# 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 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-13982 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** June 13, 2013 - **Citation:** 78 FR 35664 ## Text 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 effec [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-13982. Public record. Not legal advice.