Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073; FXES11130900000C2-134-FF09E32000]

RIN 1018-AY00

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Maintaining Protections for the Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) by Listing It as Endangered

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTIONS:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) evaluated the classification status of gray wolves (

Canis lupus

) currently listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our evaluation, we propose to remove the gray wolf from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife but to maintain endangered status for the Mexican wolf by listing it as a subspecies (

Canis lupus baileyi

). We propose these actions because the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the currently listed entity is not a valid species under the Act and that the Mexican wolf (

C. l. baileyi

) is an endangered subspecies.

In addition, we recognize recent taxonomic information indicating that the gray wolf subspecies,

Canis lupus lycaon,

which occurs in southeastern Canada and historically occurred in the northeastern United States and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) United States, should be recognized as a separate species,

Canis lycaon

. This proposed rule also constitutes the completion of a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest initiated on May 5, 2011.

Finally, this proposed rule replaces our May 5, 2011, proposed action to remove protections for

C. lupus

in all or portions of 29 eastern states (76 FR 26086).

DATES:

Comment submission:

We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before September 11, 2013.

Public hearings:

We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

by July 29, 2013.

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 Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Please ensure you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of

http://regulations.gov,

as it is most compatible with our comment-review procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. Submissions of electronic comments on our Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf, which also published in today's

Federal Register

, should be submitted to Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056 using the method described above.

(2)

By hard copy:

Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, Virginia 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 the Public Comments section below for more information). Submissions of hard copy comments on our Proposed Revision to the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf, which also published in today's

Federal Register

should be addressed to Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056 using the method described above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Headquarters Office, Ecological Services; telephone (703) 358-2171. Direct all questions or requests for additional information to: GRAY WOLF QUESTIONS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, Endangered Species Program, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

This document contains a proposed rule to remove the current listing for gray wolf,

Canis lupus,

from the List of Endangered Wildlife and Threatened (List) and add an endangered listing for the Mexican wolf,

Canis lupus baileyi

. The evaluations that are included in this proposed rule are summarized in Table 1. While later in this document we discuss our recognition of

Canis lycaon

as a separate species based on recent taxonomic information, we have not completed a status review on this species to date and, therefore, do not include it in this table.

Table 1—Summary of Proposed Rule Analyses and Results

Unit of assessment

Description

Valid listable

entity?

Determination

Canis lupus

current listed entity—all or portions of 42 States and Mexico

no

Delist.

Canis lupus

species—rangewide

yes

Listing not warranted.

Canis lupus nubilus

subspecies—rangewide

yes

Listing not warranted.

Canis lupus occidentalis

subspecies—rangewide

yes

Listing not warranted.

Canis lupus baileyi

subspecies—rangewide

yes

List as endangered.

C. lupus

in Pacific Northwest

Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northern California

no

Not a listable entity.

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This proposed rulemaking is intended to ensure the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife reflects the most current scientific and commercial information with respect to the status of

C. lupus

and any subspecies and potential distinct population segments of

C. lupus

in the contiguous United States. After a thorough evaluation of the best available science we have determined that, with the exception of Mexican wolves (from here on referred to by the scientific name,

Canis lupus

baileyi

),

C. lupus

and

C. lupus

subspecies in the contiguous United States do not warrant listing under the Act. This evaluation was based on new data that has become available since the original listing, including new information on

C. lupus

taxonomy (Chambers

et al.

2012 and Rutledge

et al.

2012).

Canis lupus baileyi

continues to warrant endangered status under the Act.

Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

This proposed action is authorized by the Act. We are proposing to amend § 17.11(h), subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing the entries for “Wolf, gray” under MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and adding entries for “Wolf, Mexican” in alphabetic order.

Costs and Benefits

We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the status of the subject species.

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used

We use several acronyms and abbreviations throughout the preamble of this proposed rule. To assist the reader, we list them here:

Act Endangered Species Act 0f 1973, as amended

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

APA Administrative Procedure Act

BRWRA Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area

CDV Canine distemper virus

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada

CPV Canine parvovirus

DPS distinct population segment

ESA Endangered Species Act

FR Federal Register

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LEOs Law Enforcement Officers

List Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

MWEPA Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area

NRM Northern Rocky Mountain

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORS Oregon Code of Regulations

PARC Predator and Rodent Control

RCW Revised Code of Washington

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SNP single-nucleotide polymorphisms

SPR significant portion of its range

SSP Species Survival Plan

UBI Ungulate Biomass Index

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WGL Western Great Lakes

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. In particular, we are seeking targeted information and comments on our proposed removal of

C. lupus

from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and addition of

C. l. baileyi

as an endangered subspecies. We also seek comment on the following categories of information.

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant information concerning our analysis of the current

C. lupus

listed entity and the adequacy of the approach taken in this analysis, with particular respect to our interpretation of the term “population” as it relates to the 1996 Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and specifically to gray wolves.

(2) Information concerning the genetics and taxonomy of the eastern wolf,

Canis lycaon

.

(3) Information concerning the status of the gray wolf in the Pacific Northwest United States and the following gray wolf subspecies:

Canis lupus nubilus, Canis lupus occidentalis,

and

C. l. baileyi,

including:

(a) Genetics and taxonomy;

(b) New information concerning range, distribution, population size, and population trends;

(c) New biological or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to these subspecies, their habitat, or both; and

(d) New information regarding conservation measures for these populations, their habitat, or both.

As this proposal is intended to replace our May 5, 2011, proposal to remove protections for

C. lupus

in all or portions of 29 eastern contiguous states (76 FR 26086), we ask that any comments previously submitted that may be relevant to the proposal presented in this rule be resubmitted at this time.

You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in

ADDRESSES

. We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in

ADDRESSES

. Comments must be submitted to

http://www.regulations.gov

before midnight (Eastern Daylight Time) on the date specified in

DATES

. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in

DATES

.

We will post your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—on

http://www.regulations.gov

. If you provide personal identifying information, such as your street address, phone number, or email address, 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.

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

http://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0073, or by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, Endangered Species Program, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203.

Public Hearings

In accordance with Section 4(b)(5) of the Act, we intend to hold public hearings on the proposal prior to the close of the public comment period. The dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, will be presented subsequently in the

Federal Register

and local newspapers at least 15 days before any such hearings.

Peer Review

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

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data,

assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on our proposed actions.

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

Previous Federal Actions

Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional populations of subspecies in the contiguous United States and Mexico. In 1967, we listed

C. l. lycaon

in the Great Lakes region (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967), and in 1973 we listed

C. l. irremotus

in the northern Rocky Mountains (38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973). Both listings were promulgated under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969; subsequently, on January 4, 1974, these subspecies were listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (39 FR 1171). We listed a third gray wolf subspecies,

C. l. baileyi,

as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17736), in the southwestern United States and Mexico. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed a fourth gray wolf subspecies,

C. l. monstrabilis,

as endangered in Texas and Mexico.

In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) reclassifying the gray wolf as an endangered population at the species level (

C. lupus

) throughout the contiguous United States and Mexico, except for the Minnesota gray wolf population, which was classified as threatened. At that time, we considered the gray wolf group in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the Act, and we considered the gray wolf group in Mexico and the 48 contiguous United States other than Minnesota to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). The separate subspecies listings thus were subsumed into the listings for the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the rest of the contiguous United States and Mexico. In that 1978 rule, we also identified critical habitat in Michigan and Minnesota and promulgated special regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for operating a wolf management program in Minnesota. The special regulation was later modified (50 FR 50793, December 12, 1985).

The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to “most conveniently” handle a listing that needed to be revised because of changes in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy, and in recognition of the fact that individual wolves sometimes cross subspecific boundaries. In addition, we sought to clarify that the gray wolf was only listed south of the Canadian border. However, the 1978 rule also stipulated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities” (43 FR 9609), and offered “the firmest assurance that [the Service] will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of its research and conservation programs” (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, we implemented three gray wolf recovery programs in the following regions of the country: the Western Great Lakes (Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, administered by the Service's Great Lakes, Big Rivers Region), the Northern Rocky Mountains (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, administered by the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region and Pacific Region), and the Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Mexico, administered by the Service's Southwest Region). Recovery plans were developed in each of these areas (the northern Rocky Mountains in 1980, revised in 1987; the Great Lakes in 1978, revised in 1992; and the Southwest in 1982, the revision of which is now underway) to establish and prioritize recovery criteria and actions appropriate to the unique local circumstances of the gray wolf. A separate recovery effort for gray wolves formerly listed as

C. l. monstrabilis

was not undertaken because this subspecies was subsumed with

C. l. baileyi

and thus addressed as part of the recovery plan for the Southwest.

Between 2003 and 2009 we published several rules revising the 1978 contiguous United States and Mexico listing for

C. lupus

in an attempt to recognize the biological recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain and western Great Lakes populations but leave the gray wolf in the southwestern United States and Mexico listed as endangered (except for the nonessential experimental population in Arizona and New Mexico) (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070 and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). However, each of these revisions was challenged in court. As a result of court orders (

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);

Humane Society of the United States

v.

Kempthorne,

579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2008)) and, in one case, a settlement agreement (

Humane Society of the United States

v.

Salazar,

1:09-CV-1092-PLF (D.D.C.)), by the spring of 2010 the listing for

C. lupus

in 50 CFR 17.11 remained unchanged from the reclassification that occurred in 1978 except for the addition of the three experimental populations (Yellowstone Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), and the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998)). For additional information on these Federal actions and their associated litigation history refer to the relevant associated rules (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15070; and 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) or the Previous Federal Actions sections of our recent gray wolf actions (76 FR 61782, October 5, 2011; 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).

In the northern Rocky Mountains, on May 5, 2011, we published a final rule that implemented Section 1713 of Public Law 112-10, reinstating our April 2, 2009, delisting rule which identified the Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment (DPS) and, with the exception of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in the DPS from the List (76 FR 25590). Although gray wolves in Wyoming were not included in the May 5, 2011, final delisting, we have since finalized the removal of gray wolves in Wyoming from the List (77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012).

In the western Great Lakes, on May 5, 2011, we also published a proposed rule to revise the List for

C. lupus

in the eastern United States (76 FR 26086). This proposal included (1) revising the 1978 listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves, identifying it as the Western Great Lakes (WGL) DPS (the DPS includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan and portions of the adjacent states), and removing that WGL DPS from the List, and (2) revising the range of the gray wolf (the species

C. lupus

) by removing all or parts of 29 eastern states that we recognized were not part of the historical range of the gray wolf.

On December 28, 2011, we published a final rule that revised the listing of the Minnesota population of gray wolves, identified it as part of the WGL DPS, and removed the DPS from the List (76 FR 81666). We also notified the public that we had separated our determination on the delisting of the WGL DPS from

the determination on our proposal regarding all or portions of the 29 eastern states we considered to be outside the historical range of the gray wolf and stated that a subsequent decision would be made for the rest of the eastern United States.

In the southwest, on August 11, 2009, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that we list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies or DPS and designate critical habitat under the Act. On August 12, 2009, we received a petition dated August 10, 2009, from WildEarth Guardians and The Rewilding Institute requesting that we list the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies and designate critical habitat under the Act. On October 9, 2012, we published a 12-month finding in the

Federal Register

stating that, because all individuals that constitute the petitioned entity already receive the protections of the Act, the petitioned action was not warranted at that time (77 FR 61375).

As a result of the actions described above, the current

C. lupus

listed entity now includes all or portions of 42 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, and West Virginia; those portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas not included in the experimental population, and portions of Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington), and Mexico (Figure 1).

EP13JN13.000

On February 29, 2012, we concluded a 5-year review of the

C. lupus

listed entity, recommending that the entity currently described on the List should be revised to reflect the distribution and status of

C. lupus

populations in the contiguous United States and Mexico by removing all areas currently included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) range except where there is a valid species, subspecies, or DPS that is threatened or endangered.

National Wolf Strategy

We first described our national wolf strategy in our May 5, 2011, proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf in the eastern United States (76 FR 26086). This strategy was intended to: (1) Lay out a cohesive and coherent approach to addressing wolf conservation needs, including protection and management, in accordance with the Act's statutory framework; (2) ensure that actions taken for one wolf population do not cause unintended consequences for other populations; and (3) be explicit about the role of historical range in the conservation of extant wolf populations.

The strategy is based on three precepts. First, to qualify for listing, wolf entities must conform to the Act's definition of “species,” whether as taxonomic species or subspecies or as DPSs. Second, the strategy promotes the continued representation of all substantially unique genetic lineages of gray wolves found historically in the

contiguous United States. Third, wolf conservation under the Act is concerned with reducing extinction risk to imperiled species, subspecies, or valid DPSs. The May 5, 2011, proposed rule further stated that our strategy focused on conservation of four extant gray wolf populations: (1) The WGL population, (2) the NRM population, (3) the southwestern population of Mexican wolves, and (4) a potential population of gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest.

All of our actions to date are consistent with this focus. As stated above (see Previous Federal Actions), we published final rules delisting the NRM DPS, except for Wyoming, on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590), and the WGL DPS on December 28, 2011 (76 FR 81666). On September 10, 2012, we published a final rule delisting the Wyoming portion of the NRM DPS (77 FR 55530).

We have completed our evaluation of the status of gray wolves currently occupying portions of the Pacific Northwest, and our assessment to determine if they qualify for Listing under the Act is presented in this proposed rule. The status of the southwestern population (

i.e., C. l. baileyi

) was reviewed pursuant to our 90-day finding on two listing petitions (75 FR 46894, August 4, 2010). We published a not warranted 12-month finding on October 9, 2012 (77 FR 61375). However, in that finding we stated that we could not, consistent with the requirements of the Act, take any action that would remove the protections accruing to the southwestern population under the existing

C. lupus

listing without first determining whether the southwestern population warranted listing separately as a subspecies or a DPS, and, if so, putting a separate listing in place (77 FR 61377, October 9, 2012). Therefore, because we are now proposing to remove protections for the current

C. lupus

listed entity, we must reconsider listing the southwestern population as a subspecies or DPS, and we present our analysis and determination regarding that matter in this proposed rule.

Our national wolf strategy also addresses the two other wolf taxa that fall within the range described for

C. lupus

in the 1978 reclassification, the eastern wolf (

C. lycaon

) and the red wolf (

Canis rufus

). Consistent with our current understanding of

C. lycaon

taxonomy and the historical range of

C. lupus,

our proposal to remove the current

C. lupus

entity from the List addresses the error of continuing to include all or parts of 29 eastern states in the current

C. lupus

listing. For a complete discussion of this issue, see Taxonomy section below. With respect to the status of

C. lycaon,

our analysis is ongoing (see

C. lycaon

section below). With regard to

C. rufus,

red wolves currently are listed as endangered where found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967); the red wolf listing is not affected by this proposal, and recovery efforts for red wolves will continue (Red Wolf Recovery and Species Survival Plan; Service 1990).

Approach for This Proposed Rule

In this proposed rule we consider whether and to what extent gray wolves should be listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico. Our analysis begins with an evaluation of the current

C. lupus

listed entity (Figure 1), with a focus on current taxonomic information and statutory and policy requirements under the Act. Consistent with our 5-year review, we conclude that the current

C. lupus

listed entity is not a valid species under the Act and now propose to remove this entity from the List (see Evaluation of the Current

C. lupus

Listed Entity). However, our 5-year review further recommends that we consider whether there are any valid species, subspecies, or DPSs of gray wolf that are threatened or endangered in the contiguous United States and Mexico. Thus, in this rule we consider whether the current

C. lupus

listed entity is part of a valid species or includes any valid subspecies, or DPSs of gray wolf that warrant protections under the Act. Because we are considering whether protections need to remain in place for any of the gray wolves that are included in the current

C. lupus

listed entity, we are focusing our evaluation on valid listable entities (

i.e., C. lupus

and subspecies and potential DPSs of

C. lupus

) with ranges that are at least partially within the contiguous United States or Mexico. In this rule we also consider recent scientific information with respect to eastern wolf taxonomy. See Taxonomy section for detailed discussions of the subspecies we evaluate and the Service's position on eastern wolf taxonomy.

Species Information

Biology and Ecology

The biology and ecology of the gray wolf has been widely described in the scientific literature (

e.g.,

Mech 1970, Mech and Boitani 2003), in Service recovery plans (

e.g.,

Northern Rocky Mountain Recovery Plan (Service 1987) and Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Service 1992)), and in previous proposed and final rules (

e.g.,

68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 15266, March 27, 2006; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 75 FR 46894, August 4, 2010; and 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011). Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the Canidae, or dog family, with adults ranging from 18 to 80 kilograms (kg) (40 to 175 pounds (lb)), depending on sex and geographic locale (Mech 1974, p. 1). Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, Europe, and Asia. A recent genetic study found that gray wolves also occur in portions of North Africa (Rueness

et al.

2011, pp. 1-5; Gaubert

et al.

2012, pp. 3-7). In North America, wolves are primarily predators of medium and large mammals, such as moose (

Alces alces

), elk (

Cervus elaphus

), white-tailed deer (

Odocoileus virginianus

), mule deer (

Odocoileus hemionus

), caribou (

Rangifer tarandus

), muskox (

Ovibos moschatus

), bison (

Bison bison

), and beaver (

Castor canadensis

). Gray wolves have long legs that are well adapted to running, allowing them to move fast and travel far in search of food (Mech 1970, p. 13), and large skulls and jaws, well suited to catching and feeding on large mammals (Mech 1970, p. 14). Wolves also have keen senses of smell, hearing, and vision, which they use to detect prey and one another (Mech 1970, p. 15). Pelt color varies in wolves more than in almost any other species, from white, to grizzled gray, brown, to coal black (Mech 1970, p. 16).

Wolves share an evolutionary history with other mammalian carnivores (Order Carnivora), or meat eaters, which are distinguished by their long, pointed canine teeth, sharp sheering fourth upper premolars and first lower molars, simple digestive system, sharp claws, and highly developed brains (Mech 1970, pp. 20-21). Divergence among the ancestral mammalian carnivores began 40 to 50 million years ago (Mech 1970, p. 21), and at some point during the late Miocene Epoch (between 4.5 to 9 million years ago) the first species of the genus

Canis

arose, the forerunner of all modern wolves, coyotes (

Canis latrans

), and domestic dogs (

Canis familiaris

) (Nowak 2003, p. 241). The lineage of wolves and coyotes diverged between 1.8 to 2.5 million years ago (Nowak 2003, p. 241). Domestication of wolves led to all modern domestic dog breeds and probably started somewhere between 135,000 to 13,000 years ago (reviewed by Honeycutt 2010, p. 3).

Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals and group hunters, normally living in packs of 7 or less, but sometimes attaining pack sizes of 20 or more wolves (Mech 1970, pp. 38-40; Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 8, 19). Packs are family groups consisting of a

breeding pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from the previous year, and occasionally an unrelated wolf (Mech 1970, p. 45; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 2). Normally, only the top-ranking male and female in each pack breed and produce pups, although sometimes maturing wolves within a pack will also breed with members of the pack or through liaisons with members of other packs (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 3). Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may produce young annually until they are over 10 years old. Litters are born from early April into May and can range from 1 to 11 pups, but generally include 5 to 6 pups (Mech 1970, p. 119; Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 176). Normally a pack has a single litter annually, but 2 litters from different females in a single pack have been reported, and in one instance 3 litters in a single pack were documented (reviewed by Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 175). Offspring usually remain with their parents for 10-54 months before dispersing, meaning that packs may include the offspring from up to 4 breeding seasons (reviewed by Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 2).

Packs typically occupy and defend a territory of 33 to more than 2,600 square kilometers (sq km) (13 to more than 1,016 square miles (sq mi)), with territories tending to be smaller at lower latitudes (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 21-22; Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 172-175). The large variability in territory size is likely due to differences in pack size; prey size, distribution, and availability; population lags in response to changes in prey abundance; and variation in prey vulnerability (

e.g.,

seasonal age structure in ungulates) (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 21-22).

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. Wolf populations have been shown to increase rapidly if the source of mortality is reduced after severe declines (Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 181-183; Service

et al.

2012, Table 4).

A wolf pack will generally maintain its territory as long as the breeding pair is not killed, and even if one member of the breeding pair is killed, the pack may hold its territory until a new mate arrives (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 28-29). If both members of the breeding pair are killed, the remaining members of the pack may disperse, starve, or remain in the territory until an unrelated dispersing wolf arrives and mates with one of the remaining pack members (Brainerd

et al.

2008, pp. 93-94, Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 28-29).

Yearling wolves frequently disperse, although some remain with their natal pack (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17). Dispersers may become nomadic and cover large areas as lone animals, or they may locate suitable unoccupied habitats and members of the opposite sex to establish their own territorial pack (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17). Dispersal distances in North America typically range from 65 to 154 km (40 to 96 miles) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1102), although dispersal distances of several hundred kilometers are occasionally reported (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1094, 1100; Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 14-15, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2011, p. 55). These dispersal movements allow a wolf population to quickly expand and colonize areas of suitable habitat that are nearby or even those that are separated by a broad area of unsuitable habitat.

Wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long as food supply (a function of both prey density and prey vulnerability), habitat, and regulation of human-caused mortality (Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 187-189; Creel and Rotella 2010, pp. 4-6) are adequate. In naturally occurring populations (in the absence of hunting), wolves are likely limited by a density-dependent, intrinsic regulatory mechanism (

e.g.,

social strife, territoriality, disease) when ungulate densities are high, and are limited by prey availability when ungulate densities are low (Carriappa

et al.

2011, p. 729). Where harvest occurs, high levels of reproduction and immigration can compensate for mortality rates of 17 to 48 percent ([Fuller

et al.

2003 +/- 8 percent], pp. 184-185; Adams

et al.

2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; Sparkman

et al.

2011 [25 percent], p. 5; Gude

et al.

2011 [48 percent], pp. 113-116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 percent]). Recent studies suggest the sustainable mortality rate may be lower, and that harvest may have a partially additive or even super additive effect (i.e., harvest increases total mortality beyond the effect of direct killing itself, through social disruption or the loss of dependent offspring) on wolf mortality (Murray

et al.

2010, p. 2514; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 6), but there is substantial debate on this issue (Gude

et al.

2012, pp. 113-116). 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).

Taxonomy

The taxonomy of the genus

Canis

has a complex and contentious history (for an overview of the taxonomic history of the genus

Canis

in North America, see Chambers

et al.

2012, pp. 16-22). The literature contains at least 31 published names for species or subspecies in the genus (Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 849; Chambers

et al.

2012, Table 1). Hall (1981) and Nowak (1995), who conducted the most recent comprehensive reviews based on morphology, both recognize two species of wolves,

C. lupus

and

C. rufus.

Hall (1981), however, recognized 27 subspecies (24 in North America) of

C. lupus

while Nowak (1995) recognized 14 subspecies (5 in North America) of

C. lupus.

More recently, the advance in molecular genetic capabilities has led to even greater controversy regarding interpretations of wolf taxonomy (Chambers

et al.

2012, pp. 4-5). Chambers

et al.

(2012) reviewed the available scientific literature to assess the taxonomic classification of wolves in North America. They believe the current literature supports recognition of three subspecies of gray wolf in North America (

C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis,

and

C. l. baileyi

) and is not definitive with regard to a potential fourth subspecies (

Canis lupus arctos

) of gray wolf in North America. Researchers continue to debate such questions as to the identity of the wolves in the Great Lakes (Wilson

et al.

2000, Leonard and Wayne 2008, Koblmüller

et al.

2009), the northern extent of

C. l. baileyi

historical (pre-1900s) range (Leonard

et al.

2005), whether wolves in the western United States are truly differentiated (for example, vonHoldt

et al.

2011 show little genetic separation between the purported

C. l. occidentalis

and

C. l. nubilus

), and the taxonomy of wolves in the Pacific coastal region (Munoz-Fuentes

et al.

2009, Weckworth

et al.

2011, pp. 5-6).

The lack of consensus among researchers on these issues prompted Chambers

et al.

(2012, entire) to conduct an evaluation and synthesis of the available scientific literature related to the taxonomy of North American wolves to date. This is the only peer-reviewed synthesis of its kind conducted for North American wolves and summarizes and synthesizes the best available scientific information on the issue. Chambers

et al.

(2012, entire)

employed the general concordance approach of Avise (2004, entire) to recognize subspecies. The nature of available data does not permit the application of many traditional subspecies criteria (

i.e.,

75-percent rule, Mayr 1963, p. 348; 1969, p. 190; 90 percent separation rule, Patten and Unitt, 2002, p. 27; reciprocal monophyly, Zink 2004, entire). The Avise (2004, entire) method is the most applicable to the disparate data sets available on wolves, and evaluates concordance in patterns from measures of divergence from morphology and various genetic marker systems.

While many experts reject the recognition of subspecies due to the often arbitrary nature of the division of intraspecific variation along lines across which entities may freely move and interbreed, the Act is explicit that threatened or endangered subspecies are to be protected. Given the available data, we accept the conclusions of Chambers

et al.

(2012) regarding taxonomic subdivisions, including species and subspecies, of North American wolves and approximate historical ranges, and use them to inform this rule. This is consistent with Service regulations that require us to rely on standard taxonomic distinctions and the biological expertise of the Department of the Interior and the scientific community concerning the relevant taxonomic group (50 CFR 424.11). Even recognizing continued uncertainty on a number of specific issues (

e.g.,

the issues of continued debate noted above), we believe Chambers

et al.

(2012) is reflective of this standard. However, it should be noted that, while we accept the conclusions of Chambers

et al.

(2012) for use in this analysis,

Canis

taxonomy has long been complicated and continuously evolves with new data. Therefore, we do not view this issue as “resolved,” and we fully expect that

Canis

taxonomy will continue to be debated for years if not decades to come, and scientific opinion on what represents the current best available science could well shift over time.

Wolf Species of the Contiguous United States and Mexico

Our review of the best available taxonomic information indicates that

C. lupus

did not historically occupy large portions of the eastern United States: That is, the northeastern United States and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) were occupied by the eastern wolf (

C. lycaon

), now considered a separate species of

Canis

rather than a subspecies of

C. lupus,

and the southeastern United States was occupied by the red wolf

(C. rufus)

rather than the gray wolf.

At the time the gray wolf was listed in 1978, and until the molecular genetics studies of the last few years, the range of the gray wolf prior to European settlement was generally believed to include most of North America. The only areas believed to have lacked gray wolf populations were the coastal and interior portions of California, the arid deserts and mountaintops of the western United States, and parts of the eastern and southeastern United States (Young and Goldman 1944, Hall 1981, Mech 1974, and Nowak 1995). However, some authorities have questioned the reported historical absence of gray wolves in parts of California (Carbyn

in litt.

2000, Mech

in litt.

2000).

Furthermore, we note long-held differences of opinion regarding the extent of the gray wolf's historical range in the eastern and southeastern United States. Some researchers regarded Georgia's southeastern corner as the southern extent of gray wolf range (Young and Goldman 1944, Mech 1974); others believed gray wolves did not extend into the Southeast at all (Hall 1981) or did so to a limited extent, primarily at somewhat higher elevations (Nowak 1995). The southeastern and mid-Atlantic states were generally recognized as being within the historical range of the red wolf

(C. rufus),

and it is not known how much range overlap historically occurred between these two

Canis

species. Morphological work by Nowak (2000, 2002, 2003) supported extending the historical range of the red wolf into southern New England or even farther northward, indicating either that the historical range of the gray wolf in the eastern United States was more limited than previously believed, or that the respective ranges of several wolf species expanded and contracted in the eastern and northeastern United States, intermingling in postglacial times along contact zones.

The results of recent molecular genetic analyses (

e.g.,

Wilson

et al.

2000, Wilson

et al.

2003, Wheeldon and White 2009, Wilson

et al.

2009, Fain

et al.

2010, Wheeldon

et al.

2010, Rutledge

et al.

2012) and morphometric studies (

e.g.,

Nowak 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003) explain some of the past difficulties in describing the gray wolf's range in the eastern United States. These studies show that the mid-Atlantic and southeastern states historically were occupied by the red wolf

(C. rufus)

and that the Northeast and portions of the upper Midwest (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) historically were occupied by

C. lycaon;

they also indicate that the gray wolf

(C. lupus)

did not occur in the eastern United States.

Based on these recent studies, we view the historical range of the gray wolf in the contiguous United States as the central and western United States, including portions of the western Great Lakes region, the Great Plains, portions of the Rocky Mountains, the Intermountain West, the Pacific states, and portions of the Southwest.

In sum, we now recognize three wolf species with ranges in the contiguous United States:

C. lupus, C. lycaon,

and

C. rufus.

Gray Wolf Subspecies of the Contiguous United States and Mexico

Within

C. lupus,

individuals are generally similar with some small differences in the details of morphology, average body mass, and genetic lineage, as might be expected in a widespread species with geographic barriers that restrict or temporarily inhibit gene flow (Nowak 2003, p. 244). A number of taxonomists have attempted to describe and organize this variation by designating subspecies of gray wolf (reviewed by Nowak 2003, pp. 244-245). As stated above, gray wolf taxonomy at the subspecific level has long been debated with evolving views on the validity of various subspecies. Generally, the trend in gray wolf taxonomy has been toward subsuming subspecies, resulting in fewer recognized subspecies over time (Young and Goldman 1944, pp. 413-415; Hall 1981, p. 76; Mech 1974, p. 1-6; Nowak 1995, pp. 375-397, Figure 20; vonHoldt

et al.

2011, pp. 7-10; Chambers

et al.

2012, Figures 1-3). Because of questions about the validity of some of the originally listed subspecies, the 1978 final rule (43 FR 9607; March 9, 1978) reclassified all gray wolves in the contiguous United States and Mexico, except for those in Minnesota, into a single listed entity. However, the 1978 rule also stipulated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities” (43 FR 9609), and offered “the firmest assurance that [the Service] will continue to recognize valid biological subspecies for purposes of its research and conservation programs” (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978).

Due to the complicated taxonomy of the genus

Canis

and the fact that some subspecies of gray wolves are more strongly supported in the scientific literature than others, it is important to be explicit about what taxonomic entities we are considering in this evaluation. As stated above, for the purposes of this rulemaking, we are considering the conservation status of

the gray wolf,

C. lupus,

and those purported subspecies with described historical ranges at least partially within the contiguous United States. We are taking this approach in an effort to thoroughly consider what

C. lupus

listing(s) that include gray wolves in portions of the contiguous United States and Mexico, if any, would be appropriate if the existing listing were removed. In this rule we follow Chambers'

et al.

(2012) interpretation of available scientific literature, and are thus considering the following three subspecies, with the following approximate historical ranges, in our analysis: (1)

C. lupus baileyi,

which occupies the southwestern United States and Mexico; (2)

C. lupus occidentalis,

which occurs throughout west-central Canada, Alaska (except coastal southeast Alaska), and the NRM region; and (3)

C. lupus nubilus,

which occurs throughout central Canada and into northern Ontario and Quebec, in the Pacific Northwest (including coastal British Columbia, and southeast Alaska), and in the WGL region and historically occurred in the Great Plains states of the United States.

The taxonomic synthesis by Chambers

et al.

(2012, p. 42) includes a general evolutionary interpretation of the conclusions of their review in the context of the evolutionary history of modern North American

Canis.

This evolutionary scenario describes at least three separate invasions of North America by

C. lupus

from Eurasia to account for the patterns of genetic variation seen in extant North American wolves. The first of these North American invasions was by the ancestors of

C. l. baileyi,

followed by the ancestors of

C. l. nubilus,

which displaced

C. l. baileyi

in the northern part of its range. The final invasion was by

C. l. occidentalis,

which displaced

C. l. nubilus

in the northern part of its former range. Delineation of the extent of the historical range of these subspecies is difficult given the existence of zones of reproductive interaction, or intergradation, between neighboring gray wolf populations.

Zones of intergradation have long been a recognized characteristic of historical gray wolf distribution throughout their circumpolar distribution (Mech 1970, p. 223; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 372). As Chambers

et al.

(2012, p. 43) describe, “delineation of exact geographic boundaries presents challenges. Rather than sharp lines separating taxa, boundaries should generally be thought of as intergrade zones of variable width. These `fuzzy' boundaries are a consequence of lineages of wolves that evolved elsewhere coming into contact. Historical or modern boundaries should also not be viewed as static or frozen in any particular time. The hypothesized three wolf invasions that resulted in the current subspecific structure would have resulted in considerable movement of subspecies boundaries as newer invaders coopted territory once held by earlier invaders. We have no reason to believe that this process of geographic replacement had reached its conclusion prior to European contact, rather this process likely continued into the historic period. Our understanding of the historical interactions between subspecies or genetically different populations (e.g., Leonard

et al.

2005) is that they are dynamic processes and boundaries are in constant (and continuing) flux.”

We include details on the specific taxonomy of the three subspecies in our evaluations below.

Canis lupus nubilus

Say (1823) first defined

C. l. nubilus

based on wolves he observed in the central United States. Goldman's (1944) classification included a range map of 24 subspecies in North America, and described the distribution

of C. l. nubilus

as formerly Great Plains region from south-central Canada south to south-central United States. Earlier taxonomies had

C. l. nubilus

intergrading on the north with

occidentalis,

on the west with

irremotus

and

youngi,

on the east with

lycaon,

and on the south with

monstrabilis

(Goldman 1944, p. 442).

Goldman (1944, p. 414) recognized 23 subspecies of gray wolves in North America, with

C. l. fuscus,

or the Cascades Mountains wolf, occupying the Pacific Northwest. His recognition of

C. l. fuscus

was based on the examination of 28 specimens (skulls and skins) from the west coast of Canada south through the Pacific Northwest (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 458). Nowak later revised the subspecific classification of North American wolves based on examination of 580 wolf skulls (10 from the Pacific Northwest) and a multivariate statistical analysis of 10 skull measurements, to include only 5 subspecies, lumping the Pacific Northwest wolves with those from the west coast of Canada and southeast Alaska, most of the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains within the United States, and northeastern Canada and describing them as the plains wolf (

C. l. nubilus

) (Nowak 1995, p. 396; Nowak 2003, Table 9.3).

The approximate historical range of

C. l. nubilus

borders each of the other

C. lupus

subspecies' ranges, with

C. lycaon,

and probably that of

C. rufus,

creating ambiguous zones of admixture (Chambers

et al.

2012, pp. 39-42). Recent molecular ecology studies of wolves in North America have reported differentiation between coastal and inland wolves in western Canada based on microsatellite DNA (Weckworth

et al.

2005, p. 921), mitochondrial DNA (Leonard

et al.

2005, pp. 13-15; Muñoz-Fuentes

et al.

2009, p. 5; Weckworth

et al.

2010, p. 921), and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (von Holdt

et al.

2011, p. 4). These coastal-inland patterns of divergence support Nowak's (1995, Fig 20) boundary between

C. l. nubilus

and

C. l. occidentalis

in the Pacific Northwest. Although Leonard

et al.

(2005, pp. 13-15) asserted that coastal wolves were evolutionarily distinct from

C. l. nubilus,

the large proportion of unique, and apparently extinct, haplotypes in their historical sample likely exaggerated the measure of divergence between the coastal populations and historical inland

C. l. nubilus

(Chambers

et al.

2012, pp. 41-42). Chambers

et al.

(2012, pp. 41-42) reevaluated the haplotypes in Leonard

et al.

(2005) and Weckworth

et al.

(2010) and found that the most common haplotype in west-coastal Canada also occured in the central Great Plains of the United States, and nearly all coastal haplotypes are in the same phylogroup as the historical western

C. l. nubilus

haplotypes (Weckworth

et al.

2010, p. 368). These relationships are consistent with west-coastal Canada and southeast Alaska wolves (and probably coastal wolves in the Pacific Northwest) being a northward extension of

C. l. nubilus.

Genetic study of wolf skins and bones collected from the historical wolf population in the Pacific Northwest has not yet been accomplished, but would be valuable in further evaluating the historical taxonomic placement of gray wolves from that region.

Canis lupus occidentalis

Richardson (1829) described

C. l. occidentalis

based on type material from the Northwest Territories. Goldman (1944) described the distribution of

C. l. occidentalis

generally as interior western Canada including the Rocky Mountains.

Since publication of Goldman (1944), revisions of wolf taxonomy have tended toward recognition of fewer subspecies. Nowak's (1995) delineation of subspecies and depiction of approximate historical ranges indicate that, under his taxonomy,

C. l. occidentalis

ranged across Alaska except for the coastal Southeast, and from the Beaufort Sea in the north to the Rocky Mountains of the contiguous

United States in the south and including much of the interior western Canada (Nowak 1995, Fig. 20). Under Nowak's classification,

C. l. occidentalis

subsumes the following formerly recognized subspecies entirely or in part:

Pambasileus, tundrarum,

alces, mackenzii,

columbianus, irremotus,

and

griseoalbus.

Canis lupus baileyi

Researchers have hypothesized that North America was colonized by gray wolves from Eurasia during the Pleistocene through at least three waves of colonization, each by wolves from different lineages;

C. l. baileyi

may represent the last surviving remnant of the initial wave of gray wolf migration into North America (Nowak 1995, p. 396; Nowak 2003, p. 242; Wayne and Vilá 2003, pp. 226-228; Chambers

et al.

2012, p. 10). The distinctiveness of

C. l. baileyi

and its recognition as a subspecies is supported by both morphometric and genetic evidence. We are unaware of any published study that does not support the recognition of

C. l. baileyi

as a valid subspecies.

This subspecies was originally described by Nelson and Goldman in 1929 as

Canis nubilus baileyi,

with a distribution of “Southern and western Arizona, southern New Mexico, and the Sierra Madre and adjoining tableland of Mexico as far south, at least, as southern Durango (Nelson and Goldman 1929, pp. 165-166).” Goldman (1944, pp. 389-636) provided the first comprehensive treatment of North American wolves, in which he renamed

C. n. baileyi

as a subspecies of

lupus

(

i.e., C. l. baileyi

) and shifted the subspecies' range farther south in Arizona. His gray wolf classification scheme was subsequently followed by Hall and Kelson (1959, pp. 847-851; Hall 1981, p. 932). Since that time, gray wolf taxonomy has undergone substantial revision, including a major taxonomic revision in which the number of recognized gray wolf subspecies in North America was reduced from 24 to 5, with

C. l. baileyi

being recognized as a subspecies ranging throughout most of Mexico to just north of the Gila River in southern Arizona and New Mexico (Nowak 1995, pp. 375-397).

Three published studies of morphometric variation conclude that

C. l. baileyi

is a morphologically distinct and valid subspecies. Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) analyzed 253 gray wolf skulls from southwestern North America using principal component analysis and discriminant function analysis. They found that

C. l. baileyi

was one of the most distinct subspecies of southwestern gray wolf (Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17). Hoffmeister (1986) conducted principal component analysis of 28 skulls, also recognizing

C. l. baileyi

as a distinct southwestern subspecies (pp. 466-468). Nowak (1995) analyzed 580 skulls using discriminant function analysis. He concluded that

C. l. baileyi

was one of only five distinct North American gray wolf subspecies that should continue to be recognized (Nowak 1995, pp. 395-396).

Genetic research provides additional validation of the recognition of

C. l. baileyi

as a subspecies. Three studies demonstrate that

C. l. baileyi

has unique genetic markers that distinguish the subspecies from other North American gray wolves. Garcia-Moreno

et al.

(1996, p. 384) utilized microsatellite analysis to determine whether two captive populations of

C. l. baileyi

were pure

C. l. baileyi

and should be interbred with the captive certified lineage population that had founded the captive breeding program. They confirmed that the two captive populations were pure

C. l. baileyi

and that they and the certified lineage were closely related. Further, they found that as a group, the three populations were the most distinct grouping of North American wolves, substantiating the distinction of

C. l. baileyi

as a subspecies.

Hedrick

et al.

(1997, pp. 64-65) examined data for 20 microsatellite loci from samples of

C. l. baileyi,

northern gray wolves, coyotes, and dogs. They concluded that

C. l. baileyi

was divergent and distinct from other sampled northern gray wolves, coyotes, and dogs. Leonard

et al.

(2005, p. 10) examined mitochondrial DNA sequence data from 34 preextermination wolves collected from 1856 to 1916 from the historical ranges of

C. l. baileyi

and

C. l. nubilus.

They compared these data with sequence data collected from 96 wolves in North America and 303 wolves from Eurasia. They found that the historical wolves had twice the diversity of modern wolves, and that two-thirds of the haplotypes were unique. They also found that haplotypes associated with

C. l. baileyi

formed a unique southern clade distinct from that of other North American wolves. A clade is a taxonomic group that includes all individuals that have descended from a common ancestor.

In another study, vonHoldt

et al.

(2011, p. 7) analyzed SNP genotyping arrays and found

C. l. baileyi

to be the most genetically distinct group of New World gray wolves. Most recently, Chambers

et al.

(2012, pp. 34-37) reviewed the scientific literature related to classification of

C. l. baileyi

as a subspecies and concluded that this subspecies' recognition remains well-supported. Maps of

C. l. baileyi

historical range are available in the scientific literature (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson, 1959, p. 849; Hall 1981, p. 932; Bogan and Mehlhop 1983, p. 17; Nowak 1995, p. 395; Parsons 1996, p. 106). The southernmost extent of

C. l. baileyi's

range in Mexico is consistently portrayed as ending near Oaxaca (Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395). Depiction of the northern extent of the

C. l. baileyi's

presettlement range among the available descriptions varies depending on the authors' taxonomic treatment of several subspecies that occurred in the Southwest and their related treatment of intergradation zones.

Hall's (1981, p. 932, based on Hall and Kelson 1959) map depicted a range for

C. l. baileyi

that included extreme southern Arizona and New Mexico, with

Canis lupus mogollonensis

occurring throughout most of Arizona, and

C. l. monstrabilis, Canis lupus youngi, C. l. nubilus,

and

C. l. mogollonensis

interspersed in New Mexico. Bogan and Mehlhop (1983, p. 17) synonymized two previously recognized subspecies of gray wolf,

C. l. mogollonensis

and

C. l. monstrabilis,

with

C. l. baileyi,

concluding that

C. l. baileyi's

range included the Mogollon Plateau, southern New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and Mexico. This extended

C .l. baileyi's

range northward to central Arizona and central New Mexico through the area that Goldman (1944) had identified as an intergrade zone with an abrupt transition from

C. l. baileyi

to

C. l. mogollensis

. Bogan and Mehlop's analysis did not indicate a sharp transition zone between

C. l. baileyi

and

C. l. mogollensis,

rather the wide overlap between the two subspecies led them to synonymize

C. l. baileyi

and

C. l. mogollensis

.

Hoffmeister (1986, p. 466) suggested that

C. l. mogollonensis

should be referred to as

C. l. youngi

but maintained

C. l. baileyi

as a subspecies, stating that wolves north of the Mogollon Rim should be considered

C. l. youngi

. Nowak (1995, pp. 384-385) agreed with Hoffmeister's synonymizing of

C. l. mogollonensis

with

C. l. youngi,

and further lumped these into

C. l. nubilus,

resulting in a purported northern historical range for

C. l. baileyi

as just to the north of the Gila River in southern Arizona and New Mexico. Nowak (1995) and Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) differed in their interpretation of which subspecies to assign individuals that were intermediate between recognized taxa, thus leading to

different depictions of historical range for

C. l. baileyi

.

Subsequently, Parsons (1996, p. 104) included consideration of dispersal distance when developing a probable historical range for the purpose of reintroducing

C. l. baileyi

in the wild pursuant to the Act, by adding a 322-km (200-mi) northward extension to the most conservative depiction of

C. l. baileyi

historical range (

i.e.,

Hall and Kelson 1959). This description of historical range was carried forward in the Final Environmental Impact Statement “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States” in the selection of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area as a reintroduction location for

C. l. baileyi

(Service 1996).

Recent molecular genetic evidence from limited historical specimens supports morphometric evidence of an intergradation zone between

C. l. baileyi

and northern gray wolves (Leonard

et al.

2005, pp. 15-16). This research shows that, within the time period that the historical specimens were collected (1856-1916), a northern clade (i.e., group that originated from and includes all descendants from a common ancestor) haplotype was found as far south as Arizona, and individuals with southern clade haplotypes (associated with

C. l. baileyi

) occurred as far north as Utah and Nebraska. Leonard

et al.

(2005, p. 10) interpret this geographic distribution of haplotypes as indicating gene flow was extensive across the subspecies' limits during this historical period, and Chambers

et al.

(2012, p. 37) agree this may be a valid interpretation.

Statutory Background

The Act authorizes the Service to “determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species” (16 U.S.C 1533(a)(1)). “Species” is a defined term under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)), and only “species” as so defined may be included on the lists of threatened and endangered species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1), (c)(1)). The Act defines “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature” (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The Act defines “endangered species” as a species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)) and threatened species as a species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). The word “range” refers to the range in which the species currently exists, and the word “significant” refers to the value of that portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the species. The “foreseeable future” is the period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends extrapolated. Determinations as to the status of a species must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)).

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). We may determine a species to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors are: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifications of species (changing the status from threatened to endangered or vice versa), and removing a species from the List because it is not endangered or threatened (50 CFR 424.11(c), (d)).

The Act's implementing regulations clarify that a species that is listed may only be delisted if it is neither endangered nor threatened for one of three reasons: The species is extinct, the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened, and the original scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in error (50 CFR 424.11(d)). This language does not, however, address the circumstance in which the Service concludes based on the best available data that a group of organisms currently included on the List does not in fact qualify as a “species” under the Act. In that circumstance, the Service is not determining that a species is not endangered or threatened, the Service is determining that a group of organisms is not a “species.” Although the implementing regulations do not expressly address this circumstance, the Service has the authority under section 4(c)(1) to remove a purported species from the List if the Service determines that it does not qualify as a “species” (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1)). We note, however, that delisting on this basis is analogous to delisting upon a determination that a species is not threatened or endangered because the original data for classification were in error.

Evaluation of the Current

C. lupus

Listed Entity

Our analysis begins with an evaluation of the current

C. lupus

listing (Figure 1), which derives from the 1978 reclassification (43 FR 9607; March 9, 1978). In our May 5, 2011, proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf in the eastern United States we acknowledged that the current

C. lupus

listed entity should be revised. The recent 5-year status review for this entity further provides the basis for this assertion (Service 2012). Below we present our evaluation and conclusion in support of removing the current

C. lupus

entity from the List. Pursuant to this evaluation, our proposed determination as to which entities warrant the protections of the Act is included under Status of Gray Wolf Listable Entities in the Contiguous United States and Mexico later in this proposed rule.

Is the currently listed C. lupus entity a valid listable entity under the Act?

As discussed above, the Act allows us to list species, subspecies, and distinct population segments of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The current

C. lupus

listing (Figure 1) is not an entire species (the species

C. lupus

was never deemed threatened or endangered given its abundance across its holarctic range) or an entire single gray wolf subspecies (the current listing occurs across an area occupied by multiple purported subspecies; see Taxonomy section). Therefore, if the current listing is to be maintained, it must be as a DPS.

The concept of a DPS is unique to the Act—it does not have an independent scientific meaning. Unlike species and subspecies, a DPS is not a taxonomic term. Rather, the term “distinct population segment” refers to certain populations of vertebrates (i.e., less than the entire range of a taxonomic vertebrate species or subspecies) as explained in the DPS policy. The Act's implementing regulations define a “population” as a “group of fish or wildlife . . . in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature” (50 CFR 17.3). That group may consist of a single collection of organisms, or multiple loosely bounded, regionally distributed collections of organisms all of the same species or subspecies. Therefore, consistent with our standard practice (see 74 FR 15125

“Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS,” April 2, 2009, and 76 FR 81670 “Geographical Area of the Western Great Lakes DPS,” December 28, 2011), before applying the discreteness and significance tests laid out in the DPS Policy, we must first identify one or more populations and the spatial arrangement or range which they share. To meet the definition of a “population,” for the purposes of the DPS Policy the group of vertebrate fish or wildlife identified must be in “common spatial arrangement”: In other words, there must first be a reasonable correlation between the group and the geographic area used to describe its range.

To consider whether the currently listed entity describes a population of

C. lupus

in an appropriate range that should be evaluated against the standards of the 1996 DPS Policy, we first discuss how the history of gray wolf listing and recent scientific information relate to this question. Based on this information we conclude that neither the 1978 reclassification nor the current listing represent valid species under the Act. We then analyze the current data regarding wolves within the current listed entity, the degree to which that data confirms relevant populations of gray wolves, and the relationship any such populations bear to the geographic scope of the current listing. Based on this information, we further conclude that the “spatial arrangement” identified in the current listing does not correlate to the current population(s) of

C. lupus

found within that range.

History of the C. lupus listing as it relates to DPS—

When the gray wolf was reclassified in March 1978 (replacing multiple subspecies listings with two

C. lupus

population listings as described further in the Previous Federal Actions section), it had been extirpated from much of its historical range in the contiguous United States. Although the 1978 reclassification listed two gray wolf entities (a threatened population in Minnesota and an endangered population throughout the rest of the contiguous United States and Mexico), these listings were not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis, because the reclassification predated the November 1978 amendments to the Act, which revised the definition of “species” to include distinct population segments of vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy.

The broadly defined geography of the 1978 reclassification was employed as an approach of convenience (as noted in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978), rather than an indication of where gray wolves existed or where gray wolf recovery would occur. Thus, the 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of large areas of the contiguous United States where gray wolves were extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States—west to central Texas and Oklahoma—an area that is generally accepted not to be within the historical range of

C. lupus

(Young and Goldman 1944, pp. 413-416, 478; Nowak 1995, p. 395, Fig. 20). While this generalized approach to the listing appropriately protected dispersing wolves throughout the historical range of

C. lupus

and facilitated recovery in the NRM and WGL regions, it also erroneously included areas outside the species' historical range and was misread by some members of the public as an expression of a larger gray wolf recovery effort not required by the Act and never intended by the Service.

The Act does not require us to restore the gray wolf (or any other species) to all of its historical range or even to a majority of the currently suitable habitat. Instead, the Act requires that we recover listed species such that they no longer meet the definitions of “threatened species” or “endangered species.”,

i.e.,

are no longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. For some species, recovery may require expansion of their current distribution, but the amount of expansion is driven by a species' biological needs affecting viability and sustainability, and not by an arbitrary percent of a species' historical range or currently suitable habitat. Many other species may be recovered in portions of their historical range or currently suitable habitat by removing or addressing the threats to their continued existence. And some species may be recovered by a combination of range expansion and threats reduction. There is no set formula for how recovery must be achieved.

As stated previously, the 1978 reclassification stated that “biological subspecies would continue to be maintained and dealt with as separate entities” (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). Accordingly, regional recovery plans were developed and implemented in the Western Great Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service 1992, entire), the Northern Rocky Mountains in 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, entire; Service 1987, entire), and the Southwest in 1982 (this plan is currently being revised) (Service 1982, entire). This approach was an appropriate use of our discretion to determine how best to proceed with recovery actions. These recovery efforts covered all gray wolf populations confirmed in the contiguous United States since passage of the Act, and either these efforts have worked, or are working, to conserve all of the genetic diversity remaining in gray wolves south of Canada after their widespread extirpation (Leonard

et al.

2005, entire). Thus, the goal of the Act has been achieved in the Northern Rocky Mountains (76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011 and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012) and Western Great Lakes (76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011) and is still a work in progress in the Southwest (see

C. l. baileyi

analysis below).

Recent scientific information relevant to the validity of the C. lupus listing

—In addition to the issues identified above, recent scientific research further necessitates our revisiting the current listing for

C. lupus.

The most recent scientific information indicates that the eastern wolf, previously described as the subspecies

C. l. lycaon,

with a historical range that includes the northeastern United States and portions of the upper Midwest United States (eastern and western Great Lakes regions) should be recognized as a separate species,

C. lycaon

(See Taxonomy section). These new data indicate that additional geographic areas contained within the current listed area were not historically occupied by gray wolves (specifically, the northeastern United States) and thus are erroneously included in the current gray wolf listing.

Synthesis—

Combining the erroneous inclusion of the southeastern United States in the 1978 reclassification with the new data further restricting the historical range of

C. lupus,

we determine that essentially the entire eastern third of the contiguous United States was erroneously included in the 1978 listing, and is still included in the current listing. As a result, there was not a reasonable correlation between the group of gray wolves in the contiguous United States (minus Minnesota) and Mexico in 1978, nor is there today. Therefore, the 1978 listing did not describe, nor does the current listing describe, a valid “population,” which is a prerequisite for a DPS. This determination alone requires that the current listed entity be delisted pursuant to section 4(c)(1) because it is not a “species” under the Act.

Distribution of gray wolves within the described boundary of the currently listed entity

—Even if

C. lupus

historically had been found throughout the contiguous United States, with the recent recovery and delisting of gray wolf populations in the NRM and WGL (see Previous Federal Actions section) and the associated revisions to the 1978

listing, the described boundary of the

C. lupus

listed entity has been modified and now includes all or portions of only 42 States, as opposed to the original 48 States, and Mexico (Figure 1). The gross mismatch between the group of wolves protected by the current listing (see below) provides an independent basis for determining that the current listed entity is not a DPS.

As stated above, our regulations define a “population” as a “group of fish or wildlife . . . in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature” (50 CFR 17.3). We have refined that definition in experimental gray wolf reintroduction rules to mean “at least two breeding pairs of gray wolves that each successfully raise at least two young” annually for 2 consecutive years (59 FR 60252 and 60266, November 22, 1994). This definition represents what we believe are the minimum standards for a gray wolf population (Service 1994). The courts have supported this definition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that “by definition lone dispersers do not constitute a population or even part of a population, since they are not `in common spatial arrangement' sufficient to interbreed with other members of a population” (

Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation

v.

Babbitt,

199 F.3d 1224, 1234 (10th Cir. 2000)). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, despite “sporadic sightings of isolated indigenous wolves in the release area [a gray wolf reintroduction site], lone wolves, or `dispersers,' do not constitute a population” under the Act (

U.S.

v.

McKittrick,

142 F. 3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1072 (1999)). Thus, the courts have upheld our interpretation that a “population” must include two or more breeding pairs.

Below, we provide specific information on the distribution of gray wolves within the described boundary of the current

C. lupus

listed entity.

A single wild gray wolf population (

C. l. baileyi

), of at least 75 wolves (as of December 31, 2012), inhabits the southwestern United States today in central Arizona and New Mexico (Figure 2). In Mexico, efforts to reestablish a wild population in Mexico began in 2011. Of eight wolves released between October 2011 and October 2012, two wolves are “fate unknown,” four are confirmed dead, and two are alive as of January 2, 2013 (Service, our files). Additional releases in Mexico are expected in 2013. In addition, a captive population of 240 to 300

C. l. baileyi

exists in the United States and Mexico today in about 50 captive breeding facilities. For more information on gray wolves in the southwestern United States and Mexico see the

C. l. baileyi

analysis below.

There are currently three confirmed gray wolf packs in the western two-thirds (where gray wolves are listed as endangered) of Washington State (Lookout pack, Teanaway pack, and Wenatchee pack). Reproduction was confirmed in the Teanaway pack in June 2012, has not been documented since 2009 in the Lookout pack, and has not yet been documented in the Wenatchee pack. To date, two radio-collared wolves from the Imnaha pack in northeast Oregon have dispersed west, across the NRM DPS boundary, and are currently in the portion of Oregon where they have endangered status. One of these wolves spent over 1 year in northern California before returning to Oregon in March of 2013. However, no packs or reproduction have been documented in those portions of Oregon or California. For more information on the gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest, see the Pacific Northwest DPS analysis below.

We also have recent records of a few lone long-distance dispersing individual gray wolves within the boundary of the current

C. lupus

listed entity; however, these lone individuals are believed to be dispersing away from the more saturated habitat in the primary range of the recovered NRM and WGL DPSs or Canada populations into peripheral areas where wolves are scarce or absent (Licht and Fritts 1994, p. 77; Licht and Huffman 1996, pp. 171-173; 76 FR 26100, May 5, 2011; Jimenez

in litt.

2012. For example, a gray wolf dispersing south from the NRM DPS was trapped near Morgan, Utah in 2002 and another was killed in an agency control action in Utah in 2010 (Jimenez

in litt.

2012). In addition, we have two records for individual wolves near Idaho Springs and Rifle, Colorado, in 2004 and 2009, respectively (Jimenez

in litt.

2013). An adult gray wolf killed by a vehicle near Sturgis, South Dakota, was a disperser from the Greater Yellowstone area in the Rocky Mountains to the west (Fain

et. al.

2010 cited in 76 FR 26100). A few individual dispersing gray wolves have been reported in other areas of the Midwest, including a gray wolf that dispersed from Michigan to north-central Missouri (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 16; Treves

et al.

2009, p. 194) and another that dispersed from Wisconsin to eastern Indiana (Thiel

et al.

2009, p. 122 and Treves

et al.

2009, p. 194). At least two wolves have been reported in Illinois, one in 2002 and one in 2005 (Great Lakes Directory 2003, unpaginated). Two individual wolves were also reported (on different occasions) in Nebraska (Anschutz

in litt.

2003, Anschutz

in litt.

2006, Jobman

in litt.

1995).

Although it is possible for these dispersers to encounter and mate with another wolf outside the primary range of the recovered populations, we have no information demonstrating that any of these naturally dispersing animals have formed persistent reproducing packs or constitute a population (for a more thorough discussion on Pacific Northwest wolves and whether they constitute a population, see the Pacific Northwest DPS analysis below). Thus,

C. l. baileyi

is the only population within the area where gray wolves are currently listed, with a likelihood that wolves in the Pacific northwest will soon meet this standard (again, see the Pacific Northwest DPS analysis below for more information on the status of wolves in this area). We are not aware of any other confirmed gray wolf populations occurring within the described boundary of the current

C. lupus

listed entity (Figure 1).

EP13JN13.001

Based on the current distribution of gray wolves in the contiguous United States and Mexico, we determine that the only gray wolves that currently meet our definition of a gray wolf population, outside of the recovered and delisted NRM and WGL gray wolf populations, is the population of gray wolves (

C. l. baileyi

) in the southwestern United States (see

C. l. baileyi

analysis below for a detailed discussion of the wolves occupying that region) and possibly the gray wolves currently occupying the Pacific Northwest (specifically, those wolves outside of the NRM DPS's western boundary and south of the Canadian border). As we explain in detail below (see Pacific Northwest—Do Wolves in This Area Constitute a Population?), although the gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest do not yet constitute a population according to our 1994 definition, it is possible that additional breeding pairs have gone

undetected or that the documented breeding pairs have successfully bred in consecutive years without detection.

Synthesis

—Instead of identifying an appropriate geographic area from scratch for the purpose of analyzing a potential new DPS listing, as is our standard practice, we have an existing listing. Therefore, we must compare the geographic scope of the existing listing with the population identified.

It is evident that the listed entity as it is currently described in the CFR (Figure 1) does not correlate with the existing

C. lupus

population, which includes the population inhabiting the southwestern United States and the possible existing (or future) population inhabiting the Pacific Northwest United States (Figure 2). The current

C. lupus

listing includes large areas of the contiguous United States that the best available information indicates are outside of the historical range of the species. Additionally, no other areas within the boundary of the current

C. lupus

listed entity, outside of those areas being evaluated for

C. l. baileyi

recovery, have been identified as necessary for recovery of any existing listable

C. lupus

entity. Therefore, we conclude that the current listed

C. lupus

entity does not appropriately describe the existing gray wolf population, and is therefore not a valid DPS. Furthermore, the current listing does not reflect what is necessary or appropriate for wolf recovery under the Act for the existing gray wolf population.

For these reasons we also conclude that it would not be appropriate to conduct a DPS analysis on the extant population of gray wolves occurring in the southwestern United States combined with the possible

C. lupus

population occurring in the Pacific Northwest United States using the broadly defined geography of the currently listed entity as its boundary. It is instead more logical to take a fresh comprehensive look at the status of gray wolves in the contiguous United States and Mexico by employing a standard process of analysis and the best available information to carefully consider whether the gray wolves that make up the current

C. lupus

listed entity are part of the

C. lupus

species, or a subspecies, or DPSs of

C. lupus

that warrant protections under the Act.

Conclusion

As stated previously, the current

C. lupus

listed entity is neither an entire species nor an entire single subspecies. It was listed prior to the November 1978 amendments to the Act and the issuance of the 1996 DPS policy, and is the outcome of a broad, generalized contiguous United States and Mexico reclassification and subsequent targeted delistings of the recovered NRM and WGL gray wolf populations (see Previous Federal Actions section). Further, the 1978 listing erroneously included the eastern United States, a region of the contiguous United States that the best scientific information indicates is outside of the historical range of

C. lupus

(see

Wolf Species of the United States

section). Therefore, based on the best scientific information available we find that the 1978 listing did not represent a valid “species” under the Act. The

C. lupus

listed entity as it is currently described on the List derives from the 1978 listing and shares the same deficiency. In addition, the current listing suffers from the additional problem that there is not a reasonable correlation between the remaining population and the geographic scope of the listing. Therefore, the current

C. lupus

listed entity is not a “species” as defined by the Act, and we propose to remove it from the List in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1).

Nonetheless, we must also consider whether this entity should be replaced with a valid listing for the

C. lupus

species, or a subspecies, or a DPS of

C. lupus

that is threatened or endangered in the contiguous United States and Mexico. If any gray wolf population occupying any portion of the current

C. lupus

listed entity is deemed part of a valid listable entity that is threatened or endangered under the Act, the population must be separately listed concurrent with any final decision to remove the current

C. lupus

listed entity from the List. Therefore, currently listed gray wolves that warrant listing under the Act will never experience a lapse in the Act's protections due to this action. The remainder of this rule considers this question.

Status of Gray Wolf Listable Entities in the Contiguous United States and Mexico

Given our intention to remove the current

C. lupus

entity from the List, we now consider whether and to what extent any subspecies or populations of

C. lupus

should be listed in the contiguous United States and Mexico. More specifically, we address whether any gray wolves covered by the current

C. lupus

listed entity (Figure 1) belong to a valid listable entity that warrants the protections of the Act. Because we are focused on the status of gray wolves in the contiguous United States and Mexico, we concentrate our analyses on the

C. lupus

species and subspecies or DPSs of

C. lupus

with ranges that are within the contiguous United States and Mexico. Thus, this phase of the analysis begins with a consideration of the status of

C. lupus

rangewide followed by analyses of potential threats facing each of three North American gray wolf subspecies—

C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis,

and

C. l. baileyi—

as well as consideration of a potential DPS of

C. lupus.

If we determine that the species (

C. lupus

), or a subspecies (

C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis,

C. l. baileyi

), or a DPS of

C. lupus

is threatened or does not warrant the protections of the Act, then we will consider whether there are any significant portions of their ranges where they are in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

As stated previously (see Statutory Background section above), Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, reclassifying species on, or removing species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). We may determine a species to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The five listing factors are: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifications of species (changing the status from threatened to endangered or vice versa), and removing a species from the List because it is not endangered or threatened (50 CFR 424.11(c), (d)).

Under section 3 of the Act, a species is “endangered” if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and is “threatened” if it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532 (20)). The word “range” refers to the range in which the species currently exists, and the word “significant” refers to the value of that portion of the range being considered to the conservation of the species. The “foreseeable future” is the period of time over which events or effects reasonably can or should be anticipated, or trends extrapolated.

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 affect 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.

We considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information for these analyses. Information pertaining to

C. lupus, C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis,

and

C. l. baileyi

in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below.

Does the rangewide population of C. lupus warrant the protections of the Act?

Our first evaluation considers whether the gray wolves that are included in the current

C. lupus

listing (Figure 1) warrant the protections of the Act as part of a species-level rangewide listing of

C. lupus.

We begin this evaluation by summarizing the historical and current global distribution of gray wolves, followed by a discussion of the species' current status and threats.

C. lupus—Historical Global Distribution

Canis lupus

historically occurred across much of North America, Europe, and Asia (Mech 1970, pp. 32-33). Recent genetic work now suggests gray wolves also occurred (and still occur) in portions of North Africa (Rueness

et al.

2011, pp. 1-5; Gaubert

et al.

2012, pp. 3-7). In North America,

C. lupus

formerly occurred from the northern reaches of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland to the central mountains and the high interior plateau of southern Mexico (Mech 1970, p. 31; Nowak 2003, p. 243).

C. lupus—Current Global Distribution

The historical worldwide range for

C. lupus

has been reduced by approximately one-third (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5). A majority of this range contraction has occurred in developed areas of Europe, Asia, Mexico, and the United States by poisoning and deliberate targeted elimination (Boitani 2003 pp. 318-321; Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5).

Canis lupus

currently occupies portions of North America, Europe, North, Central and South Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa (Mech and Boitani 2004, pp. 125-128; Linnell

et al.

2008, p. 48; 77 FR 55539; 76 FR 81676; Rueness

et al.

2011, pp. 1-5; Gaubert

et al.

2012, pp. 3-7). Summaries of rangewide population data, by range country, are available in Boitani 2003 (pp. 322-323) and Mech and Boitani 2004 (pp. 125-128). In addition, a detailed overview of

C. lupus

populations in Europe (including the European part of Russia) can be found in Linnell

et al.

2008 (pp. 48, and 63-67). Available population data for North America are presented in detail in our recent rulemakings (77 FR 55539, September 10, 2012 and 76 FR 81676, December 28, 2011) and in the status reviews below. Based upon recent available population data for the species,

C. lupus

number more than 160,000 individuals globally (Mech and Boitani 2004, pp. 125-128; Linnell

et al.

2008, p. 48; 77 FR 55539; 76 FR 81676) and, according to one estimate, may number as high as 200,000 (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-323).

Current Status of C. lupus

The most recent global assessment by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Species Survival Commission Wolf Specialist Group classifies the species

C. lupus

as Least Concern globally (Mech and Boitani 2010, entire), although at the regional level some populations are seriously threatened. Plants and animals that have been evaluated to have a low risk of extinction are classified as Least Concern. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category. The worldwide population trend for the species is currently identified as stable (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 4). Gray wolves are found in 46 countries around the world, and the species maintains legal protections in 21 countries (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-323). The arrest of wolf population declines and subsequent natural recolonization occurring since 1970 is attributed to legal protection, land-use changes, and human population shifts from rural areas to cities (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5). Mech and Boitani generally identify the following as ongoing threats to the species: (1) Competition with humans for livestock, especially in developed countries; (2) exaggerated concern by the public concerning the threat and danger of wolves; and (3) fragmentation of habitat, with resulting areas becoming too small for populations with long-term viability (Mech and Boitani 2010, p. 5).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international agreement between governments aimed to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. CITES works by subjecting international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices according to the protection they need. Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

Canis lupus

is listed as Appendix II (except the populations of Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Pakistan; which are included in Appendix I). These listings exclude the domesticated form and the dingo which are referenced as

Canis lupus familiaris

and

Canis lupus dingo

(

www.cites.org,

accessed on July 13, 2012).

Conclusion

Although

C. lupus

has undergone significant range contraction in portions of its historical range, the species continues to be widespread and, as a whole, is stable. The species is currently protected in many countries; however, in some portions of the range,

C. lupus

populations are so abundant that they are managed as furbearers with open hunting and trapping seasons. In addition,

C. lupus

is currently categorized as Least Concern by the IUCN. We have found no substantial evidence to suggest that gray wolves are at risk of extinction throughout their global range now or are likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Further, we can point to the recovered, and delisted, populations in the northern Rocky Mountains and the western Great Lakes and our analyses for the North American subspecies

C. l. nubilus

and

C. l. occidentalis

below as evidence that the species is not at risk of extinction throughout all of its range; therefore, we will not consider this question further for the purposes of this proposed rule. See the Significant Portion of the Range Analysis section below for our evaluation as to whether

C. lupus

may

or may not be in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range.

Does the North American subspecies C. l. nubilus warrant the protections of the Act?

C. l. nubilus—Historical Distribution

The historical range of

C. l. nubilus

was described by Nowak (1995, p. 396) generally as coastal southeastern Alaska, western Canada, the contiguous United States from the Pacific to the Great Lakes region, and eastern Canada except the extreme southeast, and occasionally west central Greenland.

C. l. nubilus

—Current Distribution

For purposes of this review we will discuss the current distribution of

C. l. nubilus

by state, province, or region in which it is found. Management of the gray wolf species is carried out by individual states and provinces, complicating the discussion of status by biological population. No state or province in the range of

C. l. nubilus

monitors wolf populations to the extent that precise estimates of population size can be made. For this reason, population estimates should be regarded as estimates based on professional judgment of the agencies involved.

United States

—

Canis lupus nubilus

does not occupy its historical range in the United States with the exception of the western Great Lakes region (delisted due to recovery, 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011), southeastern Alaska, and a small number of wolves in the Pacific Northwest that appear to be an admixture with

C. l. occidentalis

(Figure 2). The first account of breeding by wolves (the Lookout pack) in Washington State since the 1930s was documented in the North Cascades in 2008. In the spring of 2011, a new pack (the Teanaway pack) was documented, and genetic testing of a member of the pack confirmed that it was a gray wolf closely related to (consistent with being an offspring of) the Lookout pack breeding pair (Robinson

et al.

2011,

in litt.,

pp. 1-2). In the spring of 2013, a group of two wolves, the Wenatchee pack, was documented in the listed area. It is unknown whether these wolves will remain resident in the area. Dispersing wolves have been documented in Oregon, and one in California, but there currently are no packs of known

C. l. nubilus

origin in either state.

Despite the fact that the area is recognized as historical

C. l. nubilus

range, microsatellite genotyping indicated that the two packs currently occupying Washington west of the NRM DPS are descended from wolves occurring in (1) coastal British Columbia (

C. l. nubilus

) and (2) northeastern British Columbia (

C. l. occidentalis

), northwestern Alberta (

C. l. occidentalis

), or the reintroduced populations in central Idaho and the greater Yellowstone area (

C. l. occidentalis

) (Pollinger 2008,

in litt.;

Nowak 1995, p. 397). Intergrade zones, or zones of reproductive interaction, between neighboring wolf populations have long been a recognized characteristic of historical gray wolf distribution (Mech 1970, p. 223; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 372). While historical subspecies delineations based on morphology suggest that a biological boundary limiting dispersal or reproductive intermixing likely existed between eastern and western Oregon and Washington prior to the extirpation of wolves from the region (Bailey 1936, pp. 272-275; Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414; Hall and Kelson 1959, p. 849, Figure 6), the boundary was likely not impermeable by dispersers. Additionally, Chambers

et al.

(2012, p. 43) argues that historical or modern boundaries should not be viewed as static or frozen in any particular time but instead, as the result of dynamic processes, boundaries can shift over time.

We expect dispersal from both sources (western British Columbia and the NRM DPS) to continue, but the recolonization of this area is in its infancy, and the ultimate recolonization pattern of wolves in historical

C. l. nubilus

range is unpredictable.

British Columbia

—Wolves currently range throughout most of British Columbia, with

C. l. nubilus

occupying the western and coastal regions and

C. l. occidentalis

occupying the inland portion of the province.

C. l. nubilus

has reoccupied most of its historical range, including Vancouver Island and other islands along the mainland coast. Surveys in 1997 estimated 8,000 wolves in British Columbia, and populations are believed to be increasing (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22; Hatler

et al.

2003, p. 5). More recent information suggests that wolf populations are increasing in some areas as a result of natural range expansion following control efforts in the 1950s and 1960s, and stable in other areas. Overall, the province-wide wolf population is thought to have increased since the 1990s, but not substantially (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012). Agencies generally do not distinguish among subspecies when reporting harvest or estimating population sizes; however, COSEWIC (2001 p. 38) estimated wolf numbers by ecological areas. They concluded that approximately 2,200 wolves occupy the Pacific Ecological Area, which coincides with the historical range of

C. l. nubilus.

Northwest Territories and Nunavut

—An estimated 10,000 gray wolves inhabited the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, p. 22). The COSEWIC report does not differentiate among subspecies; however, many of these wolves were likely to be

C. l. nubilus

due to their geographic location, including those wolves found in most of mainland Nunavut and a portion of mainland Northwest Territories.

Manitoba

—

Canis lupus nubilus

occupies boreal forests and tundra in northern Manitoba. The total wolf population numbers approximately 4,000 to 6,000 and appears to be stable (COSEWIC 2001, p. 21; Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. 22). Although a population estimate for each subspecies does not exist, most of the high quality wolf habitat occurs in northern Manitoba, where human densities and rates of agriculture are lower; therefore, we expect at least half of the 4,000-6,000 wolves occupy the north, where they fall into

C. l. nubilus

range.

Ontario

—Ontario is home to both

C. l. nubilus

and

C. lycaon.

Wolves currently occupy approximately 85 percent of their historical range in this province, and although current ranges of the two taxa are not entirely clear,

C. l. nubilus

likely dominates the boreal and tundra regions of the province in the north, while

C. lycaon

probably originally occupied most of southern Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005, p. 4). Population estimates suggest that around 5,000 wolves (

C. l. nubilus

) occupy the northern regions and that a total of 8,850 wolves (

C. l. nubilus

and

C. lycaon

) exist province-wide (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005, pp. 7-9).

Quebec

—Wolves (

C. l. nubilus

and

C. lycaon

) currently occupy the entire province of Quebec except the regions south of the St. Lawrence River (Jolicoeur and Hénault 2010, p. 1). Like Ontario, the purported boundaries between the two subspecies have always been approximate and vary among studies.

Canis lupus nubilus

generally occupies areas north of Quebec City, within the distribution of moose and caribou. The total population is estimated at 7,000 individuals (Jolicoeur and Henault 2010, p. 1), with an increasing trend the past 10 years, following deer population trends and despite heavy exploitation (Jolicoeur and Henault 2010, p.3). Subspecies population estimates are not available; however, the area occupied by

C. lycaon

is small compared to that occupied by

C. l. nubilus,

and it is likely that the majority of the 7,000 wolves in Quebec are

C. l. nubilus.

Newfoundland/Labrador—Canis lupus nubilus

is extirpated from Newfoundland. Approximately 1,500 wolves occupy Labrador (COSEWIC 2001, p. 18).

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) published an assessment and status report on

C. lupus

in 2001 (COSEWIC 2001, entire). The assessment evaluates the status and protection level of wolves across jurisdictions. Assessments are complete for

C. l. nubilus, C. l. occidentalis,

and

C. lycaon.

The subspecific ranges described are not entirely consistent with those used in this proposed rule (

C. l. occidentalis

range described by COSEWIC included Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland-Labrador, which the Service now considers part of

C. l. nubilus

range, following Nowak (2002, pp. 395-596)). This discrepancy is inconsequential, however, as COSEWIC found that both

C. l. nubilus

and

C. l. occidentalis

are “Not at Risk” based on widespread, large, stable populations, with no evidence of decline over the last 10 years despite liberal harvest (COSEWIC 2001, p. ii). Furthermore, Environment Canada found that export of legally obtained harvested wolves is nondetrimental to the survival of

C. lupus

in Canada (Environment Canada 2008). Supporting information included biological characteristics, current status, harvest management, control of harvest, harvest trend, harvest monitoring, benefits of harvest, and protection of harvest. The finding describes stable to increasing populations, a lack of threats, and high confidence in the current Canadian harvest management system. Most jurisdictions operate under an adaptive management strategy, which imposes strict control of harvest and is reactive to changing conditions, with the aim of ensuring sustainable harvest and maintaining biodiversity.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

The portion of the range of

C. l. nubilus

encompassed by the Western Great Lakes DPS was recently delisted due to recovery (76 FR 8166). Therefore, this analysis focuses on assessing threats to wolves in the remaining portion of the subspecies' range. Gray wolves that occur in the historical range of

C. l. nubilus

in the contiguous United States, outside of the WGL DPS, are currently listed as endangered under the Act. Thus, in this analysis we evaluate threats currently facing the subspecies and threats that are reasonably likely to affect the subspecies if the protections of the Act were not in place. Within the likely historical range of

C. l. nubilus

in the central United States, the Southern Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau, and the Pacific Northwest of the United States, wolves were extirpated soon after colonization and establishment of European-style agriculture and livestock growing. This range contraction appears to be permanent (with the exception of the Pacific Northwest, which is actively being recolonized) and does not appear to be contracting further at this time. The analysis of the Five Factors below does not consider the potential for affects to

C. l. nubilus

in areas where the subspecies has been extirpated, rather effects are considered in the context of the present population. We do not consider historical range contraction, by itself, to represent a threat to a species, but loss of range is reflected in the current status of a species. In all cases, threat factors are evaluated in the context of the current species status, therefore in some cases, historical range contraction can affect the outcome of the Five Factor analysis.

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

Wolves are habitat generalists (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163) and once occupied or transited most of the United States and Canada. However, much of the historical range of

C. l. nubilus

(Chambers

et al.

2012, pp. 34-42) within this area has been modified for human use. While lone wolves can travel through, or temporarily live, almost anywhere (Jimenez

et al.

In review, p. 1), much of the historical range is no longer suitable habitat to support wolf packs (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, p. 559; Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 32, Mladenoff

et al.

1995, p. 287), regardless of subspecies. The areas that wolves currently occupy correspond to “suitable” wolf habitat as modeled by Oakleaf

et al.

(2006, entire), Carroll

et al.

(2006, entire), Mladenoff (1995, entire), and Mladenoff

et al.

(1999, entire). Although these models analyzed only habitat in the contiguous United States, the principles of suitable wolf habitat in Canada are similar; that is, wolves persist where ungulate populations are adequate to support them and conflict with humans and their livestock is low. The areas considered “unsuitable” in these models are not occupied by wolves due to human and livestock presence and the associated lack of tolerance of wolves due primarily to livestock depredation.

Our 2009 NRM DPS delisting rule includes more information on wolf suitable-habitat models (74 FR 15123, pp. 15157-15159). In that document we concluded that the most important habitat attributes for wolf-pack persistence are forest cover, public land, high ungulate (elk) density, and low livestock density. Unsuitable habitat is characterized by low forest cover, high human density and use, and year-round livestock presence (Oakleaf

et al.

2006, Fig. 2). We conclude that similar areas in adjacent Canada are also unsuitable for wolf colonization and occupation for the same reasons.

Canis lupus nubilus

maintains robust populations across much of its historical range, with the exception of prairie areas and large intermountain valleys in southern portions of Canada where conflicts with humans preclude wolf presence, large portions of the central United States that have been irreversibly modified for human use, and throughout the Southern Rocky Mountains and Colorado Plateau, northern California, western Oregon, and western Washington. It is not uncommon for recolonization to occur by subspecies other than those historically present because of changes in distribution.

Sufficient suitable habitat exists in the area occupied by

C. l. nubilus

to continue to support wolves into the future (Mladenoff

et al.

1995, pp. 286-289; Mladenoff

et al.

1999, pp. 41-43; Carroll

et al.

2006). Wolf populations should remain strong in these areas with management activities that focus on wolf population reduction areas as needed to maintain populations of wild ungulates and reduce conflicts with livestock. Traditional land-use practices throughout the vast majority of the subspecies' current range do not appear to be affecting viability of wolves, and do not need to be modified to maintain the subspecies. We do not anticipate overall habitat changes in the subspecies' range to occur at a magnitude that would impact the subspecies rangewide, because wolf populations are distributed across the current range, are strong, and are able to withstand high levels of mortality due to their high reproductive rate and vagility (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330). Much of the subspecies' range occurs on public land where wolf conservation is a priority and conservation plans have been adopted to ensure continued wolf persistence (73 FR 10514, p. 10538). Areas in Canada within the subspecies' range include large areas with little human and livestock presence and,

therefore, little to no effect on wolf persistence.

Other Components of Wolf Habitat

—Another important factor in maintaining wolf populations is the native ungulate population. Primary wild ungulate prey within the range of

C. l. nubilus

include elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, bison, and caribou. Bighorn sheep, dall sheep, mountain goats, and pronghorn also are common but not important as wolf prey. Each state or province within the range of

C. l. nubilus

manages its wild ungulate populations to maintain sustainable populations for harvest by hunters. Each state or province monitors big game populations to adjust hunter harvest in response to changes in big game population numbers and trends. Predation is a factor that affects those numbers and trends, and is considered when setting harvest quotas. We know of no future condition that would cause a decline in ungulate populations significant enough to affect

C. l. nubilus

throughout its range.

Human population growth and land development will continue in the range of

C. l. nubilus,

including increased development and conversion of private low-density rural land to higher density urban developments, road development and transportation facilities (pipelines and energy transmission lines), resource extraction (primarily oil and gas, coal, and wind development in certain areas), and more recreationists on public lands. Despite efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife (Brown 2006, pp. 1-3), some of this development will make some areas of the subspecies' range less suitable for wolf occupancy. However, it is unlikely that these potential developments and increased human presence will affect the subspecies in the future for the following reasons: (1) Wolves are habitat generalists and one of the most adaptable large predators in the world, and became extirpated in the southern portion of the subspecies' range only because of sustained deliberate human targeted elimination (Fuller

et al.

2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, pp. 328-330); (2) land-use restrictions on land development are not necessary to ensure the continued conservation of the subspecies—even active wolf dens can be quite resilient to nonlethal disturbance by humans (Frame and Meier 2007, p. 316); and (3) vast areas of suitable wolf habitat and the current wolf population are secure in the subspecies' range (national parks, wilderness, roadless areas, lands managed for multiple uses, and areas protected by virtue of remoteness from human populations) and are not available for or suitable to intensive levels of land development.

Development on private land near suitable habitat will continue to expose wolves to more conflicts and higher risk of human-caused mortality. However it is likely that the rate of conflict is well within the wolf population's biological mortality threshold (generally between 17 to 48 percent ([Fuller

et al.

2003 +/−8 percent], pp. 184-185; Adams

et al.

2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; Sparkman

et al.

2011 [25 percent], p. 5; Gude

et al.

2011 [48 percent], pp. 113-116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 percent]), especially given the large amount of secure habitat that will support a viable wolf population and will provide a reliable and constant source of dispersing wolves (Mech 1989, pp. 387-388). Wolf populations persist in many areas of the world that are far more developed than the range of

C. l. nubilus

currently is or is likely to be in the future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322-323). Habitat connectivity in the range of

C. l. nubilus

may be reduced below current levels, but wolves have exceptional abilities to disperse through unsuitable habitat (Jimenez

et al.

In review, p. 1), and such impacts would still not affect the subspecies rangewide.

Given the large number of wolves across the subspecies' range and the species' natural vagility, natural habitat connectivity is ensured over most of the range. We have not identified any occupied areas in Canada or the United States where lack of connectivity is affecting

C. l. nubilus

now or is likely to do so in the future.

The large amount of public lands and lands that are naturally inaccessible due to topography and/or remoteness from human settlement that cannot or will not be developed within the range of the subspecies assures that adequate suitable habitat for wolves will exist into the future. Even though some habitat degradation will occur in smaller areas of suitable habitat, the quantity and quality of habitat that will remain will be sufficient to maintain natural connectivity into the future (e.g., Carroll

et al.

2006 p. 32).

Human populations in the southern portion of the subspecies' range are expected to increase (Carroll

et al.

2006, p. 30). Increasing human populations do not necessarily lead to declining predator populations. Mortality can be limited with adequate management programs (Linnell

et al.

2001, p. 348), research and monitoring, and outreach and education about living with wildlife. In Canada and the United States, government lands such as national parks and Crown Land provide habitat for prey species as well as wolves.

Management plans of appropriate land-management agencies and governments manage public lands to limit resource impacts from human use of those lands, and these plans are more than adequate to support a viable wolf population across the range of

C. l. nubilus.

In Canada, large expanses of remote and inaccessible habitat accomplish the same thing. Habitat suitability for wolves will change over time with human population growth, land development, activities, and attitudes, but not to the extent that it is likely to affect the subspecies rangewide.

Summary of Factor A

We do not foresee that impacts to suitable and potentially suitable habitat will occur at levels that will significantly affect wolf numbers or distribution or affect population growth and long-term viability of

C. l. nubilus.

See the recent WGL DPS delisting rule (76 FR 81688, pp. 81688-81693) for a full discussion of this factor for

C. l. nubilus.

In Canada, even higher levels of certainty of habitat availability and security are provided by large areas of relatively inaccessible land, in addition to lands with protections provided by government regulations. These large areas of wolf habitat are likely to remain suitable into the future.

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

Wolves in the western Great Lakes were delisted (76 FR 81693) based in part on the existence of well-managed programs for legal take for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes for that population. In Canada, where the vast majority of

C. l. nubilus

exist, overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes has not had a significant effect on the subspecies. Mortality rates caused by commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes are not anticipated to exceed sustainable levels in the future. These activities have not affected the viability of the wolves in the past, and we have no reason to believe that they would do so in the future. In Canada, wolf populations are managed through public hunting and trapping seasons.

Scientific Research and Monitoring

—Each of the states and provinces in the range of

C. l. nubilus

conduct scientific research and monitoring of wolf populations. Activities range from surveys of hunter observations of wolf locations and numbers to aerial

counting surveys to darting wolves from airplanes and fixing them with radio collars for intensive monitoring. Even the most intensive and disruptive of these activities (anesthetizing for the purpose of radio-collaring) involves a very low rate of mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We expect that capture-related mortality by governments, Tribes, and universities conducting wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and research will remain below three percent of the wolves captured, and will be an insignificant source of mortality to

C. l. nubilus.

Education

—We are unaware of any wolves that have been removed from the wild solely for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used for such purposes are typically privately held captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons. However, states may get requests to place wolves that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for research or educational purposes. Such requests have been, and will continue to be, rare; would be closely regulated by the state and provincial wildlife-management agencies through the requirement for state permits for protected species; and would not substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.

Commercial and Recreational Uses

—Wolves in Oregon and Washington are protected by state Endangered Species Acts (Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 232-12-014 and 232-12-011; Oregon Code of Regulations (ORS) 496.171 to 496.192 and 498.026). Wolves in California are currently undergoing a status review to determine whether listing is warranted under the state Endangered Species Act (California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code, Sections 2050-2085). While in candidacy status, wolves in California will be treated as a state-listed species. Wolf management plans in Oregon (ODFW 2010, entire) and Washington (Wiles

et al.

2011, entire) establish recovery goals for each state and help protect wolves from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. Since their listing under the Act, no wolves have been legally killed or removed from the wild in the northwest United States (outside of the NRM DPS) for either commercial or recreational purposes. Some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use of the pelts and other parts, but illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes happens rarely. We believe these state Endangered Species Acts will continue to provide a strong deterrent to illegal killing of wolves by the public in the absence of Federal protections.

Hunting and trapping occurs across the range of

C. l. nubilus

in Canada, and are managed through provincial and territorial wildlife acts whose regulations provide a framework for sustainable harvest management and monitoring (Environment Canada 2008). Harvest strategies are reviewed annually and involve regulatory controls as well as management plans. Seasons do not distinguish between subspecies of

C. lupus

and vary across jurisdictions and management unit from “no closed season” to “no open season” with an average open season of 9 to 10 months. In some provinces, harvest is also monitored by mandatory carcass checks, reporting, or questionnaires. Where local wolf populations are declining or of concern, seasons and harvest strategies may be more restrictive and bag limits or quotas may be applied (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18-24), and where concern is low, liberal regulations typically prevail. Hunting of gray wolves is not allowed in Washington, Oregon, or California; however, lethal removal of depredating wolves has been allowed in eastern Washington and eastern Oregon (

i.e.,

in the NRM DPS) where wolves are no longer federally protected.

Wolves in British Columbia are currently designated as both a game animal and a furbearer. Seasons run from 4.5 months to 8 months long, and bag limits range between two wolves and unlimited wolves depending on location. Average annual numbers of wolves killed by hunting, trapping, and control for livestock, along with estimated percent of the population taken annually from 1986 to 1991 were 945 wolves, totaling 11 percent of the population in British Columbia (Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. 23). Estimated wolf harvest has increased to nearly 1,400 wolves in 2009 and 2010 as a result of higher wolf populations (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 2012, pp. 17-18).

The Northwest Territories and Nunavut manage wolves as a big game and furbearing species through hunting and trapping seasons (Nunavut 2012, pp. 1-9). Harvest numbers are known only for wolf pelts sold on the open market as pelts used domestically are not counted by the Provincial governments (COSEWIC 2001, p. 23). In the past 10 years, fur auction sales have ranged from 711 to 1,469 pelts annually from these 2 territories (COSEWIC 2001, p. 25). Although the amount to which domestic use adds to the total harvest is unknown, it is believed to be relatively insignificant (COSEWIC 2001, p. 25). The average annual number of wolves killed in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut by hunting, trapping, and control for livestock protection from 1986 to 1991 was 793 wolves, totaling 7 to 8 percent of the population (Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. 23).

Wolves are classified as big game and furbearer in Manitoba (Manitoba 2012a, entire). Hunters and trappers can take anywhere from one to unlimited wolves during a 5.5- to 12-month season (Manitoba 2012a, entire; Manitoba 2012b, entire). Most recent available data estimate the average annual number of wolves killed in Manitoba by hunting, trapping, and control for livestock protection, from 1986 to 1991 at 295 wolves, totaling 7 to 10 percent of the population (Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. 23). We have no information that there has been a significant change in harvest since this report.

Wolves are classified as small game and furbearers in Ontario. Hunting and trapping seasons last from September 15 through March 15, with a bag limit of two wolves for hunters and no bag limit for trappers (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005, pp. 21-22). Annual wolf harvest by hunters is likely in the range of 110 to 260 wolves per season and trapper harvest in Ontario averaged 337 wolves (range: 285 to 1,248) annually from the 1971-1972 season to the 2002/2003 season (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2005, pp. 21-22). The combined harvest equates to approximately 6 percent (range: 4 to 17 percent) of the provincewide population of

C. lupus

in Ontario. Numbers of wolves killed for livestock protection is unknown, but Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (2005, p. 23) estimates that the numbers are likely small.

In Quebec, wolves are classified as big game and furbearer, and seasons range from 4.5 months for trapping to 6 months for hunting (Jolicoeur and Henault 2010). Harvest rates, based on annual fur sales and population estimates, average 5.9 percent (range: 2.8 to 29.5 percent) for the entire province. Most recent available data estimate the average annual number of wolves killed in Quebec by hunting, trapping, and control for livestock protection from 1986 to 1991 at 945 wolves, totaling 11 percent of the population (Hayes and Gunson 1995, p. 23). We have no information that there has been a significant change in harvest since this report.

In Labrador, wolves are classified as furbearers and can be hunted or trapped during the 6-month season.

Approximately 100 to 350 wolves are killed by hunters annually.

Wolf populations can maintain themselves despite sustained human-caused mortality rates of 17 to 48 percent ([Fuller

et al.

2003 +/- 8 percent], pp. 184-185; Adams

et al.

2008 [29 percent], p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010 [22 percent], p. 5; Sparkman

et al.

2011 [25 percent], p. 5; Gude

et al.

2011 [48 percent], pp. 113-116; Vucetich and Carroll In Review [17 percent]). Recent studies suggest the sustainable mortality rate may be lower, and that harvest may have a partially additive or even super additive (i.e., harvest increases total mortality beyond the effect of direct killing itself, through social disruption or the loss of dependent offspring) (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 6), but substantial debate on this issue remains (Gude

et al.

2012, pp. 113-116). 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, and breeding individuals can be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd

et al.

2008, p. 1). Collectively, these factors mean that wolf populations are quite resilient to human-caused mortality if it is adequately regulated. This trend is evident in this subspecies in that, despite liberal harvest imposed across the range of

C. l. nubilus

in Canada, populations are still high and trends stable to increasing.

In Canada, some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use of pelts and other parts, but because licenses are not required to hunt wolves in several provinces, illegal commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or parts and illegal capture of wolves for commercial breeding purposes happens rarely. We do not expect the use of wolves for scientific purposes to change in proportion to total wolf numbers. Although exact figures are not available throughout the range, such permanent removals of wolves from the wild have been very limited, and we have no substantial information suggesting that this is likely to change in the future.

In summary, states and provinces have humane and professional animal-handling protocols and trained personnel that will ensure population monitoring and research result in little unintentional mortality. Furthermore, the states' and provinces' permitting process for captive wildlife and animal care will ensure that few, if any, wolves will be removed from the wild solely for educational purposes. We conclude that any potential wolf take resulting from commercial, scientific, or educational purposes in the range of the subspecies does not appear to be affecting the viability of

C. l. nubilus.

Furthermore, states and provinces have regulatory mechanisms in place to ensure that populations remain viable (see discussion under factor D).

Factor C. Disease or Predation

This section discusses disease and parasites, natural predation, and all sources of human-caused mortality not covered under factor B above (the factor B analysis includes sources of human-caused mortality for commercial and recreational uses). The array of diseases, parasites, and predators affecting

C. l. nubilus

is similar to that affecting other wolf subspecies. The following analysis focuses on wolves in the WGL because it is the most intensively studied population of

C. l. nubilus

and is a good surrogate for assessing the rest of the subspecies' range. Although we lack direct information on disease rates and mortality rates from disease for the subspecies rangewide, it is likely that the impact of disease and predation is similar for other parts of the range; that is, disease and predation have a variety of sources, rates of disease are largely density-dependent, and disease and predation are not significantly affecting the subspecies.

A wide range of diseases and parasites have been reported for the gray wolf, and several of them have had significant but temporary impacts during the recovery of the species in the 48 contiguous United States (Brand

et al.

1995, p. 419; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61, Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). We fully anticipate that, in the range of

C. l. nubilus,

these diseases and parasites will follow the same pattern seen in other members of the genus in 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, b). Although destructive to individuals, most of these diseases seldom cause significant, long-term changes in population growth (Fuller

et al.

2003, pp. 176-178; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214).

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs (

Canis familiaris

), foxes (

Vulpes vulpes

), coyotes, 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 (primarily pup mortality) is a result of dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and shock. Canine parvovirus has been detected in nearly every wolf population in North America including Alaska (Bailey

et al.

1995, p. 441; Brand

et al.

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

et al.

1994), and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost universal. Nearly 100 percent of the wolves handled in Montana (Atkinson 2006), Yellowstone National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18), and Minnesota (Mech and Goyal 1993, pp. 331) had blood antibodies indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. 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 22 percent annually from 1996 to 2008 (Service

et al.

2009, Table 4). Mech

et al.

(2008, p. 824) recently concluded that CPV reduced pup survival, subsequent dispersal, and the overall rate of population growth in Minnesota (a population near carrying capacity in suitable habitat). After the CPV became endemic in the population, the population developed immunity and was able to withstand severe effects from the disease (Mech and Goyal, 1993, pp. 331-332). These observed effects are consistent with results from studies in smaller, isolated populations in Wisconsin and on Isle Royale, Michigan (Wydeven

et al.

1995, entire; Peterson

et al.

1998, entire) but indicate that CPV also had only a temporary population effect in a larger population.

Canine distemper virus (CDV) is an acute disease of carnivores that has been known in Europe since the sixteenth century and infects dogs worldwide (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). This disease generally infects dog pups when they are only a few months old, so mortality in wild wolf populations might be difficult to detect (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 420-421). Mortality from CDV among wild wolves has been documented only in two littermate pups in Manitoba (Carbyn 1982, pp. 111-112), in two Alaskan yearling wolves (Peterson

et al.

1984, p. 31), and in two Wisconsin wolves (an adult in 1985 and a pup in 2002 (Thomas

in litt.

2006; Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 20)). Carbyn (1982, pp. 113-116) concluded that CDV was partially responsible for a 50-percent decline in the wolf population in Riding Mountain National Park

(Manitoba, Canada) in the mid-1970s. Serological evidence indicates that exposure to CDV is high among some wolf populations—29 percent in northern Wisconsin and 79 percent in central Wisconsin from 2002 to 2003 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, pp. 23-24, Table 7) and 2004 (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2004, pp. 23-24, Table 7), and similar levels in Yellowstone National Park (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18). However, the continued strong recruitment in Wisconsin and elsewhere in North American wolf populations indicates that distemper is not likely a significant cause of mortality (Brand

et al.

1995, p. 421). These outbreaks will undoubtedly occur when wolf densities are high and near carrying capacity, but as documented elsewhere, CDV will not likely significantly affect

C. l. nubilus.

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. Lyme disease infections in wolves have been reported only in the WGL. In this region, the disease might be suppressing population growth by decreasing wolf pup survival (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61); Lyme disease has not been reported from wolves beyond the Great Lakes regions and is not expected to be a factor affecting

C. l. nubilus

rangewide (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61).

Mange (

Sarcoptes scabeii

) is caused by a mite 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 mortality from exposure during severe winter weather or secondary infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Advanced mange can involve the entire body and can cause emaciation, 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 wolves throughout North America (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 427-428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). In Montana and Wyoming, proportions of packs with mange fluctuated between 3 and 24 percent from 2003 to 2008 (Jimenez

et al.

2010; Atkinson 2006, p. 5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). In packs with the most severe infestations, pup survival appeared low, and some adults died (Jimenez

et al.

2010); however, evidence suggests infestations do not normally become chronic because wolves often naturally overcome them. Mange has been detected in Wisconsin wolves every year since 1991, with no impact on population growth (Wydeven

et al.

2009, pp. 96-97). Despite its constant presence as an occasional mortality factor, the wolf population expanded from 39 to 41 wolves in 1991 to its present level of 815 or more in winter 2011 to 2012 (Wydeven

et al.

2012).

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, death from exposure and/or secondary infection following self-inflicted trauma, caused by inflammation and itching, appears possible. Dog-biting lice were first confirmed on two wolves in Montana in 2005, on a wolf in south-central Idaho in early 2006 (Service

et al.

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

et al.

2010), and in 4 percent of Minnesota wolves in 2003 through 2005 (Paul

in litt.

2005), but their infestations were not severe. Dog-biting-lice infestations are not expected to have a significant impact even at a local scale in

C. l. nubilus.

Other diseases and parasites, including rabies, canine heartworm, blastomycosis, bacterial myocarditis, granulomatous pneumonia, brucellosis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, hookworm, coccidiosis, and canine hepatitis have been documented in wild wolves, but their impacts on future wild wolf populations are not likely to be significant (Brand

et al.

1995, pp. 419-429; Hassett

in litt.

2003; Johnson 1995b, pp. 431, 436-438; Mech and Kurtz 1999, pp. 305-306; Thomas

in litt.

1998, Thomas

in litt.

2006, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202-214). Continuing wolf range expansion, however, likely will provide new avenues for exposure to several of these diseases, especially canine heartworm, raccoon rabies, and bovine tuberculosis (Thomas

in litt.

2000,

in litt.

2006), further emphasizing the need for disease-monitoring programs.

Natural Predation

No wild animals habitually prey on wolves. Other predators, such as mountain lions (

Felis concolor

), black bears (

Ursus Americanus

), and grizzly bears (

Ursus arctos horribilis

) (Service 2005, p. 3), or even large prey, such as deer, elk, and moose (Mech and Nelson 1989, pp. 676; Smith

et al.

2001, p. 3), occasionally kill wolves, but this has been documented only rarely. Other wolves are the largest cause of natural predation among wolves (less than three percent rate of natural wolf mortality in the NRM). Intraspecific-strife mortality is normal behavior in healthy wolf populations and is an expected outcome of dispersal conflicts and territorial defense. This form of mortality is something with which the species has evolved, and it should not affect

C. l. nubilus.

Human-Caused Mortality

Wolves are susceptible to human-caused mortality, especially in open habitats such as those that occur in the western United States (Bangs

et al.

2004, p. 93). An active eradication program is the sole reason that wolves were extirpated from their historical range in the United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In all locations where people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are killed to resolve conflicts with livestock (Fritts

et al.

2003, p. 310; Woodroffe

et al.

2005, pp. 86-107, 345-347). Occasionally, wolves are killed accidentally (

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).

However, many wolf killings are intentional, illegal, and never reported to authorities. Wolves may become unwary of people or human activity, increasing their vulnerability to human-caused mortality (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 300-302). The number of illegal killings is difficult to estimate and impossible to accurately determine because they generally occur with few witnesses. Illegal killing was estimated to make up 70 percent of the total mortality rate in a north-central Minnesota wolf population and 24 percent in the NRM (Liberg

et al.

2011, pp. 3-5). Liberg

et al.

(2011, pp. 3-5) suggests more than two-thirds of total poaching may go unaccounted for, and that illegal killing can pose a severe threat to wolf recovery. In the NRM, poaching has not prevented population recovery, but it has affected 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; Service

et al.

1989-2005). We would expect a similar pattern for

C. l. nubilus

in the northwestern United States, but not in Canada, where harvest regulations are liberal and social tolerance of wolves is higher.

Vehicle collisions contribute to wolf mortality rates throughout North America. They are expected to rise with increasing wolf populations, and as wolves colonize areas with more human development and a denser network of roads and vehicle traffic. Highway mortalities will likely constitute a small proportion of total mortalities.

Populations of

C. l. nubilus

are high and stable to increasing in the many areas throughout Canada. We have no reason to believe that threats of disease and predation have increased recently or will increase. Therefore, we conclude that neither disease nor predation, including all forms of human-caused mortality, is significantly affecting

C. l. nubilus

throughout its range.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The Act requires us to examine the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms with respect to those existing and foreseeable threats discussed under the other factors that may affect

C. l. nubilus.

Wolves within the WGL DPS were delisted based in part on the fact that there would be adequate regulatory mechanisms in place following delisting to facilitate the maintenance of the recovered status of the wolves in the western Great Lakes. For a full discussion of the regulatory mechanisms in place for gray wolves in the western Great Lakes, see the December 28, 2011, final delisting rule (76 FR 81666, pp. 81701-81717).

Wolves are classified as endangered under both the Washington and Oregon State Endangered Species Acts (WAC 232-12-014 and 232-12-011; ORS 496.171 to 496.192 and 498.026). Unlawful taking (when a person hunts, fishes, possesses, maliciously harasses or kills endangered fish or wildlife, and the taking has not been authorized by rule of the commission) of endangered fish or wildlife is prohibited in Washington (RCW 77.15.120). Prohibitions and limitations regarding endangered species in Oregon are established by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to ensure the survival of the species and may include take avoidance (“to kill or obtain possession or control of any wildlife,” ORS 496.004) and protecting resource sites (ORS 496.182). Wolves in California are currently undergoing a status review to determine whether listing is warranted under the California Endangered Species Act (California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 2050-2069).

Oregon and Washington also have adopted wolf-management plans (California is currently developing a wolf-management plan) intended to provide for the conservation and reestablishment of wolves in these states (ODFW 2010, entire; Wiles

et al.

2011, entire). These plans include population objectives, education and public outreach goals, damage-management strategies, and monitoring and research plans. Wolves will remain on each state's respective endangered species list until the population objectives (four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years in Oregon and four breeding pairs for 3 consecutive years in each of three geographic regions plus three breeding pairs anywhere in Washington) have been reached. Once the objectives are met, wolves will be either reclassified to threatened or removed from the state's endangered species lists. Once removed, the states will use regulated harvest to manage wolf populations. Wolves in the western two thirds of Oregon will maintain protected status until four breeding pairs occupy that region for 3 consecutive years.

Both plans also recognize that management of livestock conflicts is a necessary component of wolf management (Service 1980, p. 4; Service 1987, p. 3; Hayes and Gunson 2005, p. 27). Control options are currently limited within

C. l. nubilus'

historical range in Oregon and Washington, where they are federally protected. If Federal delisting occurs, guidelines outlined in each state's plan define conditions under which depredating wolves can be harassed or killed by agency officials (ODFW 2010, pp. 43-54; Wiles

et al.

2011, pp. 72-94).

Within the range of

C. l. nubilus

in Canada, wolf populations are managed as big game and as furbearers; hunting and trapping are the principal management tools used to keep populations within the limits of human tolerance. Each province within the range has committed to maintain sustainable populations while allowing for harvest and minimizing conflict with livestock (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18-29, 44-46). Maintaining wild ungulate populations in numbers that allow for liberal human harvest for local consumption is also a priority in many areas (COSEWIC 2001, pp. 18-26).

Although wolves are not dependent on specific habitat features other than an adequate food supply and human tolerance, state, provincial, and Federal land-management regimes provide protection for wolves and wolf habitat throughout the range of

C. l. nubilus.

Canadian National Parks in the southern portion of the range of

C. l. nubilus

do not allow hunting, while National Parks in the northern portion of the range allow hunting by Native Peoples only (COSEWIC 2001, p. 26). National Parks and Monuments also exist in Washington (three National Parks and three National Monuments) totaling 7,707 km

2

(1,904,451 million acres) and Oregon (one National Park and two National Monuments) totaling 800 km

2

(197,656 acres); some of these areas will likely act as refugia once recolonized by wolves. These land-management regimes provide refugia for wolf populations from hunting, trapping, and control activities, and in turn these protected populations may serve as a source of dispersing wolves for low-density populations.

We have long recognized that control of wolf numbers and especially depredating wolves was central to maintaining public support for wolf conservation. Much of the impact of livestock production on

C. l. nubilus

occurred during the period between settlement and the mid-20th century when wolves were extirpated from most of the United States due to depredations on livestock. Wolves have not repopulated these regions due to continued lack of human tolerance to their presence and habitat alteration. In Canada, outside of relatively high-human-density areas, wolf populations have remained strong since the cessation of widespread predator poisoning campaigns in the 1950s. We have no information to suggest that the current regulatory regime in Canada is not adequate to provide for the conservation of

C. l. nubilus,

and so we conclude that the jurisdictions in these areas have been successful in their search for an appropriate balance between wolf conservation, human tolerance, and providing for human uses. Therefore, both in Canada, and in the United States, in the absence of the Act, the existing regulatory mechanisms are currently adequate to provide for the long-term conservation of

C. l. nubilus.

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

Wolves in the western Great Lakes were delisted based in part on the conclusion that other natural or manmade factors are unlikely to affect the viability of wolves in the western Great Lakes in the future. For a full discussion of factor E for

C. lupus nubilus

in the Western Great Lakes DPS,

see the December 28, 2011, final delisting rule (76 FR 81666, pp. 81717-81721).

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf

—Throughout much of Canada, in contrast to the contiguous United States, wolves are not dependent on human tolerance for their conservation. Even during the height of wolf control that included indiscriminate poisoning and trapping campaigns by the public and by government agencies, wolves were able to maintain viable populations in much of

C. l. nubilus'

historical range simply by virtue of remote and rugged terrain and low human population densities. However, in southern Canada and in the United States today public attitudes toward wolves are important conservation issues. In these areas with higher human densities and the presence of livestock, the primary determinant of the long-term conservation of gray wolves will likely be human attitudes toward this large predator. These attitudes are largely based on the real and perceived conflicts between human activities and values and wolves, such as depredation on livestock and pets, competition for surplus wild ungulates between hunters and wolves, concerns for human safety, wolves' symbolic representation of wildness and ecosystem health, killing of wolves by humans, and the wolf-related traditions of Native American Tribes or local culture.

It is important to find a balance in wolf management that will sustain wolf populations but also address other human concerns in a way that maintains tolerance of wolves among the human populations that live with them (Bangs

et al.

2009, p. 111; 62 FR 15175, April 2, 2009). Addressing these concerns will often involve lethal take of wolves or other removal methods (Bangs

et al.

2009, pp. 107-111. These activities, when employed in an overall management framework, are essential wolf-conservation activities as they provide the public with assurances that human interests and needs will be considered appropriately during wolf-management decisions (Bangs

et al.

2009, pp. 111-114.

Predator control—

Wolf numbers have been the subject of control efforts to reduce conflicts with livestock and to increase ungulate numbers in Canada since the turn of the 20th century (Boertje

et al.

2010, p. 917). Since the 1970s, wolf control has been focused on increasing populations of wild ungulates, mostly moose but also caribou, for human consumption and in some cases to conserve caribou herds that were at risk (Russell 2010, pp. 6-12). Wolf control has included both lethal and nonlethal methods, using public hunting and trapping seasons, aerial gunning by government agents, and experimentation with predator exclosures, sterilization, and supplemental feeding (Russell 2010, pp. 6-12).

Predator-control programs as they currently exist are not affecting the viability of

C. l. nubilus

for several reasons: (1) The types of control measures that have resulted in effective extirpation of wolf populations from large areas are no longer permitted or prescribed by the states and provinces that pursue wolf control. Historically, wolves were persecuted by people seeking to eliminate wolves from the landscape using any means necessary. These means included government agencies systematically poisoning and trapping wolves. The goal of wolf-control programs and associated research in Canada today is to maintain sustainable (though low-density) wolf populations. Control programs do not employ indiscriminant broadcast poisoning, and trapping or shooting of wolves is limited by estimates of population numbers with the goal of reducing but not eliminating wolf populations.

(2) Wolf control is very expensive and so is not likely to be applied broadly enough and consistently enough to reduce the rangewide population of

C. l. nubilus

substantially. Typically, wolf-control areas are repopulated within 4 years of cessation of control efforts, indicating that population control is temporary and reliant on constant application of control efforts (Boertje

et al.

2010, p. 920).

(3) Wolf control must be applied over a large area to be effective (National Research Council 1997, p. 10). This fact combined with number 2 above ensures that wolf control is not likely to be applied unless wolf populations are high enough for the perceived benefits to outweigh the costs. This situation is not likely to exist over a large portion of the subspecies' range simultaneously.

(4) Wolves are extremely resilient with high population-growth potential and high rates of dispersal. After control operations, wolf populations recover to precontrol levels within a few years.

(5) Wolf control will be applied only where wolf populations are high. This means that wolf control may act as a density-dependent population-control mechanism. When wolf populations are high, ungulate populations become depressed, leading to pressures for management authorities to employ predator control actions to address the situation. As predator populations are reduced and ungulate populations rebound, pressure to continue the control actions is reduced, leading to reduction or cessation of the program to reduce expenditures. This dynamic likely supplies some added protection to the long-term viability of the subspecies.

Climate Change—

Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutr

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