Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039; 92220-1113-0000-C6]

RIN 1018-AX94

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population

AGENCY:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; notice of a public hearing.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), are proposing to remove the gray wolf (

Canis lupus

) in Wyoming from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This rule focuses on the Wyoming portion of the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Distinct Population Segment (DPS), except where discussion of the larger Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) or NRM metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) is necessary to understand impacts to wolves in Wyoming. The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that wolves in Wyoming are recovered and no longer meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Wyoming's wolf population is stable, threats are addressed, and a post-delisting monitoring and management framework has been developed. However, additional changes to Wyoming State law and Wyoming Game and Fish Commission regulations are necessary for implementation. We expect the State of Wyoming to adopt the necessary statutory and regulatory changes within the next several months. If this proposal is finalized, the gray wolf would be delisted in Wyoming, the nonessential experimental population designation would be removed, and future management for this species, except in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, would be conducted by the appropriate State or Tribal wildlife agencies. We seek information, data, and comments from the public about this proposal including the post-delisting monitoring and management framework.

DATES:

Public Comments:

We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before January 13, 2012. Please note that if you are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see

ADDRESSES

), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on this date.

Public Hearing:

We will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule on November 15, 2011, as well as an informational open house immediately preceding the public hearing. For more information, see “Public Hearing and Open House” in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

(1)

Electronically:

Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov.

In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel at the top of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the box next to Proposed Rules to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Submit a Comment.”

(2)

By hard copy:

Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing,

Attn:

FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.

We will post all comments on

http://www.regulations.gov.

This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see “Public Comments” in

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information on wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains see

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/,

or contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 303-236-7400. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. Specifically, we request information on the following questions:

(1) Is our description and analysis of the biology, population, and distribution accurate?

(2) Does the proposed rule provide accurate and adequate review and analysis of the factors relating to the threats?

(3) Are the conclusions we reach, including their projection of maintenance of a viable population, logical and supported by the evidence provided?

(4) Did we include all the necessary and pertinent literature to support our assumptions, arguments, and conclusions?

(5) Is it reasonable for us to conclude that Wyoming's approach to wolf management is likely to maintain Wyoming's wolf population above recovery levels?

(6) Is it reasonable for us to conclude that Wyoming's approach to wolf management is likely to provide for sufficient levels of gene flow (either natural or human assisted) to prevent genetic problems from negatively impacting the GYA's population or the larger NRM metapopulation in a manner that would meaningfully impact viability?

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in

ADDRESSES

. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in

ADDRESSES

. If you submit a comment via

http://www.regulations.gov,

your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on

http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on

http://www.regulations.gov,

or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the Mountain-Prairie Region Office (see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

).

Public Hearing and Open House

Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that we hold one public hearing on the proposal, if requested. In anticipation of such a request, we have scheduled an informational meeting (a brief presentation about the proposed rule

with a question-and-answer period) from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on November 15, 2011, at the Robert A. Peck Arts Center, Central Wyoming College, 2660 Peck Avenue, Riverton, WY 82501; 307-855-2000.

Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up at the informational meeting and hearing if they desire to make an oral statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing or need reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public hearing, please contact the Denver Regional Office's Ecological Service's Division at 303-236-7400 [see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section below], as soon as possible, but no later than 1 week before the hearing date, to allow sufficient time to process requests. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we intend to subject this proposal to peer review. A peer review panel will conduct this assessment. We anticipate this assessment will be completed during the public comment period and posted online at

http://www.regulations.gov

to allow for public review and comment.

We will consider all comments and information received during this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Table of Contents

Background

Delisting Wolves in Wyoming—The Focus of This Rule

Previous Federal Actions

Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Their Wolf Management Plan

Species Description and Basic Biology

Recovery Planning and Implementation

○ Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria

○ Monitoring and Managing Recovery

○ Recovery by State

○ Recovery by Recovery Area

○ Genetic Exchange Relative to Our Recovery Criteria

○ Conclusion on Progress Towards Our Recovery Goals

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

○ Suitable Habitat

○ Unoccupied Suitable Habitat

○ Currently Occupied Habitat

○ Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range

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

○ Commercial or Recreational Uses

○ Overutilization for Scientific or Educational Purposes

Factor C. Disease or Predation

○ Disease

○ Natural Predation

○ Human-caused Predation

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

○ National Park Service

○ National Wildlife Refuges

○ Tribal Lands

○ Forest Service

○ State Regulatory Mechanisms

○ Environmental Protection Agency

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

○ Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf

○ Genetic Considerations

○ Poison

○ Climate Change

○ Catastrophic Events

○ Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure as a Result of Human-Caused Mortality

Conclusion (Including Cumulative Impacts)

Post-Delisting Monitoring

Effects of the Proposed Rule

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

Paperwork Reduction Act

National Environmental Policy Act

Executive Order 13211

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

References Cited

Authority

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Background

Delisting Wolves in Wyoming—The Focus of This Rule

This proposed rule focuses on the Wyoming portion of the NRM DPS, except where discussion of the larger GYA or NRM metapopulation is necessary to understand impacts to wolves in Wyoming. This rulemaking is separate and independent from, but additive to, the previous action delisting wolves in the NRM DPS (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011). We believe this approach is appropriate given the Congressional directive to reissue our 2009 delisting, which created a remnant piece of the NRM DPS. This approach is also consistent with our 2009 delisting determination which stated that “if Wyoming were to develop a Service-approved regulatory framework it would be delisted in a separate rule” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15155). This proposal does not depend on, or implicate our previous, separate action to remove the other portions of the NRM DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Outside Wyoming, this rule will not affect the status of the gray wolf in the portions of the NRM DPS under State laws or suspend any other legal protections provided by State law.

Previous Federal Actions

In 1967, we determined the eastern timber wolf (

C. l. lycaon

) in the Great Lakes region was threatened with extinction (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). In 1973, we added the NRM gray wolf (

C. l. irremotus

) to the U.S. List of Endangered Fish and Wildlife (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973). Both of these listings were pursuant to the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. In 1974, these subspecies were listed as endangered under the Act of 1973 (39 FR 1158, January 4, 1974). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (

C. l. baileyi

) as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17736) in Mexico and the southwestern United States. In 1976, we listed the Texas gray wolf subspecies (

C. l. monstrabilis

) as endangered in Texas and Mexico (41 FR 24062, June 14, 1976).

Due to questions about the validity of subspecies classification at the time and issues associated with the narrow geographic scope of each subspecies, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (

C. lupus

) throughout the coterminous 48 States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The exception was Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. This rule also provided assurance that this reclassification would not alter our intention to focus recovery on each population as separate entities. Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for: The Great Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service 1992, entire); the NRM region in 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, entire); and the Southwest in 1982 (Service 1982, entire). A revision to the southwest recovery plan is now under way.

In 1994, we designated portions of Idaho and Montana, and all of Wyoming as nonessential experimental gray wolf populations under section 10(j) of the Act (50 CFR 17.84(i)), including the Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266,

November 22, 1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroductions in central Idaho and in Yellowstone National Park (YNP). The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area included the entire State of Wyoming. In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in States and on Tribal lands with Service-approved post-delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)).

The NRM gray wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service

et al.

2011, 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.

2011, Table 4). In light of this success, we once reclassified and twice delisted all or part of this population (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). These reclassification and delisting rules were overturned by Federal District courts (

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

v

. Norton, et al.,

354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005);

National Wildlife Federation, et al.

v

. Norton, et al.,

386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005);

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

v

. Hall, et al.,

565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008);

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

v

. Salazar, et al.,

729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). Each of these rulemakings and the subsequent litigation are discussed below.

In 2003, we reclassified the coterminous 48-State listing into three DPSs including a threatened Western DPS, a threatened Eastern DPS, and an endangered Southwestern DPS (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Western DPS, centered around the recovered NRM gray wolf population, included California, northern Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, northern Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This rule also removed the protections of the Act for gray wolves in all or parts of 16 southern and eastern States where the species historically did not occur. Finally, this rule established a special 4(d) rule to respond to wolf-human conflicts in areas not covered by existing nonessential experimental population rules. In 2005, the U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Vermont concluded that the 2003 final rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and violated the Act (

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

v

. Norton, et al.,

354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005);

National Wildlife Federation, et al.

v

. Norton, et al.,

386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). Both courts ruled the Service improperly downlisted entire DPSs based just on the viability of a core population. The courts' rulings invalidated the April 2003 changes to the gray wolf listing under the Act.

In 2003, we also published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking announcing our intention to delist the Western DPS as the recovery goals had been satisfied (68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003). This notice explained that delisting would require consideration of threats, and that the adequacy of State wolf management plans to address threats in the absence of protections of the Act would be a major determinant in any future delisting evaluation.

In 2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels (Williams 2004a, in litt.; Williams 2004b, in litt.). However, we also found the 2003 Wyoming legislation and plan would not ensure maintenance of Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 2004c, in litt.). Wyoming challenged this determination, and the United States District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case (

State of Wyoming, et al.

v

. United States Department of Interior, et al.,

360 F.Supp.2d 1214, (D. Wyoming 2005)). Wyoming's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful (

State of Wyoming, et al.

v

. United States Department of Interior, et al.,

442 F.Supp.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2006)). Wyoming lost this case on procedural grounds because it failed to identify a final agency action necessary to confer standing prior to the litigation. To address this procedural shortcoming, in 2005, Wyoming petitioned us to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Freudenthal 2005, entire). In 2006, we announced a 12-month finding that Wyoming's petition (delisting wolves in all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming State laws and its 2003 wolf management plan did not provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be conserved (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). Wyoming challenged this finding in Wyoming Federal District Court. This challenge was made moot by Wyoming's revisions to its laws and management plan in 2007, which allowed delisting to move forward. On February 27, 2008, a Wyoming Federal District Court issued an order dismissing the case (

State of Wyoming, et al.

v

. United States Department of Interior, et al.,

U.S. District Court Case No. 2:06-CV-00245).

In 2008, we issued a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008). This DPS included Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, north-central Utah, eastern Washington, and Wyoming. This DPS was smaller than the 2003 Western DPS and more closely approximates the historic range of the originally listed NRM gray wolf in the United States and the areas focused on in both NRM recovery plans (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; Service 1980, pp. 3, 7-8; Service 1987, pp. 2, 23). The Service removed protections across the entire DPS after Wyoming revised its wolf management plan and State law. At the time, we concluded this Wyoming framework provided adequate regulatory protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, in litt.).

Environmental litigants challenged this final rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs also moved to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's implementation of the final delisting rule (

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.,

v

. Hall, et al.,

565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)). The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf population that lacked evidence of natural genetic exchange between subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 wolf management plan because the State failed to commit to managing for at least 15 breeding pairs, and Wyoming's 2007 statute allowed the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to diminish the trophy game area if it “determines the diminution does not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's management of wolves.” In light of the court order, on September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court granted our request

(Defenders of Wildlife

v.

Hall,

9:08-CV-00056-DWM (D. Mont 2008)). The court's rulings invalidated the February 2008 rule designating and delisting the NRM DPS.

Following the July 18, 2008 court ruling, we reexamined the NRM DPS and Wyoming's statutes, regulations, and management plan. This

reevaluation considered several issues not considered in the previous evaluation. We determined that the best scientific and commercial data available demonstrated that: (1) The NRM DPS was not threatened or endangered throughout “all” of its range (

i.e.,

not threatened or endangered throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of the range represented a significant portion of its range where the species remained in danger of extinction because of the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Thus, on April 2, 2009, we published a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing the DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming, where wolves continued to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population under 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) (74 FR 15123). The decision to retain the Act's protections only in Wyoming was consistent with a March 16, 2007, Memorandum Opinion issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior, “The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of Its Range' ” (M-Opinion) (Department of the Interior 2007, in litt.). The final rule determined that Wyoming's existing regulatory framework did not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were removed and stated that, until Wyoming revised its statutes, regulations, and management plan, and obtained Service approval, wolves in Wyoming would remain protected by the Act (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009).

The April 2009 rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana by environmental litigants and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming by the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, and Park County, Wyoming. On August 5, 2010, the U.S District Court for Montana ruled on the merits of the case and vacated our April 2009 final rule (

Defenders of Wildlife, et al.

v.

Salazar, et al.,

729 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010)). The court concluded that the NRM DPS must be listed or delisted in its entirety. The court rejected the rule's approach allowing protection of only a portion of the species' range because it was inconsistent with the Act's definition of “species.” (The Department of Interior withdrew the M-Opinion on this topic on May 4, 2011 (Department of the Interior 2011, in litt.)). Thus, before delisting could occur, Wyoming had to develop a regulatory framework that was determined by the Service to be adequate to maintain Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population. The court's ruling invalidated the April 2009 rule designating and delisting most of the NRM DPS.

On October 26, 2010, in compliance with the order of the U.S. District Court for Montana, we published a final rule notifying the public that the Federal protections in place prior to the 2009 delisting had been reinstated (75 FR 65574). Wolves in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northcentral Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and northern Montana were again listed as endangered. Former special rules designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho as nonessential experimental populations were likewise reinstated. Additionally, the NRM gray wolf DPS established by the April 2, 2009, final rule was set aside. Because wolves in Wyoming were not delisted by the April 2, 2009 final rule, their listed status was not impacted by the October 26, 2010 rule.

Following the Montana District Court decision, the United States Congress passed, and President Obama signed, H.R. 1473, Public Law 112-10—The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. Section 1713 of the law directed the Service to reissue its April 2009 delisting rule. The Service complied with this directive on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590). The constitutionality of H.R. 1473 was challenged by environmental plaintiffs (

Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al.,

v.

Salazar, et al.,

case no. CV 11-70-M-DWM). The United States District Court for Montana ruled on August 3, 2011, that the law was constitutional. This ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit (

Alliance for the Wild Rockies, et al.,

v.

Salazar, et al.,

case no. 11-35670). Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for injunction in order to stop Idaho's and Montana's planned fall 2011 hunts, which was denied. As of this writing, a decision on the appeal is pending.

As for the Wyoming challenge to the April 2009 partial delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), a United States District Court for Wyoming ruled in favor of the three Wyoming plaintiffs on November 18, 2010 (

Wyoming et al.,

v.

U.S. Department of the Interior, et al.,

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829). The court rejected the Service position that recommended the entire State of Wyoming be designated as a trophy game area and found this position to be arbitrary and capricious, as it was not supported by the administrative record. The court concluded that the record indicated only northwestern Wyoming, which has the vast majority of the State's suitable habitat, was biologically essential to maintenance of the NRM population. However, the court did not render an opinion on whether Wyoming's current plan, including the proposed size and location of its 2007 trophy game area, was sufficient. Instead, the court remanded the matter to us to reconsider whether Wyoming's regulatory framework would maintain its share of a recovered wolf population and provide adequate genetic connectivity. Subsequent to this order, the Service and the State reinitiated negotiations on revisions to their wolf management framework that would satisfy the standards of the Act and allow delisting to again move forward. The results of this process led to development of a revised wolf management plan and are incorporated in this proposal.

Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Their Wolf Management Plan

The April 2009 rule stated that “until Wyoming revises their statutes, management plan, and associated regulations, and is again Service approved, wolves in Wyoming continue to require the protections of the Act” (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). This rule specifically expressed concern over: (1) The size and permanency of Wyoming's Wolf Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA); (2) conflicting language within the State statutes concerning whether Wyoming would manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves, exactly 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves, or only 7 breeding pairs and 70 wolves; and (3) liberal depredation control authorizations and legislative mandates to aggressively manage the population down to minimum levels.

In early 2011, we began discussions with Wyoming seeking to develop a strategy for each of these issues. In August 2011, the Service and the State of Wyoming announced the framework of an agreement that we believe will allow us to delist wolves in Wyoming (WGFC 2011, appendix I). Following this announcement, Wyoming revised their 2008 wolf management plan (WGFC 2008, entire) to reflect the terms of this agreement (WGFC 2011, entire). Below we summarize the key points in the agreement relative to the three overarching Service concerns highlighted above.

First, this agreement commits Wyoming to make permanent the existing WTGMA. In total, Wyoming wolves will be permanently managed as game animals or protected (

e.g.,

in

National Parks) in about 40,000 km

2

(15,400 mi

2

) in the northwestern portion of the State (15.7 percent of Wyoming), including YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and private lands, the National Elk Refuge, and the Wind River Indian Reservation (Lickfett 2011, in litt.). Wolves will be designated as predatory animals in the remainder of the State (predator area). The above protected and game areas (see Figure 1) include: 100 percent of the portion of the GYA recovery area within Wyoming (Service 1987, Figure 2); approximately 79 percent of the portion of the primary analysis area in Wyoming focused on by the 1994 reintroduction EIS (Service 1994, Figure 1.1); the entire home range for 24 of 27 breeding pairs in Wyoming and 24 of 34 packs in the State (Service

et al.

2011, Figure 3); and approximately 76 percent of the State's suitable habitat as determined by Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, entire) (including 81 percent of the high-quality habitat (with an 80 percent or greater chance of supporting wolves) and 62 percent of the medium-high-quality habitat (with a 50 to 79 percent chance of supporting wolves) (Oakleaf 2011, in litt.)). This area is of sufficient size to support a recovered wolf population in Wyoming, under the management regime proposed for this area.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

EP05OC11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

The Service's prior concern that the size of the WTGMA would impact natural connectivity and genetic exchange was also addressed in the agreement. The agreement and the State's wolf management plan clearly articulate a goal for gene flow of at least one effective natural migrant per generation entering into the GYA, as measured over multiple generations (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 9, 26-29, 54). To address our concerns about genetics and connectivity, Wyoming agreed to a seasonal expansion of the WTGMA. This seasonal adjustment expands the WTGMA approximately 80 kilometers (km) (50 miles (mi)) south for four and a half months during peak wolf dispersal periods (WGFC 2011, pp. 2, 8, 52). We believe this will benefit natural dispersal. Furthermore, Wyoming commits to an adaptive management approach that adjusts management if the above minimum level of gene flow is not documented, as well as to use human-assisted migration if necessary (WGFC 2011, pp. 26-29). Collectively, these measures will ensure that inbreeding depression resulting from

the loss of genetic diversity never threatens the population.

Next, Wyoming agreed to maintain a population of at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in areas under State jurisdiction (WGFC 2011, pp. 1-5, 16-26, 52). Importantly, this commitment does not reflect an intention by Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to reduce the population down to this minimum population level. Rather, Wyoming intends to maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population objectives to accommodate management needs (the desire to hunt wolves annually) and ensure uncontrollable sources of mortality (such as disease or take in defense of property) do not drop the population below this minimum population level (WGFC 2011, p. 24). This management strategy will provide for the population's representation, resiliency, and redundancy (Shaffer and Stein 2000, entire) within the GYA as well as improve public acceptance for wolves outside YNP.

The wolf populations in YNP and on the lands of sovereign nations will provide an additional buffer above the minimum recovery goal intended by the step-down management objective of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves Statewide (see “Recovery Planning and Implementation” below for more information). From 2001 to the end of 2010, the wolf population in YNP ranged from 96 to 171 wolves, and between 6 to 16 breeding pairs, with an average of 9.8 breeding pairs. While a lower long-term future population level in YNP is predicted (Smith 2010, pers. comm.), YNP will always provide a large, secure wolf population providing a safety margin above the minimum recovery goal. The Wind River Indian Reservation typically contains a small number of wolves (single digits), which sometimes form packs that count toward Tribal population totals. On the whole, we expect the statewide wolf population in Wyoming will be maintained well above minimum recovery levels.

Another substantial improvement is Wyoming's management framework inside the WTGMA. For example, Wyoming has committed to remove current statutory mandates for aggressive management of wolves (WGFC 2011, pp. 24, 52). Current Wyoming law requires aggressive management until the population outside the National Parks falls to six breeding pairs or below. This issue was a major Service concern with Wyoming's existing law, and will be remedied.

Additionally, Wyoming agreed wolves in the permanent or seasonal WTGMA would never be treated as predatory animals (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16-17, 23). Existing State laws allow depredating wolves within the WTGMA to be treated as predatory animals under certain circumstances at the discretion of the State Fish and Game Commission (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 16-17, 23). Wyoming has indicated an intention to modify W.S. 23-1-302(a)(ii) to ensure it does not apply to wolves in the WTGMA. This change is a substantial improvement over current Wyoming law that will help ensure that the wolf population in Wyoming (outside of YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation) always remains at or above 10 breeding pairs and 100 individuals.

Furthermore, Wyoming intends to establish defense-of-property regulations that are similar to our nonessential experimental population rules (50 CFR 17.84(n)) (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 53). Also, management of depredating wolves will be similar to Service management under the Act's protections (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 53). Such rules were in place in Montana and Idaho prior to delisting and allowed continued population growth. These management approaches are an additional improvement over the framework Wyoming had in place for most of 2008.

These, and other improvements discussed in more detail below, have addressed the Service's concerns about wolf management in Wyoming and made this proposed delisting rule possible. Wyoming's wolf management plan was recently revised to reflect the new agreement (WGFC 2011, entire). However, conforming changes to Wyoming State law and WGFC regulations are also necessary to implement this plan. Wyoming recognizes statutory and regulatory changes will be required to implement this agreement and intends to pursue these changes. These changes will be made prior to any final decision that delists gray wolves in Wyoming.

Species Description and Basic Biology

Gray wolves (

Canis lupus

) are the largest wild members of the dog family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) (40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and geographic region (Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM region, adult male gray wolves average just over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh about 20 percent less than males. Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black (Gipson

et al.

2002, p. 821).

Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once-widespread species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995, entire). 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. Wolf prey in the NRM region is composed mainly of elk (

Cervus canadensis

), white tailed deer (

Odocoileus virginianus

), mule deer (

Odocoileus hemionus

), moose (

Alces alces

), and (in the GYA) bison (

Bison bison

). Bighorn sheep (

Ovis canadensis

), mountain goats (

Oreamnos americanus

), and pronghorn antelope (

Antilocapra americana

) also are common but less important, at least to date, as wolf prey.

Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM region, pack sizes average 7 wolves but are slightly larger in protected areas. A few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of YNP (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 243; Service

et al.

2011, 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 as they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17).

Typically, only one male and female in each pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith

et al.

2006, pp. 243-4; Service

et al.

2011, 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. In the NRM region, litters are typically born in mid to late April and range from 1 to 7 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service

et al.

1989-2011, Tables 1-3). Most years, four pups survive until winter (Service

et al.

1989-2011, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan

et al.

2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM region 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.

2011, 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 United States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Recovery Planning and Implementation

This section discusses recovery planning and implementation. Specifically, this section includes a detailed discussion of the recovery criteria including their development, continuous evaluation, and revision as necessary. Finally, this section includes our summary of progress towards recovery including an assessment of whether the criteria are met. This section discusses the entire NRM population because the recovery criteria apply to the entire population.

Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria

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

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

C. l. irremotus

) in its former range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). This plan did not include recovery goals (

i.e.

, delisting criteria). The 1980 plan covered an area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was once believed to be the range of the purported NRM wolf subspecies. It recommended that recovery actions be focused on the large areas of public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. The 1987 revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to gray wolves in the NRM region. Consistent with the 1980 plan, it also recommended focusing recovery actions on the large blocks on public land in the NRM region.

The 1987 plan specified a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands); (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery areas, but it encouraged connectivity between recovery areas. However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 1994, pp. 1-15, 16; Service 1999, p. 2). Since completion of the 1987 recovery plan, we have expended considerable effort to develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and this proposed rule).

The 1994 Environmental Impact Statement on The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho (EIS) reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM region and the adequacy of the recovery goals to assure that the 1987 goals were sufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding pair, since any male and female wolf are `capable' of producing offspring and lone wolves may not have territories. We also believed the relatively small recovery areas identified in the 1987 plan greatly reduced the amount of area that could be used by wolves and would almost certainly eliminate the opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and genetic connectivity. We conducted a thorough literature review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations, surveyed the opinions of the top 43 wolf experts in North America (of which 25 responded), and incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the EIS and a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26-38).

Our 1994 analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded “Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than indicated by theory” and theoretical treatments of population viability “have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating the required population size” (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous breeding season. We also concluded that “Thirty or more breeding pairs comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have a high

probability of long-term persistence” because it would contain enough individuals in successfully reproducing packs that were distributed over distinct but somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the longterm (Service 1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service

et al.

1994, Appendix 8, 9). In defining a “Recovered Wolf Population” we found “in the northern Rockies a recovered wolf population is 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between areas” (Service 1994, pp. 6-7). We further determined that a metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three areas of core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.

For more than 15 years, we have concluded that movement of individuals between the metapopulation segments could occur either naturally or by human-assisted migration management (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). Specifically, the 1994 EIS stated “The importance of movement of individuals between sub-populations cannot be overemphasized. The dispersal ability of wolves makes such movement likely, unless wolves were heavily exploited between recovery areas, as could happen in the more developed corridor between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive migration management might become necessary if 1 of the 3 sub-populations should develop genetic or demographic problems.” (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). The finding went on to say that human-assisted migration should not be viewed negatively and would be necessary in other wolf recovery programs (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). Furthermore, we found that the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years was reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the foreseeable future. We did caution that the numerical recovery goal was somewhat conservative, and should be considered minimal (Service 1994, pp. 6-75).

We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We attempted to resurvey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43 other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized experts about wolves and conservation biology. We asked experts with a wide diversity of perspectives to participate in our review. In total, 53 people provided their expert opinion regarding a wide range of issues related to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, including wolf population viability analyses from other areas (Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9).

Despite varied professional opinions and a great diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic exchange, either natural or human-facilitated, was important to maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population viability. Reviewers also believed the proven ability of a breeding pair to show successful reproduction was a necessary component of a biologically meaningful breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended other concepts/numbers for recovery goals, but most were slight modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78 percent) supported our 1994 conclusions regarding a viable wolf population, they also tended to believe that wolf population viability was enhanced by higher, rather than lower, population levels and longer, rather than shorter, demonstrated timeframes.

A common minority recommendation was an alternative goal of 500 wolves and 5 years. A slight majority of reviewers indicated that even the 1987 recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female capable of breeding) in each of 3 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 analyses for other wolf populations varied widely, and as we had concluded in our 1994 analysis, reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9).

We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use “breeding pairs” (packs that have at least one adult male and at least one adult female and that raised at least two pups until December 31) to describe successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7-8; Mitchell

et al.

2008, p. 881; Mitchell

et al.

2010, p. 101). The breeding pair metric includes most of the important biological concepts in wolf conservation, including the potential disruption of human-caused mortality that might affect breeding success in social carnivores (Brainerd

et al.

2008, p. 89; Wallach

et al.

2009, p. 1; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 1). Specifically, we thought it was important for breeding pairs to have: both male and female members together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation of a distinct territory (generally 500-1,300 km

2

(200-500 mi

2

) and almost always in suitable habitat; enough pups to replace themselves; offspring that become yearling dispersers; at least four wolves following the point in the year with the highest mortality rates (summer and fall); all social structures and age classes represented within a wolf population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger wolves.

We also have determined that an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and individual wolves among the three States and the three recovery zones is an essential part of achieving recovery. 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. This approach will maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to all three recovery areas and most of the region's suitable habitat. Such an approach will facilitate natural connectivity.

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

et al.

2003-2011, Table 4). Because Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation structure would be best conserved by

equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States (73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008, p. 10522). This approach made each State's responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a shared recovery area that was the responsibility of the adjacent State. State regulatory authorities and traditional management of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State basis. We determined that management by State would still maintain a robust wolf population in each core recovery area because they each contain manmade or natural refugia from human-caused mortality (

e.g.,

National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that guarantee those areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and source of dispersing wolves in each State. Recovery targets by State promote connectivity and genetic exchange between the metapopulation segments by avoiding management that focuses solely on wolf breeding pairs in relatively distinct core recovery areas. This approach also will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA because it is shared by all three States. A large and well-distributed population within the GYA is especially important because it is the most isolated recovery segment within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 554; vonHoldt

et al.

2007, p. 19) and the southern tip of a larger western gray wolf population that now contains more than 14,000 wolves when combined with western Canada (Boitani 2003, p. 322).

The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum number of breeding pairs and individual wolves needed to achieve and maintain recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf population always exceeds the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, we required that each State manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter in accordance with a step-down management objective. This 50 percent safety margin above minimum recovery levels was intended to provide an adequate safety margin recognizing that all wildlife populations, including wolves, can fluctuate widely over a relatively short period of time. Managing for a buffer above the minimum recovery target is consistent with our 1994 determination that the addition of a few extra pairs would add security to the population and should be considered in the post-EIS management planning (Service 1994, pp. 6-75). Additionally, because the recovery goal components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is near its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be higher than these minimal goals.

Because Wyoming, unlike Montana and Idaho, has a large portion of its wolf population in areas outside the State's control (

e.g.,

YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation), we developed an alternative approach for Wyoming to achieve the desired safety margin above the minimum recovery goal. Specifically, we determined that at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves at mid-winter in Wyoming outside YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will satisfy Wyoming's contribution to NRM gray wolf recovery. Under this approach, the wolf populations in YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will provide the remaining buffer above the minimum recovery goal intended by the step-down management objective employed in Montana and Idaho (

i.e.,

population targets 50 percent above minimum recovery levels).

Wyoming's wolf population will be further buffered because WGFD intends to maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population objectives to accommodate management needs and ensure uncontrollable sources of mortality do not drop the population below the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum population level. The State of Wyoming is also committed to coordinate with YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation to contribute to the step-down recovery target of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves statewide, including YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation. In our view, this alternative approach to the step-down wolf population target in Wyoming is biologically superior to a single statewide standard in that: It provides population stability outside the park, minimizing the chances of a bad year in YNP compromising maintenance of the recovery goal (such a scenario is described in our 2009 delisting rule's analysis of Wyoming's 2007 wolf plan (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009)); It adds an extra layer of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to the Greater Yellowstone Area's gray wolf population; and it builds public acceptance for a minimum wolf population outside YNP.

To summarize, based on the information above, the current recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population is: Thirty or more breeding pairs (an adult male and an adult female that raise at least 2 pups until December 31) comprising 300+ wolves well-distributed between Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming functioning as a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency-managed) between subpopulations. This overarching NRM recovery goal is stepped-down by State. The step-down recovery target requires Montana and Idaho to each maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves by managing for a safety margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter. In Wyoming, the step-down recovery target is at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves primarily within the State's jurisdiction while the YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation provide the remainder of the buffer above the minimum recovery goal. Our recovery and post-delisting management goals were designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy for their long-term conservation. After evaluating all available information, we conclude that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates the population will remain viable following delisting if the recovery targets continue to be met.

Monitoring and Managing Recovery

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

et al.

1995, p. 109; Service

et al.

1989-2009, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic recovery tasks (Service

et al.

1989-2009, pp. 1-2), in addition to the standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; (2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting other nonlethal measures, or by killing them (Bangs

et al.

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

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

et al.

1989-2009, Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored approximately 2,000 wolves in the NRM region 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 more than 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 when 663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were present (Service

et al.

2003, Table 4). By the end of 2010, the NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal for 11 consecutive years (Service

et al.

2001-2008, Table 4; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006). By the end of 2010, the NRM gray wolf population included approximately 1,651 wolves (566 in Montana; 705 in Idaho; 343 in Wyoming; 16 in eastern Washington; 21 in eastern Oregon) in 111 breeding pairs (35 in Montana; 46 in Idaho; 27 in Wyoming; 1 in Washington; 2 in Oregon). Distribution at the end of 2010 is illustrated in Figure 2. Population trends through the end of 2010 are illustrated in Figure 3.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

EP05OC11.001

EP05OC11.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Recovery by Recovery Area

—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.

2003-2011, Table 4). However, because the 1987 Recovery Plan (Service 1987, pp. v, 12, 23) 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.

2011, Table 4).

The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area's 84,800 km

2

(33,386 mi

2

) includes: Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Wolves in this recovery area were listed and managed as endangered species. Wolves naturally recolonized this area from Canada. Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986 (Ream

et al.

1989, entire). The natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 17-19), the interim control plan (Service 1988, 1999, entire), and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, pp. 7-13). By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, from 1996 through 2004, the estimated number of breeding pairs and wolves in northwestern Montana fluctuated at a low level, partly due to actual population size and partly due to limited monitoring effort. However, since 2005, it has steadily increased (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). In 2010, we estimated 374 wolves in 24 breeding pairs in the northwestern Montana recovery area (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4).

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

et al.

2005. p. 560; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 622). Some of the variation in our wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is also due to the difficulty of counting wolves in the area's thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana also prey mainly on white-tailed deer, resulting in smaller packs and territories, which lower the chances of detecting a pack (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 more accurate 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.

2011, Table 4). By the end of 2010, this recovery area contained more than 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for the sixth consecutive year (2005-2010), and probably did so the last 9 years (2002-2010) (Service

et al.

2011, 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. 547-548; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; vonHoldt

et al.

2010, p. 4412; Jimenez

et al.

2011, p. 1). Because of fairly contiguous but fractured suitable habitat, wolves dispersing into northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to join or form new packs and supplement this segment of the overall wolf population (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd

et al.

1995, p. 140; vonHoldt

et al.

2007, p. 19; vonHoldt

et al.

2010; Thiessen 2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4, Jimenez

et al.

2011, p. 1).

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 the GYA recovery areas. However, that population segment has persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust today, and habitat there is capable of supporting hundreds of wolves (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan (2003), will ensure this population segment continues to thrive (see Factor D).

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 southwestern Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult wolves from Alberta, Canada, were released in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts

et al.

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

et al.

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

et al.

2005, p. 559). Consequently, the central Idaho area population has grown substantially and expanded its range since reintroduction. As in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in its wolf population estimate beginning in 2005 was likely due to an increased monitoring effort by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). In 2010, the population appears to have declined, but some of the estimated decline was likely due to difficult monitoring conditions in the most remote and inaccessible areas of central Idaho. We estimated 739 wolves in 47 breeding pairs in the central Idaho recovery area at the end of 2010 (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). This recovery area has contained at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for 13 consecutive years (1998-2010) (Service

et al.

2011; Table 4).

The GYA recovery area (63,700 km

2

(24,600 mi

2

)) includes portions of southeastern Montana, eastern Idaho, and northwestern Wyoming. Portions of Wyoming that are occupied by wolves (Figure 1 above) include: most of YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway; the Absaroka Beartooth, Bridger, Fitzpatrick, Gros Ventre, Jedediah Smith, North Absaroka, Popo Agie, Teton, Washakie, and Winegar Hole Wilderness Areas; the Dubois Badlands, Owl Creek, Scab Creek, and Whiskey Mountain Wilderness Study Areas; and adjacent public and private lands (Service 1994, p. iv). Much of the wilderness portions of the GYA are primarily used seasonally by wolves due to high elevation, deep snow, and low productivity (in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate populations) (Service

et al.

2011, 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 pups were removed from northwestern Montana in a wolf control action and released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 787). Two of these pups became breeding adults and their genetic signature is common

both in YNP and the GYA (VonHoldt

et al.

2008, entire; vonHoldt

et al.

2010, p. 4421). We estimated 501 wolves were in 37 breeding pairs in the GYA at the end of 2010 (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). By the end of 2010, this recovery area had at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves for 11 consecutive years (2000-2010) (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4).

Wolf numbers in the GYA were relatively stable from 2007 through 2009, as were breeding pairs (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). The GYA population grew to 501 wolves and 37 breeding pairs in 2010, primarily because numbers of wolves outside YNP in Wyoming grew while wolves in YNP have declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004 to 97 wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2010 (Service

et al.

2005, 2011, Tables 2, 4). This decline likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP was saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appeared to limit population density; (3) fewer elk occur in YNP than when reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 2006, p. 942; Vucetich

et al.

2005, p. 259); and (4) suspected outbreaks of disease in 2005 and 2008 (canine distemper (CD) or possibly canine parvovirus (CPV)) reduced pup survival to 20 percent) (Service

et al.

2006, 2009, 2011, Table 2; Smith

et al.

2006, p. 244; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-20: Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2058). Since 2008, YNP has also seen a relatively high number of wolves killing other wolves and a high mortality rate among pups. YNP predicts wolf numbers in YNP may decline further and settle into a lower equilibrium long term (Smith 2010, pers. comm.). Additional significant growth in the National Park and Wilderness portions of the Wyoming wolf population above 150 wolves is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with resident wolf packs. Maintaining wolf populations safely above recovery levels and promoting demographic and genetic exchange in the GYA segment of the NRM DPS will depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park and Wilderness portions of northwestern Wyoming and southwestern Montana (vonHoldt

et al.

2010, p. 4422).

Genetic Exchange Relative to our Recovery Criteria

—Finally, as noted above, the recovery criteria requires the NRM DPS function as a metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations. The available data conclusively demonstrate that this portion of the recovery criteria (

i.e.,

“genetic exchange”) is met. Specifically, vonHoldt

et al.

(2010, p. 4412) demonstrated 5.4 effective migrants per generation among all three subpopulations from 1995 through 2004 when the NRM region contained between 101 and 846 wolves. This issue is discussed further in Factor E below.

Conclusion on Progress Towards our Recovery Goals

—Given the above best available scientific and commercial information, we consider all prongs of the recovery criteria met. The numeric and distributional components of the overarching recovery goal has been exceeded for 11 consecutive years. Furthermore, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have each individually met or exceeded the minimum per-State recovery targets every year since at least 2002 and met or exceeded the step-down management goals every year since at least 2004. It is also worth noting that each of the recovery areas (which were originally used to measure progress towards recovery) have been documented at or above 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves every year since 2005 (and probably exceeded these levels every year since 2002) (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). Finally, the available evidence demonstrates that the NRM gray wolf population is functioning as a metapopulation with robust levels of gene flow between subpopulations. Thus, we consider the population recovered.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in delisting decisions (50 CFR 424.11(d)). However, in delisting decisions, 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 and the removal or reduction of the Act's protections.

In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it has the capacity (

i.e.,

it should be of sufficient magnitude and extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act.

Given the above, the following analysis examines the five factors affecting, or likely to affect, Wyoming wolves within the foreseeable future. This analysis includes a discussion of the larger GYA or NRM metapopulation, which is necessary to understand impacts to wolves in Wyoming.

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

This analysis evaluates the entire State of Wyoming, and within Wyoming we focus primarily on suitable habitat, currently occupied areas, and the WTGMA. Within Wyoming, we also examine unsuitable habitat. Habitat suitability is based on biological features that impact the ability of wolf packs to persist. Outside of Wyoming, this analysis looks at areas between the three recovery areas to inform our understanding of current and future connectivity, with particular focus on the central Idaho to GYA dispersal corridor. We analyze a number of potential threats to wolf habitat including increased human populations and development (including oil and gas), connectivity, ungulate populations, and livestock grazing.

Suitable Habitat

—Wolves once occupied or transited all of Wyoming. However, much of the wolf's historical range within this area has been modified for human use. While lone wolves can travel through, or temporarily live, almost anywhere (Jimenez

et al.

2011, p. 1), much of Wyoming is no longer suitable habitat to

support wolf packs and wolf breeding pairs (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 32). We have reviewed the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat relative to the biological requirements of wolves. In doing so, we reviewed two models, Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, pp. 555-558) and Carroll

et al.

(2003, pp. 536-548; 2006, pp. 27-31), to help us gauge the current amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming. Both models ranked habitat as “suitable” if they had characteristics that indicated they might have a 50 percent or greater chance of supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat 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 differences in the area analyzed, layers, inputs, and assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) and Carroll

et al.

(2006, p. 33) models predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable wolf habitat in areas examined by both models.

Oakleaf's model was a more intensive effort that looked at potential wolf habitat in the NRM region (Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 555). To comprise its geographic information system layers, the model 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. Oakleaf analyzed the characteristics of areas occupied and not occupied by NRM wolf packs through 2000 to predict what other areas in the NRM region might be suitable or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 559) ranked 28,725 km

2

(11,091 mi

2

) as suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming.

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

et al.

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

et al.

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

et al.

2006, pp. 30-31). In total, Carroll

et al.

(2006, pp. 27-31) ranked 77,202 km

2

(29,808 mi

2

) in Wyoming as suitable habitat. According to the Carroll model, approximately 30 percent of Wyoming would be ranked as suitable wolf habitat (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-31).

The Carroll

et al.

(2006, pp. 31-34) model tended to be more generous than the Oakleaf (

et al.

2006, pp. 558-560) model in identifying suitable wolf habitat. Based on empirical wolf data over our 17 years of experience in Wyoming, we have determined Oakleaf's projections were more realistic. However, due to the large area analyzed, Carroll's model provided a valuable relative measure across the western United States upon which comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not incorporate livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf model did (Carroll

et al.

2006, pp. 27-29; Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 556). Thus, that model did not consider those conditions where wolf mortality is high and habitat unsuitable because of chronic conflict with livestock. A growing body of literature suggests, per individual, wolves cause more economic damage to livestock than any other large predator in North America (Oakleaf

et al.

2003, p. 299; Collinge 2008, p. 129; Ashcroft

et al.

2009, p. 1; Muhly

et al.

2010, p. 1243; Sommers

et al.

2010, p. 1425; Breck

et al.

2011, p. 1). During the past 17 years, Wyoming wolf packs have been unable to persist in areas intensively used for livestock production, primarily because of agency control of problem wolves and illegal killing.

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

et al.

2006, p. 32). Because these areas were typically too small to support breeding pairs and too isolated from the core population to receive enough dispersing wolves to overcome high mortality rates, we do not believe these areas are currently suitable habitat based upon our data on Wyoming wolf pack persistence for the past 17 years (Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 788; Service

et al.

1999-2011, Figure 1).

Despite differences in each model's analysis area, layers, inputs, and assumptions, both models predicted that most suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming was in the GYA, which is the area currently occupied by wolves in Wyoming. These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their relationships to wolf pack persistence. Both models generally support our earlier predictions about wolf habitat suitability in the GYA (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 greater probability of supporting wolf packs, the acreages of suitable habitat that they indicate can be successfully occupied are only estimates.

The Carroll

et al.

(2006, p. 25) model also indicated that the GYA and neighboring population centers had habitat suitable for dispersal between them, and such habitat would remain relatively intact in the future. However, the GYA is the most isolated (Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 554). This conclusion is supported by dispersal and genetic exchange data (vonHoldt

et al.

2010, p. 4420; Jimenez

et al.

2011, p. 1). Collectively, the NRM DPS's three core areas are surrounded by large areas of habitat unsuitable for pack persistence (Service

et al.

1999-2011, Figure 1). We note that some surrounding habitat that is considered unsuitable for pack persistence is still important for maintaining effective migration through natural dispersal.

Overall, we evaluated data from a number of sources on the location of suitable wolf habitat in developing our estimate of currently suitable wolf habitat. Specifically, we considered the recovery areas identified in the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), the primary analysis areas analyzed in the 1994 EIS for the GYA (63,700 km

2

(24,600 mi

2

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

et al.

(2006, p. 25) and Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, p. 554), our 17 years of field experience managing wolves in Wyoming, and locations of persistent wolf packs and breeding pairs since recovery has been achieved (Service

et al.

1999-2011, Figure 1). 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 Wyoming analyzed, represents the most scientifically accurate prediction of suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559).

Generally, Wyoming's suitable habitat is located in the northwestern portion of the State. A comparison of actual wolf pack distribution in 2009 and 2010 (Service

et al.

2010; 2011, Figure 1) to Oakleaf

et al.'

s (2006, p. 559) prediction of suitable habitat, indicates that nearly all suitable habitat in Wyoming is currently occupied and areas predicted to be unsuitable remain largely unoccupied. Of note, the permanent WTGMA (the only portion of Wyoming predicted to have resident wolf packs post-delisting) contains 76 percent of the suitable habitat in Wyoming, which includes 81 percent of Wyoming's high-quality habitat (greater than 0.8) and 62 percent of Wyoming' medium-high-quality habitat (0.5-0.799) (Oakleaf 2011, in litt.).

Although Carroll determined there may be some additional suitable wolf habitat in Wyoming beyond the area Oakleaf analyzed, we believe it is marginally suitable at best, and is insignificant to NRM DPS, GYA, or Wyoming wolf population recovery, because it occurs in small, isolated, and fragmented areas and is unlikely to support many, if any, persistent breeding pairs. While some areas in Wyoming predicted to be unsuitable habitat by the above models have been temporarily occupied and used by wolves or even packs, we still consider these areas as largely unsuitable habitat because wolf packs in such areas have failed to persist long enough to be categorized as breeding pairs and successfully contribute toward recovery. Therefore, we consider such areas as unsuitable habitat and conclude that dispersing wolves attempting to colonize those areas are unlikely to form breeding pairs, persist long enough to raise yearlings that can disperse to facilitate demographic and genetic exchange within the NRM DPS, or otherwise contribute to population recovery.

Unoccupied Suitable Habitat

—Habitat suitability modeling indicates that the GYA and central Idaho core recovery areas are atypical of other habitats in the western United States because suitable wolf habitat in these areas occurs in much larger contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson 2004, p. 49; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 35; Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 559). Such core refugia areas provide a steady source of dispersing wolves that populate other adjoining potentially suitable wolf habitat. Some habitat ranked by models as suitable adjacent to this 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, just as habitat predicted to be unsuitable does not mean such areas will never support wolf breeding pairs.

Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 km

2

(1,000 mi

2

)) patches of theoretically suitable habitat (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 34; Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 559) (typically, isolated mountain ranges) often possess a higher mortality risk for wolves because of their enclosure by, and proximity to, unsuitable habitat with a high mortality risk (Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2514; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 620). In addition, pack territories often form along distinct geological features (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 23), such as the crest of a rugged mountain range, so useable space for wolves in isolated long narrow mountain ranges may be reduced by half or more. This phenomenon, in which the quality and quantity of suitable habitat is diminished because of interactions with surrounding less-suitable habitat, is known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400-401). Edge effects are exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-to-area ratios (

i.e.,

those that are long and narrow, like isolated mountain ranges) and in species with large territories, like wolves, because they are more likely to encounter surrounding unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). Because of edge effects, some habitat areas outside the core areas may rank as suitable in models, but are unlikely to actually be successfully occupied by wolf packs.

For the above reasons, we believe that the Wyoming wolf population will be centered around YNP and the GYA. This was always the intention as indicated by the GYA recovery area identified in the 1987 Recovery Plan and the primary analysis area identified in the 1994 EIS. This core population segment will continue to provide a constant source of dispersing wolves into surrounding areas, supplementing wolf packs and breeding pairs in adjacent, but less secure suitable habitat.

Currently Occupied Habitat

—We calculated the currently occupied area in the NRM DPS wolf population by drawing a line around the outer points of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack territories at the end of 2010 (Service

et al.

2011, Figure 1). Since 2002, most packs have occurred within a consistent area (Service

et al.

2003-2011, Figure 1), although the outer boundary of the entire NRM wolf population has fluctuated somewhat as peripheral packs establish in unsuitable or marginally suitable habitat and are subsequently lost (Messer 2011, pers. comm.). We define occupied wolf habitat as that area confirmed as being used by resident wolves to raise pups, or that is consistently used by two or more territorial wolves for longer than 1 month (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6). Typically by the end of a year, only 50 percent of packs meet the criteria to be classified as breeding pairs.

The overall distribution of most Wyoming wolf packs has been similar since 2000, despite a wolf population in the State that has more than doubled (Service

et al.

2001-2011, Figure 1; Bangs

et al.

2009, p. 104). This distribution pattern of wolf packs only forming in mountainous forest habitat has persisted through 2010. The wolf population has saturated most suitable habitat in the State. Because packs are unlikely to persist in unsuitable habitat, significant growth in the population's distribution is unlikely. We include unoccupied areas separating areas with resident packs as occupied wolf habitat because these intervening unsuitable habitat areas are important for demographic and genetic connectivity (vonHoldt

et al.

2010, p. 4412). While these areas are no longer capable of supporting persistent wolf packs, 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.

2011, p. 1).

Occupied habitat in Wyoming occurs only in the northwestern part of the State (see Figure 1 above). At the end of 2010, “occupied areas” (including both pack occupied areas and unsuitable areas between core recovery segments used only for dispersal) were estimated at approximately 46,600 km

2

(18,000 mi

2

) in Wyoming (Service

et al.

2005, Figure 1). Specifically, this occupied area extends slightly further east than the WTGMA, includes about the western-third of the Wind River Indian

Reservation, and extends south to about Big Piney, Wyoming. The occupied portion of Wyoming and the GYA is illustrated in Figure 1 above.

Since 2006, the Wyoming wolf population has stabilized at approximately 300 to 350 wolves (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). We believe this largely stable population level and distribution is the result of the wolf population approaching biological limits, given available suitable habitat. The remaining habitat predicted by Carroll's model is often fragmented, occurring in smaller, more isolated patches (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 35). These areas have only been occupied by a few breeding pairs that failed to persist (Service

et al.

2011, Figure 1). Given the above, there is probably limited ability for the Wyoming wolf population to expand significantly beyond its current outer boundaries, even under continued protections of the Act. As demonstrated by the wolf population's demographic stability and relatively constant geographic occupancy in northwestern Wyoming, it is clear that there is sufficient suitable habitat to maintain the Wyoming wolf population well above recovery levels.

Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range

—Wolves are one of the most adaptable large predators in the world and are unlikely to be substantially impacted by any threat except high levels of human persecution (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330). Even active wolf dens can be quite resilient to nonlethal disturbance by humans (Frame

et al.

2007, p. 316). Establishing a recovered wolf population in the NRM region did not require land-use restrictions or curtailment of traditional land uses because there was enough suitable habitat, there were enough wild ungulates, and there were sufficiently few livestock conflicts to recover wolves under existing conditions (Bangs

et al.

2004, pp. 95-96). Traditional land-use practices in Wyoming are not a threat to wolves in the State, and thus, do not need to be modified to maintain a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. We do not anticipate that habitat changes in Wyoming will occur at a magnitude that will threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable future, because the vast majority of occupied habitat is in public ownership that is managed for uses that are complementary with the maintenance of suitable wolf habitat and viable wolf populations (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 542; Oakleaf

et al.

2005, p. 560).

The 63,714 km

2

(24,600 mi

2

) GYA is primarily composed of public lands (Service 1994, p. iv), and represents one of the largest contiguous blocks of suitable habitat within the region. Public lands in National Parks (YNP, Grand Teton National Park, and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway), wilderness (the Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness Areas), roadless areas, and large blocks of contiguous mountainous forested habitat, are largely unavailable or unsuitable for intensive development. Within the currently occupied portions of Wyoming, land ownership is mostly Federal (77 percent, 57 percent of which is National Park Service or wilderness) with some State (3 percent), Tribal (8 percent), and private lands (12 percent) (Lickfett 2011, in litt.).

The vast majority of suitable wolf habitat and the current wolf population are secure in mountainous forested Federal public land (National Parks, wilderness, roadless areas, and some lands managed for multiple uses by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) that will not be legally available or suitable for intensive levels of human development (Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Servheen

et al.

2003; U.S. Forest Service 2006). Furthermore, the ranges of wolves and grizzly bears overlap in many parts of Wyoming and the GYA, and mandatory habitat guidelines for grizzly bear conservation on public lands guarantee, and far exceed, necessary criteria for maintaining suitable habitat for wolves (for an example, see U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2006). Thus, northwestern Wyoming will continue to provide optimal suitable habitat for a resident wolf population.

The availability of native ungulate populations is a key factor in wolf habitat and range. Wild ungulate prey species are composed mainly of elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and bison. Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn antelope also are common, but are not important as wolf prey. In total, Wyoming supports about 50,000 elk and about 90,000 mule deer in northwestern Wyoming (Bruscino 2011, in litt.). All of Wyoming's 35 elk management units are at or above the WGFD numeric objectives for those herds; however, calf/cow ratios in several herd units are below desired levels (WGFD 2010, p. 1). The State of Wyoming has successfully managed resident ungulate populations for decades. With managers and scientists collaborating to determine the source of the potential population fluctuations and appropriate management responses, we feel confident that, although different herds may experience differing population dynamics, the GYA will continue to support large populations of ungulates, and Wyoming will continue to maintain ungulate populations at densities that will continue to support a recovered wolf population well into the foreseeable future.

The presence of cattle and sheep also impact wolf habitat and range. Cattle and sheep are at least twice as numerous as wild ungulates, even on public lands (Service 1994, p. viii). Most wolf packs have at least some interaction with livestock. Wolves and livestock can live near one another for extended periods of time without significant conflict, if agency control prevents the behavior of chronic livestock depredation from becoming widespread in the wolf population. Through active management, most wolves learn that livestock cannot be successfully attacked and do not view them as prey. However, whenever wolves and livestock mix, some livestock and some wolves will be killed. Conflicts between wolves and livestock have resulted in the annual removal of 8 to 15 percent of the wolf population (Bangs

et al.

1995, p. 130; Bangs

et al.

2004, p. 92; Bangs

et al.

2005, pp. 342-344; Service

et al.

2011, Tables 4, 5; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 620). Such active control promotes occupancy of suitable habitat in a manner that minimizes damage to private property, and fosters public support to maintain recovered wolf populations without threatening the wolf population viability.

We do not foresee a substantial increase in livestock abundance occurring across northwestern Wyoming that would result in increased wolf mortality, and in fact, the opposite trend has been occurring. In recent years, more than 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of public land grazing allotments have been purchased and retired in areas of chronic conflict between livestock and large predators, including wolves (Fischer 2008, in litt.). Assuming adequate regulation of other potential threat factors (discussed below), we do not believe the continued presence of livestock will in any meaningful way threaten the recovered status of the Wyoming wolf population in the foreseeable future.

Although human population growth and development may impact wolf habitat and range, we expect these impacts will be minimal, as the amount of secure suitable habitat is more than sufficient to support wolf breeding pairs well above recovery levels. We expect the region will see: Increased growth and development including conversion of private low-density rural lands to higher density urban and suburban development; accelerated road

development and increasing amounts of transportation facilities (pipelines and energy transmission lines); additional resource extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, and wind development in certain areas); and increased recreation on public lands (Robbins 2007, entire). Despite efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 1-3), some development will make some areas of Wyoming and the GYA less suitable for wolf occupancy. In the six northwestern Wyoming counties most used by wolves, the human population is projected to increase approximately 15 percent by 2030 (from 122,787 counted in 2010 to 141,000 forecast in 2030) (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 536; Wyoming Department of Administration and Information Economic Analysis Division 2008, entire; U.S. Census Bureau 2010, entire). We anticipate similar levels of population growth in the other neighboring areas, because the West as a region is projected to increase at rates faster than any other region (U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 2005). As human populations increase, associated impacts will follow. However, human development will not occur on a scale that could possibly affect the overall suitability of Wyoming or the GYA for wolves, and no foreseeable habitat-related threats will prevent these areas from supporting a wolf population that is capable of substantially exceeding recovery levels.

Most types of intensive human development predicted in the future in Wyoming will occur in areas that have already been extensively modified by human activities and are unsuitable as wolf habitat (Wyoming 2005, Appendix III). Mineral extraction activities are likely to continue to be focused at lower elevations, on private lands, in open habitats, and outside of currently suitable and currently occupied wolf habitat (Robbins 2007, entire). Development on private land near suitable habitats will continue to expose wolves to more conflicts and higher risk of human-caused mortality. However, the rate of conflict is well below the level wolves can withstand, especially given the large amount of secure habitat in public ownership, much of which is protected, that will support a recovered wolf population and will provide a reliable and constant source of dispersing wolves. Furthermore, management programs (Linnell

et al.

2001, p. 348), research and monitoring, and outreach and education about living with wildlife can somewhat reduce such impacts.

Modeling exercises can also provide insight into future land-use development patterns. While these models have weaknesses (such as an inability to accurately predict economic upturns or downturns, uncertainty regarding investments in infrastructure that might drive development such as roads, airports, or water projects, and an inability to predict open-space acquisitions or conservation easements), we nevertheless think that such models are useful in adding to our understanding of likely development patterns. Carroll

et al.

(2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) predicted future wolf habitat suitability under several scenarios through 2025, including potential threats such as increased human population growth and road development. Similarly, in 2005, the Center for the West produced a series of maps predicting growth through 2040 for the West (Travis

et al.

2005, pp. 2-7). These projections are available at:

http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/2040.html.

These models predict very little development across occupied and suitable portions of the NRM DPS, Wyoming, or GYA.

Based on these projections, we have determined that increased development will not alter wolf habitat suitability in the NRM DPS, Wyoming, or GYA nearly enough to cause the wolf population to fall below recovery levels in the foreseeable future. We acknowledge that habitat suitability for wolves will change over time with human development, activities, and attitudes, but not to the extent that it is likely to threaten wolf recovery. We do not believe future human population growth will adversely affect wolf conservation. Wolf populations persist in many areas of the world that are far more developed than this region currently is, or is likely to be, in the foreseeable future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-323). Current habitat conditions are adequate to support a wolf population well above minimal recovery levels and model predictions indicate that development over the next 25 years is unlikely to change habitat in a manner that would threaten the wolf population (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 544).

Regarding connectivity between the Wyoming and the GYA wolf to the remainder of the NRM DPS, minimal change in human population growth (Travis

et al.

2005, pp. 2-7) and habitat suitability (Carroll

et al.

2003, p. 541; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 32) are expected along the Idaho-Montana border between the central Idaho wolf population and the GYA. In fact, projected development is anticipated to include modest expansions concentrated in urban areas and immediately surrounding areas (Travis

et al.

2005, pp. 2-7). Conversely, in many surrounding rural areas, habitat suitability for wolves will be increased beyond current levels as road densities on public lands are reduced, a process under way in the entire NRM region (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 25; Servheen

et al.

2003; Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Brown 2006, pp. 1-3). Wolves have exceptional dispersal abilities including the ability to disperse long distances across vast areas of unsuitable habitat. Numerous lone wolves have already been documented to have successfully dispersed through these types of developed areas (Jimenez

et al.

2011, p. 1). History proves that wolves are among the least likely species of land mammal to face a serious threat from reduced connectivity related to projected changes in habitat (Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 189-190).

There is more than enough habitat connectivity between occupied wolf habitat in Canada, northwestern Montana, and Idaho to ensure exchange of sufficient numbers of dispersing wolves to maintain demographic and genetic diversity in the NRM wolf metapopulation. We have documented routine movement of radio-collared wolves across the nearly contiguous available suitable habitat between Canada, northwestern Montana, and central Idaho. No foreseeable threats put this connectivity at risk. The GYA is the most physically isolated core recovery area within the NRM DPS, but the GYA has also demonstrated sufficient levels of connectivity to other occupied habitats and wolf populations in the NRM. Within the foreseeable future, only minimal habitat degradation will occur between the GYA and the other recovery areas, as a result of delisting and management of wolves in Wyoming. Overall, we believe this will have only minimal impacts on foreseeable levels of dispersal and connectivity of wolves in the GYA and the State of Wyoming with other wolf populations in the NRM. In short, future connectivity is unlikely to be meaningfully impacted by changes in habitat and range (genetic exchange is discussed in more detail under Factor E below), to an extent that would threaten the recovered status of the Wyoming wolf population in the foreseeable future.

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

Commercial or Recreational Uses

—This section discusses both legal and illegal killing for commercial or recreational purposes such as hunting and trapping. All other potential sources of human-caused mortality (

e.g.,

legal or illegal killing for other purposes, agency

or individual actions to address conflicts over wolf-livestock interactions, or wolf kills in the predator area of Wyoming) are discussed in the “Human-caused predation” section of Factor C below. First, this section discusses illegal commercial or recreational use. Next, this section focuses on legal hunting and trapping in Wyoming. Finally, this section evaluates regulated hunting and trapping in Idaho and Montana because some wolves and some packs cross State boundaries.

Since the species was listed, killing for commercial or recreational use has been prohibited. While some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, we believe such illegal commercial trafficking is rare. Furthermore, illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes is also possible, but we have no evidence that it occurs in Wyoming, the GYA, or elsewhere in the NRM DPS. We believe the prohibition against “take” provided by Section 9 of the Act has discouraged and minimized the illegal killing of wolves for commercial or recreational purposes. Post-delisting, we believe the State, tribal, and other Federal laws and regulations will continue to provide a strong deterrent to such illegal wolf killing by the public. State, tribal, and other Federal wildlife agencies have well-distributed experienced professional law enforcement officers to help enforce their respective wildlife regulations. Similar regulatory approaches have been effective in the conservation of other resident wildlife such as black bears, mountain lions, elk, and deer. Most hunting and trapping that will occur post-delisting, will be legal, permitted, and regulated by the State of Wyoming or the Wind River Indian Reservation.

Legal regulated harvest will be employed by all States within the GYA where the wolf is delisted. Additionally, the Wind River Indian Reservation may consider legal regulated harvest. Wolf conservation can be compatible with harvest. Wolves can maintain population levels despite very high sustained human-caused mortality rates of 22 to greater than 50 percent (Keith 1983; Ballard

et al.

1987; Fuller 1989; Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 182-184; Creel and Rotella 2010). Mortality rates and population growth rates reported from 2007 to 2010 indicate that the wolf population in Wyoming outside YNP can sustain, on average, a 36 percent mortality rate from human causes (WGFC 2011, p. 12). When populations are maintained below carrying capacity and natural mortality rates remain low, human-caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of natural mortality (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 186). Wolf pups can also be successfully raised by other pack members (Boyd and Jimenez 1994) and breeding individuals can be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd

et al.

2008, p. 89), which further mitigates the impact of harvest.

Regulated hunting and trapping are commonly used to manage wolves in Canada and Alaska without negative population-level effects (Bangs 2008). Furthermore, all States in the NRM DPS have substantial experience operating regulated harvest as a wildlife management tool for resident species. In 2009, Montana and Idaho conducted a wolf hunt where 257 wolves were killed. Even with this harvest, the population grew in 2009 by almost 5 percent across the NRM, including modest increases in all three States. Collectively, these factors give us every confidence that the States will run hunts such that wolf populations will not be threatened by recreational or commercial uses.

In Wyoming, wolves will be permanently managed as game animals or protected (

e.g.,

in National Parks) in about 40,000 km

2

(15,400 mi

2

) in the northwestern portion of the State (15.7 percent of Wyoming), including YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and private lands, the National Elk Refuge, and the Wind River Indian Reservation (Lickfett 2011, in litt.). This area is of sufficient size to support Wyoming wolf population targets, under the management regime proposed for this area.

Wolves will be managed as trophy game animals within the area of northwestern Wyoming identified as the WTGMA (see Figure 1 above). “Trophy game” status allows the WGFC and WGFD to regulate methods of take, hunting seasons, and numbers of wolves that could be killed. The boundary and size of the WTGMA will be established by State statute and cannot be diminished through WGFC rule or regulation. The WTGMA will be seasonally expanded approximately 80 km (50 mi) south (see Figure 1 above) from October 15 to the last day of February (28th or 29th) to facilitate natural dispersal of wolves between Wyoming and Idaho. During this timeframe, the trophy game area will be expanded by approximately 3,300 km

2

(1,300 mi

2

) (

i.e.,

an additional 1.3 percent of Wyoming) (Lickfett 2011, in litt.).

Within the WTGMA, Wyoming intends to use public harvest of wolves to reduce wolf populations to minimize conflicts with livestock, ungulate herds, and humans (WGFC 2011, pp. 1, 23). The WGFD will develop an annual hunt plan that will take into consideration, but not be limited to, the following when developing a wolf hunting program or extending wolf hunting seasons: wolf breeding seasons; short- and long-range dispersal opportunity, survival, and success in forming new or joining existing packs; conflicts with livestock; and the broader game management responsibilities related to ungulates and other wildlife (WGFC 2011, pp. 2-3, 16, 25, 53). Harvest quotas will be established through WGFD's normal season-setting process. Quotas will be based on the population status of wolves at the end of the previous calendar year, and consider estimated wolf mortality and population growth believed to have occurred during the current calendar year (WGFC 2011, pp. 23-25). All forms of wolf mortality will be considered when setting appropriate harvest levels (WGFC 2011, pp. 23-25). Seasons will close when the mortality quota is reached or if the WGFC deems it necessary to close the season for other reasons. Importantly, the WGFD will not manage wolves at the minimum population objective (WGFC 2011, p. 24). Instead, the WGFD will set harvest levels that maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population objectives to provide management flexibility (WGFC 2011, p. 24).

Wyoming wolf hunting seasons will primarily coincide with fall big game hunting seasons, but may be extended if quotas are not met (WGFC 2011, pp. 23-25, 53). That said, most hunting-related mortality will occur in October and November when human access is greatest and more big game hunters are active (MFWP 2009, p. 3, 5; WGFC 2011, p. 24). Wyoming's wolf management plan indicates that the State expects to delineate approximately 10 to 12 wolf hunting areas within the WTGMA to focus harvest in specific areas (

i.e.,

areas with high wolf-livestock conflict, high human trafficked areas, or areas where ungulate herds are below State management objectives) (WGFC 2011, pp. 1, 16). Persons who legally harvest a wolf within the WTGMA will be required to report the harvest to the WGFD within 24 hours, and check the harvested animal in within 5 days (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 22-25). Reporting periods for harvested wolves may be extended after inaugural hunting seasons if it is determined that extended reporting periods will not increase the likelihood of overharvest

(WGFC 2011, p. 23). Similar harvest strategies have been successful for countless other wildlife species in Wyoming.

Commercial or recreational trapping is not currently being planned in Wyoming (Mills 2011, in litt.). However, an adaptive management approach, which could include trapping, may occur in the future if hunting is determined to be inadequate to achieve wolf harvest objectives (WGFC 2011, p. 25). We expect trapping will likely be limited as Wyoming's geography suggests other sources of mortality will make the State's wolf population management objectives easily achievable. If trapping is used in the future it will be conducted within the framework of the State's overall demographic targets.

In our 2009 delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), we determined that Wyoming's proposed 2008 harvest strategy (that was never implemented) was well-designed, biologically sound, and, by itself, it would not have threatened Wyoming's share of the recovered NRM wolf population. Given Wyoming's strong commitment to maintain the population at or above agreed-upon population targets, their intention to consider all forms of wolf mortality when making wolf control management decisions, and numerous safeguards built into their harvest strategy, we are confident that this source of mortality will never compromise the Wyoming wolf population's recovered status.

The Wind River Indian Reservation's management plan indicates wolves will be designated as a game animal post-delisting and hunting and trapping can occur (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 9). The season timing and length, harvest quota, and other specifics will be determined by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 9). Harvest strategy will depend on the number of wolves present on Wind River Indian Reservation and the management direction the Tribes wish to take (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 9). The Tribes have not designated a specific number of individuals or packs for which they will manage (Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department 2007, p. 9). Given the small number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs supported while Act protections were in place, we expect the area will support very modest wolf population levels and distribution. Given this, we expect very limited hunting or trapping on the Wind River Indian Reservation.

No legal hunting or trapping will occur in YNP, Grand Teton National Park, or the National Elk Refuge. In YNP, hunting pressures in adjoining areas are unlikely to impact park wolves as YNP wolves rarely leave the park during the time period when hunting would occur. The wolf population in YNP has ranged from 96 to 171 wolves since 2000. However, the YNP wolf population appears to be declining toward a long-term equilibrium at or slightly below the lower end of this range (Service

et al.

2000-2010, Table b; Smith 2010, pers. comm.). In Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge, wolf pack home ranges typically cross outside of these Federal boundaries, thus, hunting pressures in adjoining areas would likely impact these wolves.

Hunting in Idaho and Montana may impact Wyoming wolves because some wolves and some packs cross State boundaries. Both Idaho and Montana designated wolves as game animals Statewide and each State conducted conservative wolf hunts in 2009. In total, Montana hunts took 72 wolves out of the 75 harvest quota and, in Idaho, hunts took 185 wolves out of a quota of 220. Each State closed wolf harvest in individual management zones as their individual quota was achieved. Montana closed its wolf hunt statewide November 16th. In Idaho, a few zones remained open until March 31. Despite a total harvest of 257 wolves in Montana and Idaho, the NRM population still grew in 2009 by almost 5 percent including modest increases in all three States. These hunts distributed wolf harvest across occupied habitat, took into account connectivity and possible dispersal corridors, resulted in good hunter compliance, and improved hunter attitudes about wolves (MFWP 2010, pp. 17-25; IDFG 2010, pp. 13-14; Dickson 2010). As anticipated in our 2009 delisting rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), Montana and Idaho are now planning more aggressive hunts for fall 2011 to reduce the population below current levels (which are likely at or above long-term carrying capacity of the suitable habitat).

Within the GYA, Idaho's 2011 season has a quota of 30 wolves in the Island Park hunting unit (referred to as the Upper Snake Management Zone in the 2010 annual report) (Idaho Fish and Game Commission (IFGC) 2011). Island Park's season will run from August 30th to December 31st and one wolf can be taken per tag with a limit of two tags per person (IFGC 2011). At the end of 2010, the Island Park unit was occupied by seven packs including five that were counted towards Idaho's totals and two counted towards Wyoming's population totals (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 81-84 in the Idaho chapter). Four of these five packs were confirmed to qualify as breeding pairs (the reproductive status for other pack was not known) (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 81-84 in the Idaho chapter). Two of the Idaho packs and both of the Wyoming packs had home ranges that spanned the Idaho-Wyoming stateline (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 81-84 in the Idaho chapter). To help understand the potential impacts of Idaho's hunt on these wolves, it is instructive to look at the 2009 hunting season. There is no harvest data from 2010 because wolves were not hunted in 2010. During the 2009 season, this zone had a quota of five wolves with an October 1st to December 31st season and a limit of one wolf per person (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 81-84 in the Idaho chapter). The quota for this unit was met and the unit was closed November 2nd (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 81-84 in the Idaho chapter). Between the end of 2008 and the end of 2009 (the period impacted by the 2009 wolf hunt), the number of packs in this area increased from two to four and the number of breeding pairs in this unit remained steady at two (Service

et al.

2008, pp. 76-80 in the Idaho chapter; Service

et al.

2009, pp. 52-56 in the Idaho chapter).

Thus, this modest hunting level had minimal impact. While it is unclear if the 2011 quota for this unit will be achieved, it is likely this hunting season will reduce the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs in this area (this is the State's intention). In the long run, we believe it is likely this area will continue to support a modest number of wolves and packs (one to four packs) some of which will qualify as breeding pairs. This regulated taking in Idaho may minimally impact a small number of Wyoming wolves (

e.g.,

the two packs that are counted in Wyoming's totals that also cross into Idaho). In future years, once the initial desired population level is achieved, such impacts are expected to be minimal.

Idaho's other hunting unit in the GYA area is the southern Idaho unit. Potential hunting impacts in this unit are expected to be zero to low single digits based on past take (one wolf in 2009) and the area's limited wolf population (no confirmed resident wolves, packs or breeding pairs) (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 71-74 in the Idaho chapter).

Trapping was not authorized in either the Island Park unit or the southern Idaho unit (IFGC 2011). Trapping was

only authorized where hunting alone was not anticipated to be effective in reducing the wolf population (IFGC 2011). Because trapping is typically reserved for more remote, inaccessible areas (IFGC 2011), we do not expect much if any future trapping in this area.

Montana's wolf quota for 2011 within the GYA is 43 wolves including 19 wolves within the Gallatin/Madison unit, 6 wolves within the Highlands/Tobacco Roots/Gravelly/Snowcrest unit, and 18 wolves within the South Central Montana unit (MFWP 2011, pp. 6-7). The South Central Montana unit also includes a subquota of 3 wolves in areas immediately adjacent to YNP in order to limit impacts to park wolves. At the end of 2010, Montana's portion of the GYA contained a minimum of 118 wolves in 19 verified packs, 6 of which qualified as breeding pairs (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 72-82 in the Montana chapter). Two additional packs are counted in Wyoming's population, but may spend some time in Montana (Service

et al.

2011, pp. 72-82 in the Montana chapter). Again, a review of the 2009 hunting season may assist in understanding potential impacts of Montana's hunt to wolves in Wyoming and the GYA. In 2009, the MFWP Commission developed a single unit for all of southwest Montana and authorized a quota of 12 wolves (Service

et al.

20009, pp. 18-25 in the Montana chapter). Wolf take in this unit occurred very rapidly, and was concentrated just north of YNP (Service

et al.

2009, pp. 18-25 in the Montana chapter). As a result, the backcountry portions of the unit were temporarily closed on October 9th, and permanently closed on October 13th, after 9 wolves were taken (Service

et al.

20009, pp. 18-25 in the Montana chapter). Four additional wolves were taken in the remainder of the unit. From the end of 2008 to the end of 2009 (the period impacted by the 2009 wolf hunt), the minimum wolf population estimate in Montana's share of the GYA declined from 130 wolves in 18 packs, 11 of which met the breeding pair criteria, to 106 wolves in 17 verified packs, 9 of which qualified as a breeding pair. Both agency control (which increased in 2009) and hunter harvest were factors in these declines.

While it is unclear if Montana's 2011 quotas for this area will be achieved, it is Montana's intention that this hunting season will modestly reduce the number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs in this area. In the long run, it is likely this area will continue to support a sizeable number of wolves, packs, and breeding pairs. Specifically, in our professional judgment, we believe this area will support at least 8 packs long term, a significant number of which will qualify as breeding pairs. This regulated taking in Montana, in light of the subquotas for areas adjacent to YNP, may impact some Wyoming wolves in some years, but is not expected to be a significant impact.

In summary, illegal commercial and recreational use will remain a negligible source of mortality and legal, State-regulated harvest for commercial and recreational use will be managed in a manner compatible with wolf conservation. Wolves can maintain population levels despite very high sustained human-caused mortality rates. In 2009, Montana and Idaho conducted a wolf hunt where 257 wolves were harvested, and the population still grew by almost 5 percent. Regulated hunting and trapping are commonly used to manage wolves in Canada and Alaska without population-level negative effects (Bangs 2008), and all States in the NRM DPS have substantial experience operating regulated harvest as a wildlife management tool for resident species. In Wyoming, population levels will be carefully monitored; all sources of mortality will be used to set quotas and measure progress toward them; hunting units will be closed when quotas are met, or if otherwise needed (

e.g.,

if overall population objectives are being approached); hunting units will be small to allow targeted control of authorized mortality; and populations will be managed with a buffer above minimum targets. This approach is consistent with the State's management of numerous other species. Trapping will be rare everywhere in the GYA.

On the whole, we anticipate Wyoming (like Idaho and Montana) will gradually reduce populations in the short term with moderately aggressive harvest rates, and that these harvest rates will be reduced over time. Long term, total human-caused mortality (from all sources) in portions of Wyoming under State jurisdiction may average around 36 percent as the State uses regulated harvest to maintain the wolf population in areas under Wyoming's jurisdiction modestly above their minimum population target of at least 100 wolves and at least 10 breeding pairs. Regulated harvest in portions of the GYA outside of Wyoming's jurisdiction is expected to have only minimal impacts on Wyoming's wolf population.

Overutilization for Scientific or Educational Purposes

—From 1979 to 2010, the Service and our cooperating partners captured 1,963 wolves for monitoring, nonlethal control, and research purposes with less than 3 percent experiencing accidental death. If Wyoming wolves are delisted, the State, National Parks, and/or Tribes will continue to capture and radio-collar wolves for monitoring and research purposes in accordance with State, Federal, and tribal laws, wolf management plans, regulations, and appropriate agency humane animal care and handling policies. The capture or possession of wolves from within the WTGMA for scientific or educational purposes will be regulated by the WGFC under rules set in Chapter 10 and Chapter 33 of Commission Regulations. We expect that capture-caused mortality by Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, and universities conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and research will remain below 3 percent of the wolves captured, and will remain an insignificant source of mortality to the wolf population (Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2519).

We are unaware of any wolves that have been removed from the wild for solely educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used for such purposes are typically privately held captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons and are not protected by the Act. However, we or the States and Tribes may get requests to place wolves that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for research or educational purposes. Such requests have been, and are likely to continue to be, rare. Such requests will not substantially impact human-caused wolf mortality rates.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

This section discusses disease and parasites, natural predation, and human-caused predation. The human-caused mortality section discusses all sources of human-caused mortality not discussed under Factor B's commercial and recreational uses section above. The below analysis focuses on wolves in Wyoming, but considers adjoining portions of the GYA as some wolves and some packs cross State boundaries. Data for other regions is considered where it implies a threat that could someday impact Wyoming or GYA wolves.

Disease

—Wolves throughout North America are exposed to a wide variety of diseases and parasites. Many diseases (viruses and bacteria, many protozoa and fungi) and parasites (helminthes and arthropods) have been reported for the gray wolf, and several of them have had significant, but temporary impacts during wolf recovery in the 48 conterminous States (Brand

et al.

1995, p. 428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). The EIS on gray wolf reintroduction identified disease impact as an issue, but did not evaluate it further (Service 1994, pp. 1:20-21).

Infectious disease induced by parasitic organisms is a normal feature in the life of wild animals, and the typical wild animal hosts a broad multi-species community of potentially harmful parasitic organisms (Wobeser 2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that these diseases and parasites will follow the same pattern seen for wolves in other areas of North America (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 428-429; Bailey

et al.

1995, p. 445; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-204; Atkinson 2006, pp. 1-7; Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17-19; Johnson 1995a, 1995b; Almberg

et al.

2009, p. 3; 2010, p. 2058; Jimenez

et al.

2010a, p. 1120; 2010b p. 331), and will not significantly threaten wolf population viability. Nevertheless, because these diseases and parasites, and perhaps others, have the potential to impact wolf population distribution and demographics, monitoring implemented by the States, Tribes, and National Park Service will track disease and parasite events. Should such an outbreak occur that results in a population decline, discretionary human-caused mortality (such as hunting, post-delisting) would be adjusted over an appropriate area and time period to ensure wolf population numbers are maintained above recovery levels (WGFC 2011, pp. 21-22, 24).

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (

Canis familiaris

), foxes (

Vulpes vulpes

), coyotes (

Canis latrans

), skunks (

Mephitis mephitis

), and raccoons (

Procyon lotor

). The population impacts of CPV occur via diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to abnormally high pup mortality (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical CPV is characterized by severe hemorrhagic diarrhea and vomiting; debility and subsequent mortality is a result of dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and shock. CPV has been detected in nearly every wolf population in North America including Alaska (Bailey

et al.

1995, p. 441; Brand

et al.

1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211; Johnson

et al.

1994; Almberg

et al.

2009, p. 2), and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost universal. Currently, nearly 100 percent of the wolves handled by MFWP (Atkinson 2006) and YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18; Almberg

et al.

2009, p. 2) had blood antibodies indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. CPV might have contributed to low pup survival in the northern range of YNP in 1999. CPV was suspected to have done so again in 2005 and possibly 2008, but evidence points to canine distemper (CD) as being the primary cause of low pup survival during those years (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 244; Smith 2008; Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2058). Pup production and survival in YNP returned to normal levels after each event (Almberg

et al.

2009, pp. 18-19). The impact of disease outbreaks to the overall NRM wolf population has been localized and temporary, as has been documented elsewhere (Bailey

et al.

1995, p. 441; Brand

et al.

1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210-211). Despite these periodic disease outbreaks, the NRM wolf population increased at a rate of about 20 percent annually from 1996 to 2010 (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). Mech

et al.

(2008, p. 824) recently concluded CPV reduced pup survival, subsequent dispersal, and the overall rate of population growth in Minnesota (a population near carrying capacity in suitable habitat). It is possible that at carrying capacity CPV may affect the GYA and Wyoming wolf populations similarly, such that the overall rate of growth may be reduced.

Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, fever-causing disease of carnivores caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). It is common in domestic dogs and some wild canids, such as coyotes and foxes in the NRM region (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). The prevalence of antibodies to this disease in wolf blood in North American wolves is about 17 percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209), but varies annually and by specific location. Nearly 85 percent of Montana wolf blood samples analyzed in 2005 indicated nonlethal exposure to CD (Atkinson 2006). Similar results were found in YNP (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18; Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2061). Mortality in wolves has been documented in Canada (Carbyn 1982, p. 109), Alaska (Peterson

et al.

1984, p. 31; Bailey

et al.

1995, p. 441), and in a single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). CD is not a major mortality factor in wolves, because despite high exposure to the virus, affected wolf populations usually demonstrate good recruitment (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 420-421). Mortality from CD has only been confirmed on a few occasions in NRM wolves despite their high exposure to it, however, we suspect it contributed to the high pup mortality documented in the northern GYA in spring 1999, 2005, and 2008 (Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2061).

CD is likely maintained in the NRM region by multiple hosts and periodic outbreaks will undoubtedly occur every 2-5 years (Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2058). However, as documented elsewhere, CD does not threaten wolf populations, and the NRM wolf population increased even during years with localized outbreaks (Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 2058). YNP biologists (Smith 2008, pers. comm.) believe that wolf deaths mainly occurred from CD when the YNP population was around the historic high of 170 wolves the previous winter. In 2008, wolf packs in Wyoming outside YNP (about 25 packs and 15 breeding pairs) appeared to have normal pup production (Jimenez 2008, pers. comm.), indicating the probable disease outbreak in 2008 was localized to YNP. This suggests CD mortality may be associated with high wolf density, and possibly carrying capacity. Thus, the wolf populations in the GYA may be more affected by CD and other diseases when wolves exist at high densities in suitable habitat (

i.e.,

in YNP).

Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete bacterium, is spread primarily by deer ticks (

Ixodes dammini

). Host species include humans, horses (

Equus caballus

), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, white-footed mice (

Peromyscus leucopus

), eastern chipmunks (

Tamias striatus

), coyotes, and wolves. In wolf populations in the Western Great Lakes region, it does not appear to cause adult mortality, but might be suppressing population growth by decreasing wolf pup survival (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). Lyme disease has not been documented in the GYA or Wyoming wolf populations.

Mange is caused by a mite (

Sarcoptes scabeii

) that infests the skin. The irritation caused by feeding and burrowing mites results in intense itching, resulting in scratching and severe fur loss, which can lead to secondary infections or to mortality from exposure during severe winter weather (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Advanced mange can involve the entire body and can cause emaciation, decreased flight distance, staggering, and death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a long-term Alberta wolf study, higher wolf densities were correlated with increased incidence of mange, and pup survival decreased as the incidence of mange increased (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 427-428). Mange has been shown to temporarily affect wolf population growth rates and perhaps wolf distribution (Kreeger 2003, p. 208).

Mange has been detected in, and caused mortality to, GYA wolves (Jimenez

et al.

2010a, p. 1120; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). The GYA wolves likely contracted mange from coyotes or fox, whose populations experience occasional outbreaks. Between 2003 and 2008, the percentage of Montana packs with mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent of packs. Between 2002 and 2008, the percentage of Wyoming packs

with mange fluctuated between 3 and 15 percent of packs. In these cases, mange did not appear to infest every member of the pack. For example, in 2008, manage was detected in 8 wolves from 4 different packs in YNP, one pack in Wyoming outside YNP, and a couple of packs in previously infested areas of southwestern Montana. Mange has never been confirmed in wolves in Idaho (Jimenez

et al.

2010a, p. 1123).

In packs with the most severe mange infestations, pup survival appeared low, and some adults died (Jimenez

et al.

2010a, pp. 1122-1123). In addition, we euthanized several wolves with severe mange for humane reasons and because of their abnormal behavior. We predict that mange in the GYA and State of Wyoming will act as it has in other parts of North America (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208; Jimenez

et al.

2010, p. 1123) and not threaten wolf population viability. Wolves are not likely to be infested with mange on a chronic population-wide level (Jimenez

et al.

2010a, p. 1123).

Dog-biting lice (

Trichodectes canis

) commonly feed on domestic dogs, but can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz

et al.

1983, p. 372; Mech

et al.

1985, p. 404). The lice can attain severe infestations, particularly in pups. The worst infestations can result in severe scratching, irritated and raw skin, substantial hair loss particularly in the groin, and poor condition. While no wolf mortality has been confirmed from dog-biting lice, death from exposure or secondary infection following self-inflicted trauma caused by inflammation and itching, appears possible. The first confirmed NRM wolves with dog-biting lice were members of the Battlefield pack in the Big Hole Valley of southwestern Montana in 2005 and 2006, and one wolf in south-central Idaho in 2006 and 2007; but these infestations were not severe (Service

et al.

2006, p. 15; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Jimenez

et al.

2010b). The source of this infestation is unknown, but was likely domestic dogs. Lice have been documented in the NRM DPS since 2005, and infestations are likely to continue to be occasionally documented in the future. Lice may contribute to the death of some individual wolves, but they will not threaten the GYA or Wyoming wolf population (Jimenez

et al.

2010b, p. 332).

Rabies, canine heartworm (

Dirofilaria immitus

), blastomycosis, brucellosis, neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, canine herpesvirus (Almberg

et al.

2010), canine coronavirus, viral papillomatosis, hookworm, tapeworm (

Echinococcus granulosus

) (Foreyt

et al.

2008, p. 1), lice, scaroptic mange, coccidiosis, and canine adenovirus/hepatitis have all been documented in wild gray wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be significant (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 419-429; Johnson 1995a, b, pp. 5-73, 1995b, pp. 5-49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214; Atkinson 2006, pp. 1-7; Almberg

et al.

2010, p. 3; Jimenez

et al.

2010a, p. 1123; 2010b, p. 332). Canid rabies caused local population declines in Alaska (Ballard and Krausman 1997, p. 242), and may temporarily limit population growth or distribution where another species, such as arctic foxes (

Alopex lagopus

), act as a reservoir for the disease. We have not detected rabies in NRM wolves. Range expansion could provide new avenues for exposure to several of these diseases, especially canine heartworm, rabies, bovine tuberculosis, and possibly new diseases such as chronic wasting disease and West Nile virus, further emphasizing the need for vigilant disease monitoring programs.

Because several of the diseases and parasites are known to be spread by wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence may increase if wolf densities increase. However, because wolf densities are already high and may be peaking (Service

et al.

2011, Table 1, Figure 1), wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely lead to a continuing increase in disease prevalence. The wolves' exposure to these types of organisms may be most common outside of the core population areas, where domestic dogs are most common, and lowest in the core population areas—because wolves tend to flow out of, not into, saturated habitats. Despite this dynamic, most Wyoming and GYA wolves will continue to have exposure to most diseases and parasites in the system. Diseases or parasites have not been a significant threat to wolf population recovery to date, and we have no reason to believe that they will become a significant threat to the viability of GYA and Wyoming populations in the foreseeable future.

In terms of future disease monitoring, States have committed to monitor the NRM wolf population for significant disease and parasite problems. State wildlife health programs often cooperate with Federal agencies and universities and usually have both reactive and proactive wildlife health monitoring protocols. Reactive strategies consist of periodic intensive investigations after disease or parasite problems have been detected through routine management practices, such as pelt examination, reports from hunters, research projects, or population monitoring. Proactive strategies often involve ongoing routine investigation of wildlife health information through collection and analysis of blood and tissue samples from all or a sub-sample of wildlife carcasses or live animals that are handled. We do not believe that diseases or changes in disease monitoring will threaten recovered wolf populations in the GYA or State of Wyoming.

Natural Predation

—No wild animals routinely prey on gray wolves (Ballard

et al.

2003, pp. 259-260). From 1982 to 2004, about 3.1 percent of all known wolf morality in the NRM DPS resulted from interspecific strife (Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2519). Occasionally wolves have been killed by large prey such as elk, deer, bison, and moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, p. 207; Smith

et al.

2006, p. 247; Mech and Peterson 2003, p. 134), but those instances are few. Since the 1980s, about a dozen NRM wolves have died from wounds received while attacking prey (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 247). That level of natural mortality does not significantly affect wolf population viability or stability. Since NRM wolves have been monitored, only a few wolves have been confirmed killed by other large predators. At least two adults were killed by mountain lions, and one pup was killed by a grizzly bear (Jimenez

et al.

2009, p. 76). Wolves in the NRM region inhabit the same areas as mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears, but conflicts rarely result in the death of either species. Wolves evolved with other large predators, and no other large predators in North America, except humans, have the potential to significantly impact wolf populations.

Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation among wolves. Numerous mortalities have resulted from territorial conflicts between wolves, and about 3 percent of wolf deaths are caused by territorial conflict in the NRM wolf population (Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2519). Wherever wolf packs occur, including the NRM DPS, some low level of wolf mortality will result from territorial conflict. Wolf populations tend to regulate their own densities; consequently, territorial conflict is highest in saturated habitats like YNP. This cause of mortality is infrequent except at carrying-capacity and does not result in a level of mortality that would significantly affect a wolf population's viability in Wyoming, the GYA, or the NRM DPS.

Human-caused Predation

—This section discusses all sources of human-

caused mortality except hunter harvest and trapping. Hunting and trapping are discussed in the “Commercial and Recreational Uses” section of Factor B above. Potential impacts of human-caused mortality to natural connectivity and gene flow are discussed in the “Genetic Considerations” section of Factor E below.

Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. For example, some wolves are killed to resolve conflicts with livestock (Fritts

et al.

2003, p. 310; Woodroffe

et al.

2005, pp. 86-107, pp. 345-347). Occasionally, wolf killings are accidental (

e.g.,

wolves are hit by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, or caught in traps set for other animals) (Bangs

et al.

2005, p. 346). Other wolf killings are intentional, illegal, and are never reported to authorities. A few wolves have been killed by people who stated that they believed their physical safety was being threatened. The overall NRM wolf mortality rate of 26 percent since reintroduction is comprised of: Illegal kills (10 percent), control actions to resolve conflicts (10 percent), natural causes including disease/parasites and intraspecific strife (3 percent), and accidental human causes such as vehicle collisions and capture mortality (3 percent). Eighty percent of the overall NRM wolf mortalities are human-caused (Murray

et al.

2010; Smith

et al.

2010; USFWS et al. 2011, p. 7). While human-caused mortality, including both illegal killing and agency control, has not prevented population recovery, it has affected NRM wolf distribution (Bangs

et al.

2004, p. 93) preventing successful pack establishment and persistence in open prairie or high desert habitats (Bangs

et al.

1998, p. 788; Bangs

et al.

2009, p. 107; Service

et al.

1989-2011, Figure 1).

Wolf populations can maintain themselves despite very high sustained human-caused mortality rates of 22 to greater than 50 percent (Keith 1983; Ballard

et al.

1987; Fuller 1989; Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 182-184; Creel and Rotella 2010). Mortality rates and population growth rates reported from 2007 to 2010 indicate that the wolf population in Wyoming outside YNP can sustain, on average, a 36 percent mortality rate from human causes (WGFC 2011, p. 12). When populations are maintained below carrying capacity and natural mortality rates and self-regulation of the population remain low, human-caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of natural mortality (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 186). Wolf pups can also be successfully raised by other pack members (Boyd and Jimenez 1994), and breeding individuals can be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd

et al.

2008, p. 89), which can serve to mitigate the impacts of human-caused mortality. Collectively, these factors indicate that wolf populations are quite resilient to moderate human-caused mortality, if it is adequately regulated.

As part of the interagency wolf monitoring program and various research projects, over 20 percent of the NRM wolf population has been monitored since the 1980s (Smith

et al.

2010, p. 620; Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2514). From 1984 through 2004, annual adult survival averaged about 75 percent, which typically allows wolf population growth (Hensey and Fuller 1983, p. 1; Keith 1983, p. 66; Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 182; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 620; Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2514). Wolves in the largest blocks of remote habitat without livestock, such as central Idaho or YNP, had annual survival rates around 80 percent (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 245; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 620). Wolves outside of large remote areas had survival rates as low as 54 percent in some years (Smith

et al.

2006, p. 245; Smith

et al.

2010, p. 626). The highest mortality rates are localized in areas we consider largely unsuitable for pack persistence.

Wolf mortality resulting from control of problem wolves, which includes legal take by private individuals under defense of property regulations, was estimated to remove an average of 10 percent of adult radio-collared wolves annually since reintroduction, but that rate has steadily increased as the wolf population has expanded beyond suitable habitat and caused increased conflicts with livestock (USFWS

et al.

2011, Table 4, 5). Defense of property take, authorized by experimental population rules (Service 1994, pp. 2:13-14; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)), makes up a small percentage of these control actions. Specifically, such take represented about 7 percent of problem wolves legally removed from 1995 to 2010 and about 9 percent of such removals from 2008 to 2010. In spite of these mortality rates, wolf numbers increased at a rate of about 24 percent annually 1995-2008 (the period when the population was presumed below carrying capacity). Since 2008, the NRM population has largely stabilized.

After delisting, human-caused mortality, and its authorization or regulation, will differ in various parts of Wyoming. In total, wolves will be permanently managed as game animals or protected (

e.g.,

in National Parks) in about 40,000 km

2

(15,400 mi

2

) in northwestern Wyoming (15.7 percent of Wyoming), including YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent public and private lands, the National Elk Refuge, and the Wind River Indian Reservation. This area is of sufficient size to support Wyoming population targets, under the management regime proposed for this area.

Wolves will be managed as trophy game animals within the area of northwestern Wyoming identified as the WTGMA (see Figure 3). “Trophy game” status allows the WGFC and WGFD to regulate methods of take, hunting seasons, types of allowed take, and numbers of wolves that could be killed. The boundary and size of the WTGMA will be established by State statute and cannot be diminished through WGFC rule or regulation.

The WTGMA will be seasonally expanded approximately 80 km (50 mi) south (see Figure 3) from October 15 to the last day of February (28th or 29th) to facilitate natural dispersal of wolves between Wyoming and Idaho. During this timeframe, the trophy game area will be expanded by approximately 3,300 km

2

(1,300 mi

2

) (

i.e.,

an additional 1.3 percent of Wyoming). Management within the WTGMA is described below, followed by management in other portions of Wyoming.

After delisting, Wyoming will allow property owners inside the WTGMA to immediately kill a wolf doing damage to private property (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 4, 22, 30-31, 32). WGFC regulation defines “doing damage to private property” as “the actual biting, wounding, grasping, or killing of livestock or domesticated animal, or chasing, molesting, or harassing by gray wolves that would indicate to a reasonable person that such biting, wounding, grasping, or killing of domesticated animals is likely to occur at any moment” (WGFC 2011, pp. 22, 60). These regulations will define “owner” as “the owner, lessee, immediate family, employee, or other person who is charged by the owner with the care or management of livestock or domesticated animals” (WGFC 2011, p. 22). Wolves killed under authority of this regulation shall be reported to a WGFD representative within 72 hours (WGFC 2011, pp. 22, 31). These regulations are similar to the experimental population rules in place in Montana and Idaho after the population achieved recovery levels (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)). While in place in Montana and Idaho, these rules were sufficiently protective

to allow continued population expansion (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). We conclude that these rules will not compromise the State of Wyoming's ability to meet the agreed-upon population objectives (at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves outside YNP and sovereign tribal lands) assuming the State manages for an adequate buffer above these minimum levels as Wyoming intends to do (WGFC 2011, p. 24).

Additionally, the WGFD may issue “lethal take permits” authorizing property owners to kill not more than two wolves in areas experiencing chronic wolf depredation within the WTGMA (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23). The Wyoming wolf plan defines “chronic wolf depredation” as “a geographic area limited to a specific parcel of private land or a specific grazing allotment described on the permit within the WTGMA where gray wolves have repeatedly (twice or more within a 2-month period immediately preceding the date on which the owner applies for a lethal take permit) harassed, injured, maimed or killed livestock or domesticated animals” (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23, 60). Wolves killed under the authority of a lethal take permit shall be reported to the WGFD representative specified on the permit within 24 hours (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 22-23). Lethal take permits shall expire 45 days after the date they are issued, but will be renewable for up to a year if wolf conflicts persist (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23, 32). Depending upon population levels, Wyoming can suspend or cancel existing lethal take permits or halt issuance of new lethal take permits (WGFC 2011, pp. 22-23, 32). These regulations are similar to the experimental population rules in place in Montana and Idaho after the population achieved recovery levels (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)). While in place in Montana and Idaho, these rules were sufficiently protective to allow continued population expansion (Service

et al.

2011, Table 4). Additionally, we employed a similar approach on private lands in Wyoming, but not on public lands, and this was sufficiently protective to allow for continued population growth of Wyoming's wolf population outside YNP (Service

et al.

2002-2011, Table 2a; Service

et al.

2011, Figure 2 in Wyoming chapter).

Some other minor sources of human-caused predation may also occur inside the WTGMA. For example, accidental mortality sometimes occurs from such sources as vehicle collisions. Because these types of mortalities are rare and have little impact on wolf populations, they were authorized by our experimental population rule with little to no impact on wolf populations. Take in self-defense or defense of others is also exceedingly rare, and is expected to remain rare post-delisting. We expect take from these sources will remain rare post-delisting with little impact on the wolf population.

While wolves were listed, illegal killing removed an estimated 10 percent of the population annually. Following our previous delisting, there was no indication that illegal mortality levels changed from those occurring while wolves were delisted. After delisting, WGFD law enforcement personnel will investigate all wolves killed outside the framework established by State statute and WGFC regulation, and appropriate law enforcement and legal action will be taken. We expect illegal killing will continue at current levels post-delisting.

Within the WTGMA, WGFD may also control wolves when they determine a wild ungulate herd is experiencing unacceptable impacts or to address wolf-ungulate conflicts at State-operated elk feedgrounds (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, 39-41). Wolf control to address unacceptable impacts to wild ungulates requires a determination that wolf predation is a significant factor in the population or herd not meeting the State population management goals or recruitment levels established for the population or herd (WGFC 2011, pp. 5, 39-41). All of Wyoming's 35 elk management units are at or above the State's numeric objectives for those herds; however, calf/cow ratios in several herd units are below desired levels (WGFD 2010, p. 1). Five of the State's ten moose herds are below objectives (WGFD unpublished data). Although Wyoming has not yet put forward any proposals to control wolves to address unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds, such take is possible. WGFD may also take wolves that displace elk from feedgrounds in the WTGMA if it results in one of the following conflicts: (1) Damage to private stored crops; (2) elk commingling with domestic livestock; or (3) d

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