this population (see DPS discussion in this rule for our rationale). While some suggested “more biological” borders like rivers or geological features, we do not believe such borders are of any greater biological meaning to wolves given their ability to cross nearly any geographic feature and distance (Linnell

et al.

2005). In our view, the biological influences of suitable and unsuitable habitat in combination with mortality risk are likely to have the greatest influence on separation among populations.

Defining Suitable Habitat

Issue 21:

Some commenters thought we should explain why some historically occupied lands were excluded from our definition of suitable habitat.

Response 21:

Our identification of suitable habitat was based on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding successful utilization of habitat. Many areas of historic wolf habitat are no longer capable of supporting wolves. Most of these areas have been so modified by human activities as to be unsuitable for wolves. This issue is discussed in more detail in Factor A below.

Issue 22:

Some commenters suggested that we improperly considered more than strictly biological criteria in defining suitable habitat by allowing the definition of suitable to consider human tolerance. Others suggested that we misinterpreted the habitat suitability models because they only present probabilities of successful occupation by wolves under current conditions.

Response 22:

Our approach to suitable habitat considered a variety of factors including but not limited to human tolerance. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM is generally characterized as public land with mountainous, forested habitat that contains abundant year-round wild ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat is not capable of supporting viable populations. In the NRM, unsuitable habitat is generally considered private land, flat open prairie or desert, lands containing low or seasonal wild ungulate populations, high road density, high numbers of year-round domestic livestock including many domestic sheep, high levels of agricultural use, and many people. When wolves occur in places with high levels of human activity, they experience an increased mortality risk. The level of impact from such mortality is directly related to the location and numbers of humans and their activities.

In terms of suitable habitat models, we recognize that none of the available models are exact indicators of what is “suitable.” Each model only identifies areas with a 50 percent or greater chance of being suitable. Thus, we made our determination based upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, these models.

Foreseeable Future

Issue 23:

Some commenters believed that limiting foreseeable future to 30 years was inappropriate.

Response 23:

For the NRM DPS, the foreseeable future differs for each factor potentially impacting the DPS and we revised our definition of foreseeable future in this final rule to take into account the variability of what is foreseeable for each threat factor. However, for most factors impacting the NRM DPS, we believe a window of up to 30 years is foreseeable. We consider this to be a reasonable timeframe

because: (1) It took approximately this long from listing for public attitudes and regulations to result in a social climate that promoted and allowed for wolf restoration in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS; (2) this timeframe represents about ten wolf generations (3 years each) which is about how long it took for wolves in both the NRM DPS and WGL DPS to expand numbers and exceed their biological recovery criteria; and (3) available habitat and potential future distribution models (Carroll

et al.

2003, 536; Carroll

et al.

2006, Figure 6) predict out about this far. For some threat factors, a longer time horizon may be appropriate. For example, in our consideration of genetics, we reviewed a paper that looked 100 years into the future (vonHoldt

et al.

2007). When evaluating the available information, with respect to foreseeable future, we take into account reduced confidence as we forecast further into the future.

Potential Threats to the NRM DPS

Issue 24:

A number of commenters disputed our analysis of the five listing factors, suggesting alternative scenarios where the NRM wolf population would be threatened in the future.

Response 24:

We updated and augmented the final rule's five-factor analysis to address specific issues raised. Our analysis revealed that none of these potential factors will threaten the NRM DPS wolf population in the foreseeable future.

Issue 25:

It was suggested that we did not fully evaluate or acknowledge the potential impacts from oil and gas development or other human development on the wolf population. Other habitat issues in the NRM that required additional consideration included rapid human population growth and the resulting increase in houses, roads, recreation, and wolf/human conflicts.

Response 25:

These issues are now considered under Factor A below.

Issue 26:

Some commenters thought that the Service should reduce the future threat to wolves by requiring that livestock be reduced or eliminated on public lands.

Response 26:

Wolves and livestock, primarily cattle and horses, can live near one another for extended periods of time without significant conflict. Through active management, most wolves do not learn that livestock can be successfully attacked and do not view them as prey. However, when wolves and livestock mix some livestock and some wolves are inevitably killed. Furthermore, when wolves learn to attack livestock, that behavior can quickly be learned by other wolves if it is not stopped. Since large numbers of wild ungulates winter on private property, even wolves that prey exclusively on wild ungulates will be in close proximity to livestock during at least some portion of the year. Wolf recovery has occurred and will continue to be maintained without modification of traditional western land-use practices and without removing livestock from public grazing allotments. Public lands in the NRM can have both large predators and seasonal livestock grazing. The Service has no need, for the purposes of wolf recovery, for livestock grazing practices on either public or private land to be modified, because wolf recovery is not threatened by the current levels of activities. Regulating livestock grazing on public lands is under the authorities of the respective land management agencies. We believe State management will continue to successfully balance traditional livestock grazing practices, open space, and wolf conservation.

Issue 27:

Some commenters were concerned about humane treatment of wolves and were opposed to certain methods of take, particularly aerial gunning and poisoning. Numerous parties suggested that the Service should not allow public hunting of wolves. Others suggested that we should require the use of nonlethal control tools to reduce conflict with livestock.

Response 27:

After delisting, we have determined that the States regulating wolves in the NRM DPS will not threaten the wolf population. However, we have no jurisdiction over the method or timing of State management or control of a delisted species. In Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, wolves listed as trophy game can only be taken by the public as prescribed by State statute, usually fair chase hunting or regulated trapping. Wildlife listed as predatory animals are generally not covered by State anti-cruelty laws (e.g., Wyoming Title 6, Chapter 3, Article 2), so methods of take are not regulated. Wildlife agency professionals adhere to specific protocols when they capture, handle, or euthanize wildlife for research or management purposes. In the vast majority of situations, wolf control will be accomplished by regulated public hunting and trapping or agency control of problem wolves. State authorized wolf control may include, just as the federally authorized control program currently does, gunning from the air and ground, trapping, and, in a few cases, removing pups from dens. Deliberate poisoning of wolves will not be allowed due to current Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions on the use and application of all poisons (including M-44 devices) capable of killing wolves. Humane treatment of wolves in National Parks would be unaffected by delisting.

Hunting (and in some areas even unregulated hunting) has not threatened wolf populations (Boitani 2003). Hunting is a valuable, efficient, and cost-effective tool to help manage wildlife populations. Viable robust wolf populations in Canada, Alaska, and other parts of the world are hunted. The Service recognized (Service 1994, p. 1-13) and encouraged (Bangs

et al.

in press) State wolf management programs to incorporate regulated public hunting in their wolf conservation programs. Conservation programs to restore large predators such as mountain lions, black bears, and wolves succeeded because of the historic restoration of wild ungulates, such as elk and deer, by State fish and game agencies and hunter dollars and involvement (Geist

et al.

2001, p. 175-181).

While not required by the Act, the States and Tribes will continue to use a combination of management options in order to reduce wolf/human conflicts including nonlethal forms of control (Bangs

et al.

2006). However, these methods are effective in only some circumstances, and no single tool is a cure for every problem. Lethal control will still be required in many circumstances. Lethal control can also improve the overall effectiveness of nonlethal methods (Brietenmoser

et al.

2005, p. 70).

Issue 28:

Many people commented that the State regulatory frameworks, especially those of Idaho and Wyoming, were not adequate and should not have been approved. Commenters cited anti-wolf statements by public officials and county ordinances as evidence that persecution of wolves will resume if delisting occurs. Some expressed their opinion that Wyoming's 2003 State law and management plan were inadequate, while others argued we were wrong not to approve the measures as an adequate regulatory mechanism. Some felt that Wyoming's revised protections remained inadequate. Some were concerned the States would not honor their commitments or would change their laws to persecute wolves after delisting. Others maintained that none of the NRM DPS should be delisted until all States within the DPS (including Oregon, Washington, and Utah) had approved wolf management plans. Finally, some wanted the States to manage for breeding pairs rather than undefined packs.

Response 28:

We recognize that human persecution of wolves was the primary reason for their wide-spread

extirpation across North America. We fully analyzed the nature and magnitude of this threat in Factors C and D below. Despite statements to the media by some public officials and some county ordinances that, if implemented, would be problematic for maintenance of a recovered wolf population, the official written policy and laws of the States, committing them to manage for a wolf population that always exceeds minimum recovery levels, supersede county rules and authorities and statements by politicians reported by the media.

Our evaluation of State regulatory mechanisms considered all the laws, regulations, ordinances, resolutions, memorials, statements by elected officials, and State plans for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The States of Idaho (2002) and Montana (2003) adopted State laws and management plans that meet the requirements of the Act and will conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. While we continue to believe the 2003 Wyoming law and wolf management plan were not sufficient to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM DPS (Williams 2004, pp. 1-3; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we have determined that the 2007 Wyoming State law and wolf management plan meet the requirements of the Act and will conserve Wyoming's share of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (assuming they are allowed to become effective; see discussion under Factor D below) (72 FR 36939, July 6, 2007; Hall 2007). We believe these regulatory mechanisms are adequate to ensure that the wolf population in the NRM DPS will remain well above recovery levels into the foreseeable future (Williams 2004, pp. 1-3; Hall 2007, p. 1). The discrepancy between breeding pairs and packs no longer appears relevant as all three States have committed to measure wolf recovery criteria by breeding pairs and numbers of wolves (Montana 2003; IDFG 2007; Wyoming 2007). We used peer review, public review during rulemaking, and our own expertise to assess whether the State plans provided adequate regulatory mechanisms to ensure a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future.

Any wolf conservation by the Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be beneficial, but is not necessary to either achieving or maintaining a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS. These areas contain little habitat suitable to support persistent wolf packs and any wolf breeding pairs that might occur there in the future would be too few and distant from the core recovery areas to affect the viability of the contiguous NRM wolf population. Still, Oregon and Utah have State wolf management plans/strategies and Washington is developing one (see Factor D). The Service has not approved these plans and we do not have any need to do so in order to finalize this delisting action. This is consistent with the recovery plan which considered parts of these States (Service 1987, p. 2).

State management will provide mechanisms for the control of problem wolves, including allowing landowners to take wolves in certain situations and allowing regulated public harvest of surplus wolves in the NRM DPS. This flexibility in wolf control is expected to increase public tolerance (Idaho 2007, Appendix A).

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed in their laws and plans to maintain the wolf population safely above recovery levels by regulating human-caused mortality. Mandatory post-delisting monitoring includes evaluating any threats to the NRM wolf population as well as its distribution and numbers. A decline of wolf populations below recovery goals due to failure of the States to honor their commitments or for other reasons could result in relisting under the Act.

Issue 29:

Some suggested wolf management needs to be transferred to the States and Tribes.

Response 29:

The Service agrees that a recovered wolf population is best managed by the respective States and Tribes. The States have relatively large and well-distributed professional fish and game agencies with demonstrated skills and experience that have successfully managed a diversity of resident species, including large carnivores, and will do a similarly outstanding job of managing a recovered wolf population. State management of wolves will be in alignment with the classic State-led North American model for wildlife management, which has been extremely successful at restoring, maintaining, and expanding the distribution of numerous populations of other wildlife species, including other large predators, throughout North America (Geist 2006, p. 1).

The Service delisted the WGL wolf population in early 2007, returning management of this population to the States and Tribes. Under cooperative agreements with us, Montana, Idaho, and the Nez Perce Tribe have successfully managed wolves in those States for the past 3 years. The Service worked closely with Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as they developed their wolf management plans to ensure that they will always manage for a wolf population that exceeds recovery criteria. We are confident the States and Tribes will adequately manage wolves so the protections of the Act will not be required in the foreseeable future.

Issue 30:

Some parties feared that State wolf management plans might not be implemented because funding for the plans is not guaranteed. Therefore, they concluded that the Service could not rely on them as adequate regulatory mechanisms, and delisting should not occur.

Response 30:

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming all recognize that implementation of their wolf management plans requires funding. The States have committed to secure the necessary funding to manage the wolf populations under the guidelines established by their Service-approved State wolf management plans (Idaho 2002; pp. 23-25; Montana 2003, pp. xiv; Idaho 2007, pp. 24, 47-48; Wyoming 2007, pp. 29-31). All have worked with their congressional delegations to secure Federal funding, but recognized that other sources of funding may eventually be required to implement their plans. In addition to State license fees or other forms of State funding, Federal funding could be available to help manage a delisted wolf population including in the form of directed appropriations, Pittman-Robinson Wildlife Restoration Act, other Federal grant programs, and private funding. The Service will continue to assist the States to secure adequate funding for wolf management. If wolf management by a State was to be completely unfunded or was inadequate to carry out the basic commitments of an approved State plan, then the promised management of threats by the States and the required monitoring of wolf populations might not be addressed. That scenario could trigger a status review for possible relisting under the Act.

Issue 31:

Several parties suggested that we should have considered the risk to the wolf population from catastrophic events such as fire, climate change, drought, disease, and stochastic events.

Response 31:

In response to these comments, we added a discussion of catastrophic events under Factor E below. Other potential catastrophic events are considered in other sections including our evaluation of habitat modification, diseases and parasites, human harassment and killing, genetic risks, climate change, and human attitudes.

Issue 32:

Some suggested that the Service should consider the potential

effect of low genetic diversity on gray wolf recovery. They contend that 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs is not high enough to maintain long-term genetic viability. These comments also suggest that the isolation of the GYA precluded a natural metapopulation dynamic for wolves in the NRM.

Response 32:

Low genetic diversity and inbreeding is a concern for species with small populations or that have gone through a population bottleneck. We have fully analyzed this issue in Section E below. After careful consideration of all of the available information on this issue, we do not believe that low genetic diversity will threaten the NRM DPS in the foreseeable future.

Issue 33:

Many pointed out that natural connectivity is an important consideration for the long-term conservation of the NRM wolf population. Some suggested that we should provide habitat protections for identified natural linkage zones between and within the GYA and central Idaho and northwestern Montana. It was also suggested that we should identify critical habitat for these linkage zones.

Response 33:

Wolves have an unusual ability to disperse long distances rapidly across virtually any habitat and to select mates to maximize genetic diversity. Thus, connectivity issues are less likely to affect wolves than nearly any other species of land mammal (Paquet

et al.

2006, p. 3). Although it is highly unlikely there would ever be a need, complications from a potential lack of natural habitat connectivity could be quickly resolved by agency management, such as relocations. Connectivity and genetics are discussed further below under factors A and E, respectively.

Additionally, connectivity for wildlife across the NRM remains an important and high-priority issue for the Service and our partner wildlife agencies. A process to identify, maintain, and improve wildlife movement areas between the large blocks of public land in the NRM is ongoing (Servheen

et al.

2003, p. 3). This interagency effort involves 13 State and Federal agencies working on linkage facilitation across private lands, public lands, and highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 1994, 2001, pp. 1-2; Brown 2007, pp. 1-3). To date, this effort has included: (1) Development of a written protocol and guidance document on how to implement linkage zone management on public lands (Public Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, pp. 3-5); (2) production of several private land linkage management documents (Service 1997; Parker and Parker 2002, p. 2); (3) analyses of linkage zone management in relation to highways (Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller and Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) a workshop in the spring of 2006 on implementing management actions for wildlife linkage (the proceedings of which are available online at:

http://www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage

). The objective of this work is to maintain and enhance movement opportunities for all wildlife species across the NRM. Although this linkage work is not directly associated with the wolf population, it may benefit wolves even after delisting.

No critical habitat was ever, nor required to be, designated in the NRM for wolves under Section 4 of the Act. Critical habitat can only be designated under the Act for threatened and endangered species. There is no legal basis to designate critical habitat for the delisted NRM DPS.

Issue 34:

Some commenters stated that we failed to consider the impacts of State hunts on the social structure of wolf packs.

Response 34:

This issue is now considered under Factor E below.

Issue 35:

Some commenters encouraged us to investigate human dimensions with a protocol that would allow quantification of changes in the attitudes of the general public, farmers, hunters, and other stakeholders.

Response 35:

We agree that the values people hold about wolves may provide valuable insight into successful management strategies (Peek

et al.

1991, p. 15). The States have already conducted surveys about human values towards wolves (Idaho 2007, Appendix A; as one example) and will likely continue to do so in the future. We believe this information may be helpful to formulate State policies. However, such monitoring is not required by the Act in order to justify delisting.

Significant Portion of Range

Issue 36:

Some commenters expressed dissenting views and interpretations of the Act's phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPR) in the definition of a threatened or an endangered species. Several believed that “range” should mean historical range and provided us with Vucetich

et al.

(2006) as support for their position. Others opined that our definition was the same used in our 2003 rule that was invalidated by the court (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). Still others suggested our consideration of SPR should consider all suitable or potential habitat.

Response 36:

On March 16, 2007, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a memorandum opinion with an extensive evaluation of the meaning of “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 2007). As elaborated in this opinion, we believe the law is clear that “range” in this phrase refers to “current range,” not “historical range” and that the Service therefore must focus primarily on current range. Data about the historical range and how the species came to be extinct in a portion of its historical range may be relevant in understanding or predicting whether a species is “in danger of extinction” in its current range. The fact that a species has ceased to exist in what may have been portions of its historical range does not necessarily mean that it is “in danger of extinction” in a significant portion of the range where it currently exists. For the purposes of this rule, “range” includes all of the NRM DPS (as identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1). Thus, our five-factor analysis analyzed threats across all portions of the NRM DPS.

Public Involvement

Issue 37:

Some thought that the Service should have provided additional opportunities to learn more about the proposal and to provide comments including additional public hearings. Specifically, we received requests for hearings in Denver, CO, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, and Jackson, WY.

Response 37:

We believe that we provided ample opportunity for public comment including public comment periods totaling 120 days and eight public hearings. Comments could be hand-delivered to us or submitted to us via e-mail, mail, the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, fax, or public hearing testimony. We have provided public comment opportunities beyond the basic requirements of the Act and other Federal rulemaking procedures.

We also alerted interested parties to the details of public hearings and opportunities for public comment. Public hearing times and locations and other avenues to comment were announced in the

Federal Register

, posted on our Web site and in our weekly wolf reports, and publicized in local and national press releases. All comments, whether presented at a public hearing or provided in another manner, received the same review and consideration.

The Act requires that we hold one public hearing if requested; we held 8 public hearings. We selected locations that were within a reasonable driving distance of people who live near wolves

and in every State within the NRM DPS. Commenting via e-mail, hand delivery, or letter allowed unlimited space to express comments, as opposed to the public hearing format, which limited comments to three minutes in order to provide an opportunity for all attending to speak. More than 283,000 comments were received.

Scientific Analyses

Issue 38:

Some suggested that the Service should conduct a population viability analysis (PVA) or other additional modeling exercises or analysis (e.g. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines) before delisting.

Response 38:

The Act requires that we use the best scientific data available when we make decisions to list, reclassify, or delist a species. PVAs can be valuable as a tool to help us understand the population dynamics of a rare species (White 2000). They can be useful in identifying gaps in our knowledge of the demographic parameters that are most important to a species’ survival, but they cannot tell us how many individuals are necessary to avoid extinction. The difficulty of applying PVA techniques to wolves has been discussed by Fritts and Carbyn (1995) and Boitani (2003). Problems include: Our inability to provide accurate input information for the probability of occurrence of, and impact from, catastrophic events (such as a major disease outbreak or prey base collapse); Our inability to incorporate all the complexities and feedback loops inherent in wild systems and agency adaptive management strategies; our inability to provide realistic inputs for the influences of environmental variation (such as annual fluctuations in winter severity and the resulting impacts on prey abundance and vulnerability); temporal variation; selective outbreeding (vonHoldt

et al.

2007); individual heterogeneity; and difficulty in dealing with the spatial aspects of extreme territoriality and the long-distance dispersals shown by wolves. Relatively minor changes in any of these input values into a theoretical model can result in vastly different outcomes.

Thus, we believe conducting a PVA type analysis on the effect of wolf population management would be of limited value in the NRM DPS. Instead, we relied upon an extensive body of empirical data on wolves and the NRM wolf population. We believe the State commitments for adaptive management preclude the usefulness of theorizing about the potential status of the NRM wolf population under fixed criteria. We also utilized models that employed PVA-like parameters and analysis to help identify potentially suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS now and into the future (Carroll

et al.

2003, 2006; Carroll 2006). The IUCN Redlist (IUCN 2007;

http://www.iucnredlist.org

; Bangs and Smith in press) considers gray wolves in North America a species of least concern and does not list regional or local populations. Wolves in the NRM DPS are simply the southwestern tip of a biologically-secure contiguous North American wolf population containing tens of thousands of individuals.

While some suggested that we conduct a PVA based on maintenance of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves or capping a wolf population at an arbitrary level, we believe this would lead to an inaccurate and misleading conclusion. Any such analysis would ignore the fluctuating nature of wildlife populations, actual requirements of the recovery goal, and the States’ commitments to manage well above that level and to adjust their management strategies should the wolf population ever appear not to be meeting the State's management objectives.

Issue 39:

Some commenters felt that it was difficult to judge the scientific validity of the science we relied upon because some of the science and literature was gray literature, had not been peer reviewed, was in preparation, or was through personal communication.

Response 39:

While we attempt to use peer-reviewed literature to the maximum extent possible, the Act requires us to make our decision based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Because we have so many ongoing research and monitoring projects, new data are constantly being collected, analyzed, peer reviewed, and published. Such information often represents the best scientific data available (Service

et al.

2007, pp. 64, 114, 183, 213), which the Service cannot ignore. All citations are available upon request.

Relisting Criteria

Issue 40:

Some comments suggested we develop a clear, unequivocal set of criteria for automatic relisting. Some comments argued that monitoring is not sufficient if the results of investigations are not promptly incorporated in policy and management, and this type of rapid response requires availability of contingency funds, clear roles and authorities, and the power to impose the necessary actions on all involved partners. They suggest, that because the effectiveness of the monitoring program depends “* * * upon adequate funding to provide research results with scientifically acceptable confidence limits,” the monitoring plan should have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 years before delisting occurs.

Response 40:

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have committed to monitor the wolf population according to the breeding pair standard and to publish annual reports of their activities for at least the first 5 years after delisting. We will post this information and our analysis of it on our Web site annually.

We believe that our criteria for relisting are clear. Four scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to determine if relisting was warranted including: (1) If the wolf population for any one State falls below the minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming; (2) if the wolf population segment in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves in any one of those States for 3 consecutive years; (3) if the wolf population in Wyoming outside of YNP falls below 7 breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years; or (4) if a change in State law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. All such reviews would be made available for public review and comment, including peer review by select species experts.

Any such status review would analyze status relative to the definition of threatened or endangered considering the 5 factors outlined in section 4(a)(1). If, at any time, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing. If emergency listing was instituted, we would then have 240 days to complete a conventional listing rule before the protections of the emergency rule would expire.

Funding for government programs is never certain at any level, but the funding to support wolf management activities of the various Federal and State agencies in the NRM has been consistently obligated for the past 20 years, and we have a high level of confidence that the resources necessary to carry out the monitoring and management programs will continue for the foreseeable future. We may provide Federal funding for Federal monitoring requirements.

Use of Section 6 Agreements for States Outside the NRM DPS

Issue 41:

Our proposal solicited comments regarding our intention to use

ESA section 6 agreements to allow States outside the NRM DPS with Service-approved wolf management plans to assume management of listed wolves, including nonlethal and lethal control of problem wolves. Some comments suggested this approach was inappropriate while others applauded the idea.

Response 41:

This issue is not directly related to delisting in the NRM DPS and has been removed from this final rule. We will work with adjacent States to evaluate the appropriate mechanisms for States to manage listed wolves, including control of problem wolves.

Miscellaneous Issues Not Germane to This Rulemaking

Issue 42:

Some comments pointed out the positive and negative economic impacts of wolves, especially related to tourism in YNP, livestock depredation, and competition with hunters for surplus big game.

Response 42:

Under the Act, listing decisions are not to consider economic factors. That said, we believe wolf-related tourism in places like YNP will not be affected by delisting. Additionally, State management will reduce economic losses caused by livestock depredation and competition with hunters for wild ungulates.

Issue 43:

Many comments were made on issues that were not related to or affected by this rulemaking. Most often these issues involved strongly held personal opinions or perceptions about Federal, State, or Tribal government or authorities, property rights, methods of take, risks to human safety, negative affects to hunting, outfitting, livestock production, tourism, ecosystem restoration, the U.S. Constitution, wildlife management in general, wolves and wolf management, and modifications to the NRM experimental population special 10(j) rule.

Response 43:

While we respect these personal values, they are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing species from listed status. “Species” is defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), we may remove the protections of the Act if the best available scientific and commercial data substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered; or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error.

A species may be delisted as recovered only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that it is no longer endangered or threatened. Determining whether a species meets the recovered definition requires consideration of the five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.

Under section 3 of the Act, a species is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a “significant portion of its range” and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a “significant portion of its range.” The word “range” in the phrase “significant portion of its range” refers to the range in which the species currently exists. For the purposes of this rule, “range” includes all of the NRM DPS (as identified in Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 1).

Evaluating whether the species should be considered threatened or endangered in all or a significant portion of its range is a multiple-step analysis. If we determine that the species is endangered throughout all of its range, we list it as endangered throughout its range and no further analysis is necessary. If not, we then evaluate if the species meets the definition of threatened throughout all of its range. If the species is threatened in all of its range, we list the species as threatened and consider if any significant portions of its range warrant listing as endangered. If we determine that the species is not threatened or endangered in all of its range, we consider whether any significant portions of its range warrant consideration as threatened or endangered. If we determine that the species is threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range, the provisions of the Act would only apply to the significant portion of the species’ range where it is threatened or endangered.

Foreseeable future is defined by the Services on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a variety of species-specific factors such as lifespan, genetics, breeding behavior, demography, threat projection timeframes, and environmental variability. “Foreseeable” is commonly viewed as “such as reasonably can or should be anticipated: such that a person of ordinary prudence would expect it to occur or exist under the circumstances” (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996;

Western Watershed Project

v.

Foss

(D. Idaho 2005; CV 04-168-MHW). For the NRM DPS, the foreseeable future differs for each factor potentially impacting the DPS. For most factors impacting the NRM DPS, we believe a window of up to 30 years is foreseeable. We consider this to be a reasonable timeframe because: (1) It took approximately this long from listing for public attitudes and regulations to result in a social climate that promoted and allowed for wolf restoration in the WGL DPS and NRM DPS; (2) this timeframe represents about ten wolf generations (3 years each) which is about how long it took for wolves in both the NRM DPS and WGL DPS to expand numbers and achieve their biological recovery criteria; and (3) available habitat and potential future distribution models (Carroll

et al.

2003, 536; Carroll

et al.

2006, Figure 6) predict out about this far. For some threat factors, a longer time horizon may be appropriate. For example, in our consideration of genetics, we reviewed a paper that looked 100 years into the future (vonHoldt

et al.

2007). When evaluating the available information, with respect to foreseeable future, we take into account reduced confidence as we forecast further into the future.

The following analysis examines all five factors currently affecting, or that are likely to affect, the NRM gray wolf DPS within the foreseeable future.

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

The NRM DPS is approximately 980,803 km

2

(378,690 mi

2

) and includes 402,606 km

2

(155,447 mi

2

) of Federal land (41 percent); 49,803 km

2

(19,229 mi

2

) of State land (5 percent); 32,942 km

2

(12,719 mi

2

) of Tribal land (3 percent); 427,998 km

2

(165,251 mi

2

) of private land (44 percent) (the remaining area is either water or lands in Washington that were not categorized into ownership in the geographic information system (GIS) layers we analyzed). The NRM DPS contains large amounts of three Ecoregion Divisions—Temperate Steppe (prairie) (312,148 km

2

[120,521 mi

2

]); Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) (404,921 km

2

[156,341

mi

2

]); and Temperate Desert (high desert) (263,544 km

2

[101,755 mi

2

]) (Bailey 1995, p. iv). The following analysis focuses on suitable habitat within the NRM DPS and areas currently occupied by persistent wolf packs (i.e., core recovery areas) (which may include intermittent unsuitable habitat). Then, unsuitable habitat is examined. A number of threats to habitat are examined including climate change, increased human populations and development (including oil and gas), connectivity, ungulate populations, and livestock grazing.

Suitable Habitat

—Wolves once occupied or transited all of the NRM DPS. However, much of the wolf's historical range within the NRM DPS has been modified for human use and is no longer suitable habitat. We have reviewed the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat relative to the biological requirements of wolves. In doing so we reviewed two models, Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, pp. 555-558) and Carroll

et al.

(2003, pp. 536-548; 2006, pp. 27-31; Carroll 2005, p. 1-3), to help us gauge the current amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS. Both models ranked areas as suitable habitat if they had characteristics that suggested they might have a 50 percent or greater chance of supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS was typically characterized in both models as public land with mountainous, forested habitat that contains abundant year-round wild ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically just the opposite (i.e., private land, flat open prairie or desert, low or seasonal wild ungulate populations, high road density, high numbers of year-round domestic livestock including many domestic sheep, high levels of agricultural use, and many people). Despite their similarities, these two models had substantial differences in the area analyzed, GIS data layers, inputs, and assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) and Carroll

et al.

(2006, p. 33) models predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable wolf habitat in areas examined by both models (i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming).

Oakleaf's model was a more intensive effort that only looked at potential wolf habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 555). It used roads accessible to two-wheel and four-wheel vehicles, topography (slope and elevation), land ownership, relative ungulate density (based on State harvest statistics), cattle (

Bos sp.

) and sheep density, vegetation characteristics (ecoregions and land cover), and human density to comprise its GIS data layers. Oakleaf analyzed the characteristics of areas occupied and not occupied by NRM wolf packs through 2000 to predict what other areas in the NRM might be suitable or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) ranked 170,228 km

2

(65,725 mi

2

) as suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

In contrast, Carroll's model analyzed a much larger area (all 12 western States and northern Mexico) in a less specific way (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-31). Carroll's model used density and type of roads, human population density and distribution, slope, and vegetative greenness as “pseudo-habitat” to estimate relative ungulate density to predict associated wolf survival and fecundity rates (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 29). The combination of the GIS model and wolf population parameters were then used to develop estimates of habitat theoretically suitable for wolf pack persistence. In addition, Carroll predicted the potential effect on suitable wolf habitat of increased road development and human density expected by 2025 (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 30-31). Within the NRM DPS, Carroll

et al.

(2006, pp. 27-31) ranked 277,377 km

2

(107,096 mi

2

) as suitable including 105,993 km

2

(40,924 mi

2

) in Montana; 82,507 km

2

(31,856 mi

2

) in Idaho; 77,202 km

2

(29,808 mi

2

) in Wyoming; 6,620 km

2

(2,556 mi

2

) in Oregon; 4,286 km

2

(1,655 mi

2

) in Utah; and 769 km

2

(297 mi

2

) in Washington. Approximately 96 percent of the suitable habitat (265,703 km

2

(102,588 mi

2

)) within the NRM DPS occurred in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. According to the Carroll model, approximately 28 percent of the NRM DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-31).

The Carroll

et al.

(2006, pp. 31-34) model tended to be more generous in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions than the Oakleaf (

et al.

2006, pp. 558-560) model or that our field observations indicate is realistic. But Carroll's model provided a valuable relative measure across the western U.S. upon which comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not incorporate livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf model did (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-29; Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 556). Thus, the Carroll model did not consider those conditions where wolf mortality is high and habitat unsuitable because of chronic conflict with livestock. During the past 20 years, wolf packs have been unable to persist in areas intensively used for livestock production, primarily because of agency control of problem wolves and illegal killing.

Furthermore, many of the more isolated primary habitat patches that the Carroll model predicted as currently suitable were predicted to be unsuitable by the year 2025, indicating they were likely on the lower end of what ranked as suitable habitat in that model (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 32). Because these types of areas were typically too small to support breeding pairs and too isolated from the core population to receive enough dispersing wolves to overcome higher rates of human-caused mortality, we do not believe they are currently suitable habitat based upon our data on wolf pack persistence for the past 20 years (Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 788; Service

et al.

1999-2007, Figure 1).

Despite the substantial differences in each model's analysis area, GIS data layers, inputs, and assumptions, both models predicted that most suitable wolf habitat in the NRM was in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA, which is the area currently occupied by the NRM gray wolf DPS. Carroll's model also indicated that these three areas had suitable habitat between them and it would remain relatively intact in the future (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 25). However, northwest Montana and Idaho were much more connected to each other and the wolf population in Canada than to the GYA (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 554). Collectively the three core areas were surrounded by large areas of unsuitable habitat.

These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their relationships to wolf pack persistence, rather than as predictors of absolute acreages or areas that can actually be successfully occupied by wolf packs. Additionally, both models generally support earlier Service predictions about wolf habitat suitability in the NRM (Service 1980, p. 9; 1987, p. 7; 1994, p. vii). Because theoretical models only define suitable habitat as those areas that have characteristics with a 50 percent or more probability of supporting wolf packs, it is impossible to give an exact acreage of suitable habitat that can actually be successfully occupied. It is important to note that these areas also have up to a 50 percent chance of not supporting wolf packs.

We considered data on the location of suitable wolf habitat from a number of

sources in developing our estimate of currently suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS. Specifically, we considered the recovery areas identified in the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), the primary analysis areas analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the GYA (63,700 mi

2

[24,600 mi

2

]) and central Idaho (53,600 mi

2

[20,700 mi

2

]) (Service 1994, p. iv), information derived from theoretical models by Carroll

et al.

(2006, p. 25) and Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 554), our nearly 20 years of field experience managing wolves in the NRM, and locations of persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs since recovery has been achieved. Collectively, this evidence leads us to concur with the Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) model's predictions that the most important habitat attributes for wolf pack persistence are forest cover, public land, high elk density, and low livestock density. Therefore, we believe that Oakleaf's calculations of the amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat available for persistent wolf pack formation, in the parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, represent the most reasonable prediction of suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

The area we conclude that is suitable habitat is generally depicted in Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559). Generally, suitable habitat is located in: Western Montana west of I-15 and south of I-90; Idaho north of Interstate 84; and the northwest corner of Wyoming including those areas east of State highway 120, along the western border of the Wind River Reservation, and USDA Forest Service (USFS) lands north of Boulder, WY, to the Idaho border. A comparison of actual wolf pack distribution in 2006 (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 1) and Oakleaf

et al.

's (2006, p. 559) prediction of suitable habitat indicates that nearly all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is currently occupied and areas predicted to be unsuitable remain largely unoccupied.

Although Carroll determined there may be some (4%) potentially suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS outside of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we believe it is marginally suitable at best and is insignificant to wolf population recovery because it occurs in small isolated fragmented areas. While some areas predicted to be unsuitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have been temporarily occupied and used by wolves or even packs, we still consider them as largely unsuitable habitat. Generally, wolf packs in such areas have failed to persist long enough to be categorized as breeding pairs and successfully contribute toward recovery. An example of this occurred in 2006 when wolf packs formed in the Bighorn Mountains and near Pinedale, Wyoming (Service

et al.

2007). Neither area was classified as having a breeding pair in 2006 and by 2007 at least four packs had either disappeared from the areas or been controlled because of chronic conflicts with livestock. Therefore, while these areas are routinely used by dispersing wolves, we consider such areas as containing unsuitable habitat and believe that dispersing wolves attempting to colonize those areas are unlikely to form breeding pairs or contribute to population recovery.

Unoccupied Suitable Habitat

—Habitat suitability modeling indicates that the three NRM DPS core recovery areas are atypical of other habitats in the western U.S. because suitable habitat in those core areas occurs in such large contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson 2004, p. 49; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 35; Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559). It is likely that without core refugia areas, like YNP or the central Idaho wilderness, that provide a steady source of dispersing wolves, other potentially suitable wolf habitat would not be capable of sustaining wolf breeding pairs. Some habitat ranked by models as suitable adjacent to core refugia may be able to support wolf breeding pairs, while other habitat farther away from a strong source of dispersing wolves may not be able to support persistent packs. This fact is important when considering suitable habitat, as defined by the Carroll (

et al.

2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf (

et al.

2006, p. 559) models, because wolf populations can persist despite very high rates of mortality only if they have high rates of immigration (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 183). Therefore, model predictions regarding habitat suitability do not always translate into successful wolf occupancy and wolf breeding pairs.

Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 km

2

[1,000 mi

2

]) patches of theoretically suitable habitat (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 34; Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559) (typically, isolated mountain ranges) often possess higher mortality risk for wolves because they are surrounded by, or in close proximity to, unsuitable habitat with a high mortality risk. In addition, pack territories often form along distinct geological features (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such as the crest of a rugged mountain range, so useable space for wolves in isolated, long, narrow mountain ranges may be reduced by half or more, and thus are often too small to support a wolf breeding pair. This phenomenon, in which the quality and quantity of suitable habitat is diminished because of interactions with surrounding less-suitable habitat, is known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400-401). Edge effects are exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-to-area ratios (i.e., those that are long and narrow, like isolated mountain ranges) and in species with large territories, like wolves, because they are more likely to encounter surrounding unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). Because of edge effects, some habitat areas outside the core areas may rank as suitable in models, but are unlikely to actually be successfully occupied by persistent wolf packs. For these reasons, we believe that the NRM DPS will remain anchored by the three core recovery areas. These areas will continue to provide a constant source of dispersing wolves into surrounding areas, supplementing wolf packs and breeding pairs in adjacent, but less secure suitable habitat.

Habitat Currently Occupied By Persistent Wolf Packs

—The area in the NRM DPS currently occupied by persistent wolf packs was calculated by drawing a line around the outer points of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack territories in 2006 (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 1, minus 4 packs that did not persist). We defined the habitat currently occupied by persistent wolf packs as that area confirmed as being used by resident wolves to raise pups or that is used by two or more territorial wolves at the end of any year (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6). Typically by the end of the year only 50 percent of packs meet the criteria to be classified as breeding pairs. The overall distribution of wolf packs has been similar since 2000, despite a wolf population that has more than doubled (Service

et al.

2001-2007, Figure 1; Bangs

et al.

in press). Because the States have committed to maintain a wolf population above the minimum recovery levels (achieved in 2002), we expect this general distribution will be maintained. Habitat occupied by persistent wolf packs changed little from 2004 (275,533 km

2

[106,384 mi

2

]); to 2005 (260,535 km

2

[100,593 mi

2

]); to 2006 (minus four packs that did not persist in 2007—295,116 km

2

[113,949 mi

2

]) or 2007 (Service

et al.

2005, 2006, 2007, Figure 1; Service

et al.

2008 in prep., Figure 1).

We included areas between the three core recovery areas as habitat occupied by persistent wolf packs, because they are important for connectivity between areas, even though wolf packs or breeding pairs did not persist in certain portions of these areas. While models ranked some of this habitat as unsuitable, these intervening areas are

important to maintaining the metapopulation structure, because dispersing wolves routinely travel through these areas and packs occasionally occupy them (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6; Bangs 2002, p. 3; Jimenez

et al.

in prep.). This would include areas like the Flathead Valley and other smaller valleys intensively used for agriculture and a few of the smaller, isolated mountain ranges surrounded by agricultural lands in western Montana.

As of the end of 2006, we estimated that persistent wolf packs occupied approximately 295,116 km

2

(113,949 mi

2

) of habitat in parts of Montana (136,492 km

2

[52,702 mi

2

]), Idaho (118,554 km

2

[45,776 mi

2

]), and Wyoming (40,070 km

2

[15,472 mi

2

]) (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 1—minus 4 packs that did not persist). Although habitat occupied by persistent wolf packs includes some prairie (4,488 km

2

[1,733 mi

2

]) and some high desert (24,478 km

2

[9,451 mi

2

]), wolf packs have not used these habitat types successfully (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 1—minus 4 packs that did not persist). Since 1986, no persistent wolf pack has had a majority of its home range in high desert or prairie habitat. Landownership in the area occupied by persistent wolf packs is 191,473 km

2

(73,931 mi

2

) Federal (65 percent); 13,522 km

2

(5,225 mi

2

) State (4.6 percent); 6,594 km

2

(2,546 mi

2

) Tribal (2.2 percent); and 80,512 km

2

(31,087 mi

2

) private (27 percent) (Service

et al.

2007, Figure 1—minus 4 packs that did not persist).

We determined that the current wolf population resembles a three-lobed metapopulation and that the overall area used by persistent wolf packs in the NRM DPS has not significantly expanded since the population achieved its recovery goal in 2002. Stagnant outer distribution patterns for the past 7 years indicate there is probably limited suitable habitat for the NRM wolf population to expand significantly beyond its current outer borders. Carroll's model predicted that 165,503 km

2

(63,901 mi

2

) of suitable habitat (62 percent) was within the area occupied by persistent wolf packs. However, the model's remaining potentially suitable habitat (38 percent) was often fragmented and in smaller, more isolated patches (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 35) and we have determined that such areas do not provide habitat suitable to support persistent wolf packs.

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each have committed to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves while never letting the population fall below 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in mid-winter to ensure long-term viability of the NRM DPS. The NRM DPS occupies nearly 100 percent of the core recovery areas recommended in the 1987 recovery plan (i.e., central Idaho, the GYA, and northwestern Montana) (Service 1987, p. 23) and nearly 100 percent of the primary analysis areas (the areas where suitable habitat was predicted to exist and the wolf population would live) analyzed for wolf reintroduction in central Idaho and the GYA (Service 1994, p. 1:6). This pattern will continue, because management plans for public lands in the NRM DPS will result in forest cover, high ungulate densities, low to moderate road and livestock densities, and other factors critical to maintaining suitable wolf habitat.

Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range

—Establishing a recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS did not require land-use restrictions or curtailment of traditional land-uses, because there was enough suitable habitat, enough wild ungulates, and sufficiently few livestock conflicts to allow wolves to recover under existing conditions (Bangs

et al.

2004, pp. 95-96). We do not believe that any traditional land-use practices in the NRM DPS need be modified to maintain a recovered NRM DPS into the foreseeable future. We do not anticipate overall habitat changes in the NRM DPS occurring at a magnitude that will threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable future, because 71 percent of the occupied habitat is in public ownership that is managed for multiple uses that are complementary with suitable wolf habitat and maintenance of viable wolf populations (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 542; Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 560).

The GYA and central Idaho core recovery areas, 63,714 km

2

(24,600 mi

2

) and 53,613 km

2

(20,700 mi

2

), respectively, are primarily composed of public lands (Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest contiguous blocks of suitable habitat within the NRM DPS. Public lands in National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas, and large blocks of contiguous mountainous forested habitat are largely unavailable or unsuitable for intensive development. Central Idaho and the GYA provide secure wolf habitat and abundant ungulate populations, with about 99,300 ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in central Idaho (Service 1994, pp. viii-ix). These areas are considered secure because they are not avai

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