# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2020-24171 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** November 3, 2020 - **Citation:** 85 FR 69778 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097; FF09E22000 FXES1113090FEDR 212] RIN 1018-BD60 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule and notification of petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), have evaluated the classification status of the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) entities currently listed in the lower 48 United States and Mexico under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our evaluation, we are removing the gray wolf entities in the lower 48 United States and Mexico, except for the Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ), that are currently on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are taking this action because the best available scientific and commercial data available establish that the gray wolf entities in the lower 48 United States do not meet the definitions of a threatened species or an endangered species under the Act. The effect of this rulemaking action is that C. lupus is not classified as a threatened or endangered species under the Act. This rule does not have any effect on the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies ( Canis lupus baileyi ) as endangered under the Act. In addition, we announce a 90-day finding on a petition to maintain protections for the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States as endangered or threatened distinct population segments. Based on our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating status reviews of the petitioned entities in response to the petition. DATES: This rule is effective January 4, 2021. ADDRESSES: This final rule, the post-delisting monitoring plan, and the summary of the basis for the petition finding contained in this document are available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 or https://ecos.fws.gov. Comments and materials we received, as well as some supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bridget Fahey, Chief, Division of Classification and Conservation, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office, MS: ES, 5275, Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone (703) 358-2163. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Summary Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act and our regulations, if we determine that a species is no longer threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we must remove the species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12). The Act requires us to issue a rule to remove a species from the List (“delist” it) (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)). What this document does. This rule removes from the List gray wolves that are currently listed as threatened or endangered species in the lower 48 United States and Mexico. This rule does not have any effect on the separate listing of the Mexican wolf subspecies as endangered under the Act (80 FR 2487, January 16, 2015). The basis for our action. Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more of five factors or the cumulative effects thereof: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1(A)). We have determined that the gray wolf entities currently listed in the lower 48 United States and Mexico (not including the Mexican wolf subspecies) do not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act. Peer review and public comment. We sought comments on the proposed delisting rule from independent specialists to ensure that this rule is based on reasonable assumptions and scientifically sound data and analyses. We also considered all comments and information we received during the proposed delisting rule's comment period. Table of Contents Previous Federal Actions General Background The 1978 Reclassification National Wolf Strategy The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a “Species” Approach for This Rule The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule Definition and Treatment of Range Summary of Our Approach Species Information Biology and Ecology Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification Historical Range Historical Abundance Historical Trends in Range and Abundance Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978 Reclassification Current Distribution and Abundance Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States Recovery Criteria for the NRM Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS Historical Context of Our Analysis Regulatory Framework Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Human-Caused Mortality Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities Human-Caused Mortality in the NRM DPS Regulated Harvest in Idaho Depredation Control in Idaho Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Idaho Summary Regulated Harvest in Montana Depredation Control in Montana Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Montana Summary Regulated Harvest in Wyoming Depredation Control in Wyoming Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Wyoming Summary Regulated Harvest in Oregon Depredation Control in Oregon Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Oregon Summary Regulated Harvest in Washington Depredation Control in Washington Wolf Population and Human-Caused Mortality in Washington Summary Effects on Wolf Social Structure and Pack Dynamics The Role of Public Attitudes Human-Caused Mortality Summary Habitat and Prey Availability Great Lakes Area: Suitable Habitat Great Lakes Area: Prey Availability NRM DPS: Suitable Habitat NRM DPS: Prey Availability West Coast States: Suitable Habitat West Coast States: Prey Availability Central Rocky Mountains: Suitable Habitat Central Rocky Mountains: Prey Availability Habitat and Prey Availability Summary Disease and Parasites Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding Effects of Climate Change Cumulative Effects Ongoing and Post-Delisting State, Tribal, and Federal Wolf Management Ongoing Management in the Delisted NRM DPS State Management Idaho Montana Wyoming Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves Wind River Indian Reservation Blackfeet Indian Reservation Flathead Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Management on Federal Lands Summary of Management in the NRM DPS Post-Delisting Management Where Wolves are Currently Listed State Management in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan The Minnesota Wolf Management Plan Depredation Control in Minnesota Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Minnesota Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Minnesota The Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan Depredation Control in Wisconsin Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Wisconsin Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Wisconsin The Michigan Wolf Management Plan Depredation Control in Michigan Post-Delisting Depredation Control in Michigan Post-Delisting Regulated Harvest in Michigan State Management in the West Coast States The Oregon Wolf Management Plan The Washington Wolf Management Plan The California Wolf Management Plan State Management in the Central Rocky Mountains Post-Delisting Management in Colorado Post-Delisting Management in Utah Tribal Management and Conservation of Wolves Management on Federal Lands Great Lakes Area West Coast States Central Rocky Mountains Summary of Post-Delisting Management Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule Summary of Comments and Recommendations Peer Reviewer Comments Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends Human-Caused Mortality Habitat and Prey Availability Disease and Parasites Post-Delisting Management General Biological Report Policy State and Federal Agency Comments Recovery and Delisting Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends Taxonomy Human-Caused Mortality Effects of Climate Change Genetics Post-Delisting Management Policy Tribal and Tribal Organization Comments Public Comments Recovery and Delisting Biology, Ecology, Range, Distribution, or Population Trends Taxonomy Human-Caused Mortality Habitat and Prey Availability Disease and Parasites Effects of Climate Change Genetics Additional Threats Post-Delisting Management Post-Delisting Monitoring General Policy Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the Listings for the Gray Wolf Under the Act Background Species and Range Petition History Findings Alternatives 1 and 2 Alternative 3 Determination of Species Status Currently Listed Entities Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range Minnesota: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range Minnesota: Final Determination 44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range 44-State Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range 44-State Entity: Final Determination Combined Listed Entity Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range Combined Listed Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range Combined Listed Entity: Final Determination Lower 48 United States Entity Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range Lower 48 United States Entity: Determination of Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range Lower 48 United States Entity: Final Determination Determination of Species Status: Conclusion Effects of This Rule Post-Delisting Monitoring Required Determinations National Environmental Policy Act Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes Previous Federal Actions Gray wolves were originally listed as subspecies or as regional populations 1 of subspecies in the lower 48 United States and Mexico. Early listings were under legislative predecessors of the Act—the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. Later listings were under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Federal Register citations for all the rulemaking actions described in the following paragraphs are provided in table 1, below. 1 A group of fish or wildlife in the same taxon below the subspecific level, in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature (50 CFR 17.3). In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf throughout the lower 48 United States and Mexico, subsuming the earlier listings of subspecies or regional populations of subspecies. In that rule, we classified gray wolves in Minnesota as a threatened species and gray wolves elsewhere in the lower 48 United States and Mexico as an endangered species (table 1). At that time, we considered the gray wolves in Minnesota to be a listable entity under the Act, and we considered the gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico, other than Minnesota, to be another listable entity (43 FR 9607 and 9610, respectively, March 9, 1978). The earlier subspecies listings thus were subsumed into two listed entities: The gray wolf in Minnesota; and the gray wolf in the rest of the lower 48 United States and Mexico. The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect all gray wolves in the lower 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). In addition, we also clarified that the gray wolf was only listed south of the Canadian border. The 1978 reclassification rule 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). Accordingly, we implemented three gray wolf recovery programs in three regions of the country—the northern Rocky Mountains, the Southwestern United States, and the Eastern United States (including the Great Lakes States). The recovery programs were pursued to establish and prioritize recovery criteria and actions appropriate to the unique local circumstances of the gray wolf (table 1). Recovery in one of these regions (Southwestern United States) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental population (table 1). Recovery in a second region (northern Rocky Mountains) included reintroduction of gray wolves in an experimental population (table 1) and natural recolonization. Recovery in the third region (Eastern United States) relied on natural recolonization and population growth. Between 2003 and 2015, we published several rules revising the 1978 listed entities to acknowledge new information regarding taxonomy, comport with current policy and practices, and recognize the biological recovery of gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) and Eastern United States. Previous rules were challenged and subsequently invalidated or vacated by various courts based, in part, on their determinations that our distinct population segment (DPS) designations were legally flawed (table 1). Of particular relevance to this rule is our 2011 final rule addressing wolf recovery in the western Great Lakes (WGL) area of the Eastern United States (76 FR 81666, Dec. 28, 2011). In that rule, we recognized the expansion of the Minnesota wolf population by revising the previously listed Minnesota entity to include all or portions of six surrounding States, classified the expanded population as the WGL DPS, and determined that the WGL DPS did not meet the definition of a threatened or an endangered species due to recovery. Also in 2011, we published a final rule that implemented section 1713 of Public Law 112-10, reinstating our 2009 delisting rule for the NRM DPS and, with the exception of Wyoming, removed gray wolves in that DPS from the List. In 2012, we finalized a rule removing gray wolves in Wyoming from the List. That rule was later vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2013, we published a proposed rule to: (1) Delist C. lupus in the remaining listed portions of the United States and Mexico outside of the delisted NRM and WGL DPSs; and (2) keep Mexican wolf ( C. l baileyi; occurring in the Southwestern United States and Mexico) listed as an endangered subspecies (table 1). In 2014, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the December 28, 2011, final rule identifying the WGL DPS and removing it from the List (table 1). The district court's decision was based, in part, on its conclusion that the Act does not allow the Service to use its authority to identify a DPS solely for the purpose of delisting it ( Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 112-13 (D.D.C. 2014)). The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling in 2017 that the Service had the authority to designate a DPS from a larger listed entity and delist it in the same rule (table 1). That court nonetheless upheld the district court's vacatur of the rule, concluding that the Service failed to analyze or consider two significant aspects of the rule: The impacts of delisting the DPS on the rest of the listed entity and the impacts of the loss of historical range ( Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. Zinke, 865 F.3d 585, 602-03, 605-07). In 2015, we finalized the portion of the 2013 proposed rule listing the Mexican wolf as an endangered subspecies (table 1). In 2017, the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's decision and reinstated the delisting of gray wolves in Wyoming ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (DC Cir. 2017)). Thus, wolves are currently delisted in the entire northern Rocky Mountains DPS (figure 1). As a result of the above actions, the C. lupus listed entities in 50 CFR 17.11 currently include: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota listed as threatened, and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). In the United States, this includes: All of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (figure 1). On March 15, 2019, we published a proposed rule to delist the two currently listed C. lupus entities in the Federal Register (84 FR 9648). The publication of the proposed delisting rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which was scheduled to close on May 14, 2019. Based on several requests from the public to extend the comment period, we published a document on May 14, 2019, extending the comment period 60 days, to July 15, 2019 (84 FR 21312). We announced a public information open house and public hearing on our proposed rule and the availability of the final peer review report in the Federal Register on June 6, 2019 (84 FR 26393). The public events were held in Brainerd, Minnesota, on June 25, 2019. For additional information on these Federal actions and their associated litigation history, refer to the relevant associated rules or the Previous Federal Actions sections of our recent gray wolf actions (see table 1). Table 1—Key Federal Regulatory Actions Under the Act and Predecessor Legislation 1 Pertaining to Gray Wolf and, Where Applicable, Outcomes of Court Challenges to These Actions. Entity Year of action Type of action Federal Register citation Litigation history C. lupus lycaon 1967 1 List 32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967 C. lupus irremotus 1973 1 List 38 FR 14678, June 4, 1973 C. l. lycaon 1974 List 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974 C. l. irremotus 1974 List 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974 C. l. baileyi 1976 List (E) 41 FR 17736, April 28, 1976 C. lupus monstrabilis 2 1976 List (E) 41 FR 24064, June 14, 1976 C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except Minnesota) & Mexico 1978 Reclassify (E) 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 3 C. lupus in Minnesota 1978 Reclassify (T) 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978 3 C. lupus 1978 (revised 1992) Recovery Plan for Eastern Timber Wolf (eastern gray wolf) n.a. C. lupus 1980 (revised 1987) Recovery Plan for NRM Gray Wolf n.a. C. lupus 1982 (revised 2017) Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf ( C. l. baileyi ) n.a. C. lupus 1994 Establish experimental population (southeastern Idaho, southern Montana, and Wyoming) 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994 C. lupus 1994 Establish experimental population (central Idaho & southwest Montana) 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994 Upholding reintroduction in the NRM region ( Wyoming Farm Bureau v . Babbitt, 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000)). C. lupus 1998 Establish experimental population (Arizona & New Mexico) 63 FR 1752, January 12, 1998 C. lupus DPSs: —Eastern DPS —Western DPS —Southwestern U.S. & Mexico DPS 2003 Designate DPS & classify/reclassify as: —Eastern DPS (T) —Western DPS (T) —Southwestern U.S. & Mexico DPS (E) —Delist in unoccupied non-historical range 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003 Rule vacated ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 386 F. Supp. 2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). C. lupus WGL DPS 2007 Designate DPS & delist 72 FR 6052, February 8, 2007 Rule vacated ( Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, 579 F. Supp. 2d 7 (D. D.C. 2008)). C. lupus NRM DPS 2008 Designate DPS & delist 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008 Rule enjoined ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 565 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008)), and subsequently vacated and remanded. C. lupus DPSs: —WGL DPS —NRM DPS 2008 Reinstatement of protections—NRM & WGL DPSs 73 FR 75356, December 11, 2008 C. lupus WGL DPS 2009 Designate DPS & delist 74 FR 15070, April 2, 2009 Rule vacated ( Humane Society of the United States v . Salazar, 1:09-CV-1092-PLF (D.D.C. 2009)). C. lupus NRM DPS (except Wyoming) 2009 Designate DPS & delist (except in Wyoming) 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009 Rule vacated ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010)). C. lupus WGL DPS 2009 Reinstatement of protections—WGL 74 FR 47483, September 16, 2009 C. lupus NRM DPS 2010 Reinstatement of protections—NRM DPS 75 FR 65574, October 26, 2010 C. lupus NRM DPS 2011 Reissuance of 2009 NRM DPS delisting rule (as required by Public Law 112-10—The Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011) 76 FR 25590, May 5, 2011 Upholding Section 1713 ( Alliance for the Wild Rockies v . Salazar, 672 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)). C. lupus WGL DPS 2011 Revise 1978 listing, designate DPS & delist 76 FR 81666, December 28, 2011 Rule vacated ( Humane Society of the U.S. v. Jewell, 76 F. Supp. 3d 69, 110 (D.D.C. 2014)) . Vacatur upheld on appeal ( Humane Society of the U.S. v . Zinke, 865 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. and Mexico, as revised 2012 5-Year Review n.a. C. lupus in Wyoming 2012 Delist in Wyoming 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012 Rule vacated ( Defenders of Wildlife v. Jewell, 68 F. Supp. 3d 193 (D.D.C. 2014) Vacatur reversed on appeal ( Defenders of Wildlife v . Zinke, 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2017)). C. lupus in lower 48 U.S. (except NRM & WGL DPSs) and Mexico 2013 Propose delist in lower 48 U.S. & list C. l. baileyi (E); status review of wolves in Pacific Northwest 78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013 C. l. baileyi 2015 List E 80 FR 2488, January 16, 2015 C. l. baileyi 2015 Revised 1998 C. lupus experimental population and associated it with C. l. baileyi listing 80 FR 2512, January 16, 2015 C. lupus WGL DPS and C. lupus in Wyoming 2015 Reinstatement of protections—WGL DPS & Wyoming 80 FR 9218, February 20, 2015 C. lupus in Wyoming 2017 Reinstatement of 2012 delisting—Wyoming 82 FR 20284, May 1, 2017 E = endangered species, T = threatened species, DPS = Distinct Population Segment, NRM = Northern Rocky Mountains, WGL = Western Great Lakes. 1 Action taken under the Endangered Species Preservation predecessor legislation (Endangered Species Act of 1966, Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969). 2 Later subsumed into C. l. baileyi due to taxonomic changes. 3 In this 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). ER03NO20.016 General Background The 1978 Reclassification When the gray wolf ( C. lupus ) was reclassified in March 1978 (replacing multiple subspecies entities with two C. lupus population entities as described further in Previous Federal Actions), it had been extirpated from much of its historical range in the lower 48 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 lower 48 United States and Mexico), these entities 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 DPSs of vertebrate fish or wildlife, and our 1996 DPS Policy. As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, the 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and to ensure the gray wolf was protected wherever it was found (as described in 47 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) in the lower 48 United States and Mexico, rather than an indication of where gray wolves actually existed or where recovery efforts were considered necessary. Thus, the 1978 reclassification resulted in inclusion of large areas of the lower 48 United States where gray wolves were extirpated, as well as the mid-Atlantic and southeastern United States, areas where long-held differences of opinion regarding the precise boundary of the species' historical range remain (Young and Goldman 1944, pp. 413-416, 478; Hall 1981, p. 932; Nowak 1995, p. 395, Fig. 20; Nowak 2009, p. 242; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 251, Fig. 9.7). While this generalized approach to the gray wolf listing facilitated recovery of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Great Lakes, it also erroneously included areas outside the species' historical range and was misread by some members of the public as an expression of a more expansive gray wolf recovery effort not required by the Act and never intended by the Service. In fact, our longstanding approach to recovery has focused on reestablishing wolf populations in three specific regions of the country: The Eastern United States (including the Great Lakes States), the northern Rocky Mountains, and the Southwestern United States. We have consistently focused our recovery efforts on reestablishing wolf populations in these specific regions (see table 1 and Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation). National Wolf Strategy Although not required by the Act, in 2011 we described our national wolf strategy in our proposed rule to revise the List for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States (76 FR 26089-26090, May 5, 2011). 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. Our strategy focused on the continued conservation of three extant gray wolf entities (the Great Lakes population, the northern Rocky Mountains population, and the southwestern population of Mexican wolves) and consideration of conservation of a fourth, wolves in the Pacific Northwest. In 2013 we completed a status review for gray wolves in the Pacific Northwest (western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California) (table 1) and determined that, under our DPS policy, these wolves are not discrete from wolves in the recovered NRM DPS (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central Utah) (see 78 FR 35707-35713). Therefore, since that time, our strategy has been consistent with a focus on the western Great Lakes, the northern Rocky Mountains, and the southwestern population of Mexican wolves (see Previous Federal Actions). The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a “Species” The gray wolf entities that are currently on the List do not meet the Act's definition of a “species” (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). The original listing of certain gray wolf subspecies predated the Act. In 1967, under a precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. lycaon (Eastern timber wolf) in the Great Lakes region (table 1). In 1973, under the same precursor to the Act, we listed C. l. irremotus (Northern Rocky Mountain wolf) (table 1). In 1974, these subspecies were listed under the Act (table 1). In 2015, we subsequently listed C. l. baileyi (Mexican wolf) as endangered in the Southwestern United States and Mexico (table 1). Finally, on June 14, 1976, we listed a fourth gray wolf subspecies, C. l. monstrabilis (table 1), which was later subsumed within C. l. baileyi. In 1978, we concluded that “this listing arrangement has not been satisfactory because the taxonomy of wolves is out of date, wolves may wander outside of recognized subspecific boundaries, and some wolves from unlisted subspecies may occur in certain parts of the lower 48 states” (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). We wanted to clarify that C. lupus was listed as threatened or endangered south of the Canadian border, and we determined that the “most convenient” way to do so was to list the entity at the species level rather than by subspecies (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The separate subspecies listings were subsumed into two entities that were defined geographically: (1) Threatened in Minnesota; and (2) endangered throughout the rest of the lower 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR 9612, March 9, 1978). The 1978 rule treated these entities as distinct “species” under the statutory definition of the term that was in effect at that time (43 FR 9610, March 9, 1978). When the Act was adopted in 1973, the term “species” was defined to include species, subspecies or “any other group of fish or wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature” (Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884, 886 (1973)). In November 1978, the Act was amended to introduce the concept of DPSs (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Unlike species and subspecies, DPS is not a taxonomic term. Rather, it refers to certain populations of vertebrates ( i.e., less than the entire range of a taxonomic vertebrate species or subspecies). We issued a policy in 1996, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service, to explain how we would apply this statutory term (61 FR 4722-4725, February 7, 1996). Since the concept of DPSs was introduced, we have attempted to revise the lower 48 United States and Mexico listings to account for the biological recovery of gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) and Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). We published rules identifying recovered DPSs, but some of those actions did not survive legal challenges. For example, our 2007 and 2011 rules designating and delisting a WGL DPS were vacated by the reviewing courts. Thus, wolves in the WGL are part of the currently listed gray wolf entities. By contrast, although our rules designating and delisting the NRM DPS were also challenged in court, after several rounds of litigation and congressional action the NRM DPS was delisted and remains so today (see Previous Federal Actions). The two currently listed entities are: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota (listed as threatened); and (2) C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico (listed as endangered). Neither of the entities encompasses an entire species, or a subspecies, of gray wolf. Thus, the currently listed entities would only constitute listable entities ( i.e., meet the statutory definition of “species”) if they qualified as DPSs. To constitute a DPS, a vertebrate population must be both discrete from and significant to the remainder of the taxon ( i.e., taxonomic species or subspecies) (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). We consider first whether the population is discrete and, if so, then we evaluate its biological and ecological significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). A population segment may be considered discrete if it “is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors” (61 FR 4725). For the reasons set forth below, the gray wolf entities currently on the List do not meet this standard. The two entities are not markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon. The threatened Minnesota listed entity is not discrete from the endangered listed entity where they abut in the Great Lakes area because gray wolves in Minnesota are not discrete from gray wolves in Wisconsin and Michigan. In 1978, gray wolves were largely confined to northern Minnesota, with some wolves occupying Isle Royale and possibly other individuals scattered in Wisconsin and Michigan (43 FR 9608). Wolves in northern Minnesota subsequently dispersed and recolonized Wisconsin and Michigan, resulting in a metapopulation 2 in the Great Lakes area (Mech 2010, p. 130). There are no significant physical barriers separating Minnesota wolves from those in Wisconsin and Michigan, as evidenced by frequent movement of wolves among the three States (Treves et al. 2009, entire). In addition, genetic analyses demonstrate that Wisconsin and Michigan wolves are mostly of the same genetic makeup as Minnesota wolves and there is effective interbreeding among wolves in the three States (Wheeldon et al. 2010, p. 4438; Wheeldon and White 2009, p. 104; Fain et al. 2010, p. 1758; see also Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America ). Thus, gray wolves in the Minnesota entity are not “markedly separated” from wolves in the Great Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity. 2 A metapopulation is a population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations that “interact” when individuals move from one subpopulation to another. A metapopulation is widely recognized as being more secure over the long term than are several isolated populations that contain the same total number of individuals. A metapopulation is more secure because adverse effects experienced by one of its subpopulations resulting from genetic drift, demographic shifts, and local environmental fluctuations can be countered by occasional influxes of individuals and their genetic diversity from the other components of the metapopulation. Likewise, the endangered listed entity is not discrete from other populations of gray wolves. As noted above, gray wolves in the Great Lakes portion of the endangered listed entity are connected to gray wolves in Minnesota. And gray wolves in the West Coast States that are part of the endangered listed entity are not discrete from the recovered NRM population (78 FR 35664, June 13, 2013, pp. 35707-35713; see also Current Distribution and Abundance ). We removed most of the NRM DPS from the List, most recently, in 2011 (ID, MT, the eastern one-third of OR and WA, and a small portion of north-central UT) and the remainder, most recently, in 2017 (WY) (table 1). As we explained in our 2019 proposed rule, the NRM population has continued to expand and wolves from that population have now dispersed and become established in parts of the West Coast States (84 FR 9656, March 15, 2019). Genetic analysis shows that all gray wolves currently occupying Oregon descended from NRM wolves and those wolves expanded into California (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142-143; California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020, entire). Wolves in Washington in both the endangered listed entity and the NRM include individuals descended from NRM wolves as well as wolves from Canada (Hendricks et al. 2018, pp. 142-143). Thus, listed wolves in the West Coast States are not genetically distinct from the NRM wolves. Nor is there marked separation resulting from physical factors. Wolf habitat models show that there is little separation between occupied wolf habitat in the NRM DPS and suitable habitat in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California (see 78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013). Any gaps in suitable habitat are unlikely to preclude dispersal because gray wolves are capable of traveling long distances through a variety of habitats (78 FR 35712, June 13, 2013; ODFW 2016, p. 10; Jimenez et al. 2017, entire). In sum, listed wolves in the West Coast States are not discrete from wolves in the delisted NRM DPS portion of the gray wolf taxon. Because the two currently listed entities are not discrete, we need not evaluate their significance (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). Neither of the listed entities is a DPS, and thus neither entity is a “species” as that term is defined under the Act. As we noted in our proposed rule, the currently listed gray wolf entities could be removed from the List because they do not meet the statutory definition of a “species” (84 FR 9686, March 15, 2019). This independent basis for delisting, which is based on the plain language of the Act, was explained in our 2019 revisions to the Act's implementing regulations. We distinguish between a “listed entity” and a “species,” and reiterate that an entity that is not a “species” as defined under the Act should be removed from the List. See 50 CFR 424.11(e)(3) (providing that the Secretary shall remove an entity from the List if, among other things, “[t]he listed entity does not meet the statutory definition of a species”). In the preamble to the rule we explained that this is not a new interpretation, but “merely reflects the text and intent of the Act, i.e., only `species,' as defined in section 3 of the Act, may be listed under the Act” (84 FR 45037, August 27, 2020). However, before proceeding with delisting, we may consider whether any populations of gray wolves covered by the listed entities meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species. Thus, instead of removing the listed entities solely because they do not meet the statutory definition of a “species,” in this rule, we consider the status of gray wolves in several configurations, as explained below, to eliminate the possibility of removing protections for any gray wolves that might meet the Act's definition of a “species” and might be endangered or threatened. Approach for This Rule The Gray Wolf Entities Addressed in This Rule As described above, two gray wolf entities are currently listed: C. lupus in Minnesota, listed as threatened; and C. lupus in all or portions of 44 U.S. States and Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). We refer to these entities simply as “Minnesota” and the “44-State entity” throughout this rule. While our past status reviews have focused on gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units that align with our national wolf strategy (see table 1), we have revised our approach in this rule to take into account the unique listing history of the gray wolf, as well as multiple court opinions regarding our prior actions to designate and delist gray wolf DPSs (see table 1). The two currently listed gray wolf entities are largely vestiges of a 42-year-old action (the 1978 reclassification (see General Background)) that occurred prior to formulation and implementation of our DPS policy. As explained above, the gray wolf entities that are currently on the List are not species, subspecies, or distinct population segments (DPSs) (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a “Species”), and as such should be delisted. However, in recognition of the unique listing history of the gray wolf, our many prior actions to designate and delist DPSs (table 1), and related court opinions, we have adopted a conservative approach to delisting in this rule. Rather than focus on gray wolf DPSs and taxonomic units, we focus on the currently listed entities. We do so by evaluating the conservation status of the currently listed entities under three different configurations, as explained below. In our proposed rule, we focused on the status of listed gray wolves by assessing the two listed entities in combination. In response to peer review and public comments, we have expanded our analysis to consider the conservation status of gray wolves in three different configurations. Specifically, we assess: (1) Each of the two currently listed gray wolf entities separately; (2) the two currently listed entities combined into a single entity (the approach in our proposed rule); and (3) a single gray wolf entity that includes all gray wolves in the lower 48 state and Mexico except for the Mexican wolf. We explain our reasoning for analyzing these specific configurations below. Why and How We Address Each Configuration of Gray Wolf Entities We consider the status of gray wolves in each of the following configurations to determine whether wolves should be included on the List in their current status, be reclassified from their current status ( e.g., upgraded to endangered or downgraded to threatened), or be removed from the List. For a summary of these configurations, see table 2. The Two Listed Entities Assessed Separately In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves occurring within the geographic area outlined by each of the two currently listed C. lupus entities separately, as they are listed. We do so because they are the entities that are currently on the List. Evaluating the entities as they are listed is consistent with section 4(c) of the Act, which authorizes the Secretary to review species included on the List and determine on the basis of the review whether changes to the listing status are warranted (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(2)). We do not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the 44-State entity under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered and no longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS, as appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and conclusions about the status of wolves comprising the 44-State entity. The Two Listed Entities Assessed in Combination In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves occurring within the geographic area outlined by the two currently listed C. lupus entities combined into a single entity. We do so because: (1) These are the entities that are currently on the List and it is clear that neither listed entity would qualify as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy due to their lack of discreteness from each other (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a “Species”), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to combine them for analysis in light of their lack of discreteness. We do not consider the delisted NRM DPS wolves as part of the listed entity under analysis in this configuration because they are recovered and no longer listed. However, we include information on the NRM DPS, as appropriate, to provide context and to inform our analysis and conclusions about the status of wolves comprising this combined entity. We assessed the two listed entities in combination in our proposed rule. In that rule, we referred to the resulting entity as the “gray wolf entity.” For clarity, in this final rule, we refer to the resulting entity as the “combined listed entity” (table 2). The Two Listed Entities and the NRM DPS Assessed in Combination In this configuration, we assess the status of gray wolves occurring within the geographic area of the lower 48 United States and Mexico (excluding the Mexican gray wolf; see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing below), a single entity that includes the two currently listed entities and the delisted NRM DPS combined. We do so because: (1) It includes the two entities that are currently on the List and neither listed entity qualifies as a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy because the two listed entities are not discrete from each other and the 44-State entity is not discrete from the NRM DPS (see The Currently Listed C. lupus Entities Do Not Meet the Statutory Definition of a “Species”), and (2) it makes sense, biologically, to combine the two currently listed entities and the NRM DPS for analysis in light of their lack of discreteness. We refer to this entity as the “lower 48 United States entity.” Although we include the NRM wolves in this configuration due to their connection to currently listed wolves, we reiterate that wolves in the NRM DPS are recovered, and we are not reexamining or revisiting our 2009 and 2012 delisting rules (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). For additional information regarding our rationale for analyzing the lower 48 United States entity, see Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule. Table 2—Summary of Analyses in This Rule Configuration Description of entity assessed Name given to the entity in this rule Why we assess the entity 1. The separate listed entities State of Minnesota Minnesota It is a currently listed entity. Lower 48 States and Mexico 1 outside of the NRM DPS and Minnesota 44-State entity It is a currently listed entity. 2. The combined listed entities Lower 48 States and Mexico 1 outside of the NRM DPS combined listed entity Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two entities are not discrete from one another; it makes sense, biologically, to combine them in light of their lack of discreteness. We do not include the NRM wolves because they are delisted. 3. The combined listed entities and the NRM DPS Lower 48 States and Mexico 1 lower 48 United States entity Includes the two currently listed entities, but these two entities are not discrete from one another, and one (the 44-State entity) is not discrete from the delisted NRM DPS; it makes sense, biologically, to combine them in light of their lack of discreteness. 1 But see How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing. How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing As indicated above (see Previous Federal Actions), in 2015 we revised the listing for the gray wolf by reclassifying the subspecies C. l. baileyi as a separately listed entity with the status of endangered, wherever found. Although the rulemaking does not include language expressly excluding C. l. baileyi from the previously listed C. lupus entity, we indicated in our 2015 final rule listing the subspecies that the effect of the regulation was to revise the List by making a separate entry for the Mexican wolf (80 FR 2511, January 16, 2015). Therefore, because we already assessed the status of, and listed, the Mexican wolf separately, we do not assess individuals or populations of the Mexican wolf in this rule. In other words, we do not consider individuals or populations of Mexican wolves to be among the wolves under analysis in this rule. Further, the Mexican wolf is the only subspecies of C. lupus known to currently occupy the Mexican wolf experimental population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New Mexico) and Mexico. Therefore, based on the best available information, the experimental population area and Mexico are unoccupied by and, consequently, outside the range of, the gray wolves under analysis in this rule (see Definition and Treatment of Range ). How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in This Rule The taxonomy and evolutionary history of wolves in North America are complex and controversial, particularly with respect to the taxonomic assignment of wolves historically present in the Northeastern United States and those that occur in portions of the Great Lakes region (eastern wolves; see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America ). Available information indicates ongoing scientific debate and a lack of resolution on the taxonomy of eastern wolves. (see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America ). Further, none of these viewpoints is more supported by the scientific evidence or more widely accepted by the scientific community than others. In other words, there is no standard taxonomy indicating that eastern wolves are a distinct species, and no agreement among the scientific community regarding the taxonomic assignment of eastern wolves. We originally listed the gray wolf subspecies C. l. lycaon, the eastern timber wolf, in 1967. We continued to recognize this subspecies—and the Northeastern United States as part of its historical range—for years, as evidenced by both our original (1978) and revised (1992) Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. In 2013, we proposed recognizing the species C. lycaon, occurring in southeastern Canada and, historically, the Northeastern United States, in our proposed rule to delist C. lupus and list C. l. baileyi as endangered (table 1). However, all peer reviewers of that proposed rule considered the scientific basis for recognizing C. lycaon as a species to be insufficient. They noted that this is an area of active scientific research with new studies published yearly, and stated that the proposed recognition of these wolves as a species was premature (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis 2014, unpaginated). New information published on the topic since publication of our 2013 rule indicates the taxonomy and evolutionary history of eastern wolves remains unresolved (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-5). The uncertainty of the existence of a separate species is reflected in the fact that C. lycaon is not recognized by authoritative taxonomic organizations such as the American Society of Mammalogists or the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, in this rule we continue to recognize wolves in the Northeastern United States as members of the species C. lupus. Because we recognize wolves in the Northeastern United States as members of the species C. lupus in our assessment of the status of gray wolf entities in this rule, we include eastern wolves and eastern wolf range that occurs within the geographical boundaries of the gray wolf entities we assess. This approach ensures our analysis takes into account the possibility that gray wolves historically occurred throughout most of the lower 48 United States. In other words, because we also consider eastern wolf historical range, our analysis assumes a larger historical range for the gray wolf species in the lower 48 United States and, as a result, a greater loss of such range (see Historical Range). Scientists also disagree on the taxonomic assignment of wolves in the southeastern United States generally recognized as “red wolves.” However, a recent consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that available evidence supports species ( C. rufus ) status for the extant red wolf (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2019, pp. 51-72). We recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus (USFWS 2018, pp. 15-17) and note that it is listed as endangered where found (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967). We do not consider red wolves further in this rule and the red wolf listing is not affected by this rule. Definition and Treatment of Range We interpret the term “range” as used in the Act's definitions of “threatened species” and “endangered species” to refer to the area occupied by the species at the time we make a status determination under section 4 of the Act (79 FR 37583, July 1, 2014). In this rule, we consider the latest wolf distribution maps (inclusive of wolf packs, breeding pairs, and areas of persistent activity by multiple wolves) and other information obtained from State agencies as the best available information on wolf occupancy and, therefore, wolf range. Gray wolf range based on this information is shown in figure 2. Because we do not consider Mexican wolves to be among the wolves under analysis in this rule, we do not include the Mexican wolf experimental population area (that covers portions of Arizona and New Mexico) or Mexico within current gray wolf range ( See How We Address the C. l. baileyi Listing ). Wolves occur periodically in the lower 48 United States as lone dispersers in places that otherwise lack evidence of persistent wolf presence or suitable habitat for supporting a resident wolf population (see Current Distribution and Abundance ). While dispersal plays an important role in recolonization of suitable habitat, individual dispersers that do not settle in an area, survive, and reproduce do not substantively contribute to the wolf's viability ( i.e., the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time). Therefore, we did not include the areas in which only these lone dispersers are occasionally found in our definition of current range. Summary of Our Approach In this rule, we assess the status of gray wolves in three different configurations. We do not include in our assessment individuals or populations of the Mexican wolf ( C. l. baileyi ) (wolves that occur in Mexico and the nonessential experimental population area in the Southwestern United States). Also, for the purposes of this rule, we consider any eastern wolves within the geographic boundaries of the entities we evaluated to be members of the species C. lupus. Further, we consider the range of the gray wolf to be the current distribution of gray wolves (as shown in figure 2) within the geographic boundaries of the entities we evaluated. Species Information We provide detailed background information on gray wolves in the lower 48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report (see USFWS 2020, entire). This document can be found along with this rule at http://regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0097 (see Supplemental Documents ). We summarize relevant information from this report below. For additional information, including sources of the information presented below, see USFWS (2020, entire) and references therein. Biology and Ecology Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the canid (dog) family and have a broad circumpolar range. Adults range in weight from 18 to 80 kilograms (40 to 175 pounds), depending on sex and geographic locale. Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals that live and hunt in packs. They are well adapted to traveling fast and far in search of food, and to catching and eating large mammals. In North America, they are primarily predators of medium to large mammals, including deer, elk, and other species, and are efficient at shifting their diet to take advantage of available food resources (USFWS 2020, p. 6). Gray wolves are a highly adaptable species. They can successfully occupy a wide range of habitats provided adequate prey exists and human-caused mortality is sufficiently regulated. Scientific models generally depict high-quality suitable habitat as areas with sufficient prey where human-caused mortality is relatively low due to limited human access, or high amounts of escape cover, or relatively low risk of wolf-livestock conflicts (USFWS 2020, pp. 8-9). Established gray wolf populations are remarkably resilient as long as their food supply is adequate and human-caused mortality is not too high. Where human-caused mortality is low or nonexistent, gray wolf populations are regulated by the distribution and abundance of prey on the landscape, though considerable evidence indicates density-dependent, intrinsic mechanisms ( e.g., social strife, territoriality, disease) may limit populations when ungulate densities are high. High levels of reproduction and immigration in gray wolf populations can compensate for high mortality rates in established populations (USFWS 2020, pp. 7-8). Pack social structure is very adaptable—in many instances, breeding members can be quickly replaced from within or outside the pack, and pups can be reared by other pack members should their parents die. Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly overcome severe disruptions, such as pervasive human-caused mortality or disease; and they can increase rapidly after severe declines if the source of mortality is reduced. The species' dispersal capabilities allow wolf populations to quickly expand and recolonize vacant habitats as long as rates of human-caused mortality are not excessive; although, the rate of recolonization can be affected by the extent of intervening unoccupied habitat between the source population and newly recolonized area (USFWS 2020, p. 7). Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America The gray wolf is a member of the canid family ( Canidae ) in a genus ( Canis ) that includes domestic dogs ( C. familiaris ), coyotes ( C. latrans ), and several other species (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Taxonomic relationships among Canis species found in North America have been studied extensively, though with a notable lack of consensus on various phylogenetic issues (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Consequently, wolf taxonomy and evolutionary history in North America are complex and controversial (USFWS 2020, p. 5). In North America, scientists generally recognize a “red wolf” phenotype (morphological form), and an “eastern wolf” phenotype that is distinct from wolves further west (“western gray wolves”), but disagree on the correct taxonomic assignment of these two entities or on their evolutionary origin (USFWS 2020, p. 1). As indicated above (see How We Address Taxonomic Uncertainties in this Rule ), we continue to recognize the red wolf as the species C. rufus and do not discuss the taxonomy of the species further in this rule (for more information, see our 2018 Red Wolf Species Status Assessment). We discuss the eastern wolf further, below. The eastern wolf has been the source of perhaps the most significant disagreement on North American canid taxonomy among scientists. The eastern wolf has been variously described as a species, a subspecies of gray wolf, an ecotype of gray wolf, the product of introgressive hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes, the same species as the red wolf, or the product of introgressive hybridization between red wolves and gray wolves (USFWS 2020, p. 1). Morphologically, eastern wolves have long been considered distinct from gray wolves and coyotes. Many scientists have generally found the eastern wolf to be consistently intermediate between the gray wolf and the coyote, both morphologically and genetically (USFWS 2020, p. 2). Regardless of viewpoint on the correct taxonomic status of the eastern wolf, hybridization and introgression is widely recognized to have played, and continue to play, an important role among eastern wolves. However, there is scientific disagreement on the role of hybridization between eastern wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves and gray wolves, and gray wolves and coyotes. Minnesota appears to be the western edge of a hybrid zone between gray wolves in the west and eastern wolves—wolves in western Minnesota appear to be western gray wolves based on morphological and genetic analysis while wolves in eastern Minnesota and much of the Great Lakes area appear to be eastern wolf, introgressed with western gray wolf to varying degrees. Scientists who support the eastern wolf as a distinct species report that the only area in which eastern wolves are not currently experiencing admixture with either gray wolves or coyotes is in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3). Even among those who hypothesize a hybrid origin of eastern wolves, meaning they are the result of ancient or more recent hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes, eastern wolves are viewed as genetically distinct (USFWS 2020, pp. 2-3). Despite the ongoing debate about taxonomy and evolutionary history, there is general agreement that wolves currently found in the Great Lakes area and neighboring provinces in Canada are genetically distinct to some degree from wolves further west in the Rocky Mountains or the Pacific northwest (USFWS 2020, pp. 1-2). Although there is some debate about the degree of genetic difference between the wolves that occupy the Great Lakes area versus the Western United States, wolves in the Great Lakes area are generally smaller, occupy habitat dominated by mixed deciduous-coniferous forests with relatively little elevation change, and their primary prey is white-tailed deer; whereas wolves in the Western United States are larger and occupy montane forests that also contain larger prey such as elk and moose (USFWS 2020, pp. 28-29). All wolves in the Western United States are widely recognized as gray wolves ( C. lupus ) (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-4). However, the science pertaining to gray wolf subspecies designations, unique evolutionary lineages, ecotypes, and admixture of formerly isolated populations continues to develop (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5)—except for the Mexican wolf, where there is strong scientific evidence supporting its subspecies status. For example, coastal and inland wolves in western Canada and Alaska have been identified as genetically and morphologically distinct, and display distinct habitat and prey preferences, despite relatively close proximity. There have been attempts to assess whether any wolves recolonizing western States possess genetic markers indicative of coastal wolf ancestry. Genetic analysis of wolves recolonizing Washington revealed the presence of individuals primarily from the northern Rocky Mountains. However, two individuals were an admixture of wolves with inland wolf ancestry (wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains or inland western Canada) and coastal wolf ancestry (wolves from coastal British Columbia and coastal Alaska), although it is not clear whether the admixture of coastal and inland wolves happened in Washington, or whether already admixed individuals dispersed there. All wolves recolonizing Oregon and California appear to be descended from inland wolves dispersing from the northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2020, pp. 3-5). Range and Population Trends Prior to 1978 Reclassification Historical Range We view the historical range to be the range of gray wolves within the lower 48 United States at the time of European settlement. We determined that this timeframe is appropriate because it precedes the major changes in range in response to excessive human-caused mortality (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13). At the time of the 1978 reclassification, the historical range of the gray wolf was generally believed to include most of North America and, consequently, most of the lower 48 United States. We acknowledge that the historical range of the gray wolf is uncertain and the topic of continued debate among scientists. However, based on our review of the best available information, we view the historical range of the gray wolf within the lower 48 United States to be consistent with that presented in Nowak (1995, p. 395, fig. 20) and depicted in figure 2. This includes all areas within the lower 48 United States except western California, a small portion of southwestern Arizona, and the southeastern United States (see figure 2 and USFWS 2020, pp. 9-13). While some authorities question the absence of gray wolves in parts of California, limited preserved physical evidence of wolves in California exists (USFWS 2020, p. 11). Therefore, we rely on early reports of wolves in the State that describe the species as occurring in the northern and Sierra Nevada Mountain regions of California. Further, while recognizing that the extent of overlap of red wolf and gray wolf ranges is uncertain (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-10), we chose Nowak (1995) as the historical range boundary in the East to encompass the largest reasonable historical distribution in the northeast and, consequently, the lower 48 United States. Also, although included in the 44-state listing, because the southeastern United States are generally recognized as within the range of the red wolf (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-10), we consider it to be generally outside the range of the gray wolf. Historical Abundance Historical abundance of gray wolves within the lower 48 United States is largely unknown. Based on the reports of European settlers, gray wolves were common in much of the West. While historical (at the time of European settlement) estimates are notoriously difficult to verify, one study estimates that hundreds of thousands of wolves occurred in the Western United States and Mexico (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-11). In the East, in the Great Lakes area, there may have been 4,000 to 8,000 wolves in Minnesota, 3,000 to 5,000 in Wisconsin, and fewer than 6,000 in Michigan (USFWS 2020, p. 12). No estimates are available for historical wolf abundance in the Northeast (USFWS 2020, p. 13). Historical Trends in Range and Abundance Gray wolf range and numbers throughout the lower 48 United States declined significantly during the 19th and 20th centuries as a result of humans killing wolves through poisoning, unregulated trapping and shooting, and government-funded wolf-extermination efforts (USFWS 2020, pp. 9-14). By the time subspecies were first listed under the Act in 1974 (table 1), the gray wolf had been eliminated from most of its historical range within the lower 48 United States. Aside from a few scattered individuals, wolves occurred in only two places within the lower 48 United States. A population persisted in northeastern Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 wolves occurred on Isle Royale, Michigan. The Minnesota wolf population was the only major U.S. population in existence outside Alaska at this time and numbered about 1,000 individuals (USFWS 2020, pp. 12-14). Distribution and Abundance at the Time of the 1978 Reclassification By 1978, when several gray wolf subspecies were consolidated into two listed entities, a lower 48 United States and Mexico entity and a separate Minnesota entity, the gray wolf population in Minnesota had increased to an estimated 1,235 wolves in 138 packs (in the winter of 1978-79) and had an estimated range of 14,038 square miles (mi 2 ) (36,500 square kilometers (km 2 )) (USFWS 2020, p. 20) (figure 2). Although, prior to this time, wolves were occasionally reported in Wisconsin, it was not until 1978 that wolf reproduction was documented in the State (USFWS 2020, p. 21). In the West, occasional sightings were documented, but there was no indication that reproducing wolf packs occurred in the West at the time (USFWS 2020, p. 14; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; USFWS 1987, pp. 3-6). Current Distribution and Abundance During the years since the species was reclassified in 1978, gray wolves within the lower 48 United States increased in number (figure 3) and expanded in distribution (figure 2). Gray wolves within the lower 48 United States now exist primarily in two large, stable or growing metapopulations in two geographic areas in the lower 48 United States—the Western United States and the Great Lakes area in the Eastern United States (USFWS 2020, p. 27). Gray wolf populations within each of these areas are connected as evidenced by movements between States and genetic data (USFWS 2020, p. 27). The Great Lakes metapopulation consists of more than 4,200 individuals broadly distributed across the northern portions of three States in the Great Lakes area (USFWS 2020, p. 27). This metapopulation is also connected, via documented dispersals, to the large and expansive population of about 12,000-14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a result, gray wolves in the Great Lakes area do not function as an isolated metapopulation of 4,200 individuals in three States, but rather as part of a much larger “Great Lakes and eastern Canada” metapopulation that spans across those three States and two Canadian Provinces (USFWS 2020, pp. 27-28). Gray wolves in the Western United States are distributed across the NRM DPS and into western Oregon, western Washington, northern California, and most recently in northwest Colorado (USFWS 2020, p. 28). The Western United States metapopulation consisted of more than 1,900 gray wolves in 2015 (at least 1,880 in the NRM DPS and at least 26 outside the NRM DPS boundary), the final year of a combined northern Rocky Mountain wolf annual report (USFWS 2020, p. 28, Appendix 2). At the end of 2015, the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho and Montana. After the post-delisting monitoring period ended for Idaho and Montana, these States transitioned away from using minimum counts to document wolf numbers and developed other techniques to estimate population size or evaluate population trends (or both) which are not directly comparable to minimum counts (USFWS 2020, pp. 15-16). Based on the most current estimates, approximately 1,000 gray wolves occur in Idaho and 819 wolves were estimated in Montana (USFWS 2020, Appendix 2). In addition, the most recent year-end minimum counts indicate at least 311 gray wolves occur in Wyoming and 310 in the States of Oregon, Washington, and California (256 in the delisted NRM DPS and 54 in the endangered listed entity) (USFWS 2020, p. 16, Appendix 2). While the current estimates for Idaho and Montana are not directly comparable to year-end minimum counts, indications from mortality data are that the number of individuals in these States remains similar to the number of individuals that were in these States in 2015, when all of the States were reporting year-end minimum counts (see table 3). In addition, in January of 2020, Colorado Parks and Wildlife personnel confirmed the presence of a group of at least six wolves in extreme northwest Colorado (USFWS 2020, pp. 19, 28). Similar to the metapopulation in the Great Lakes area, the gray wolf metapopulation in the Western United States is connected to a large and expansive population of about 15,000 wolves in western Canada (USFWS 2020, p. 28). As a result, gray wolves in the Western United States function as part of a larger “western United States and western Canada” metapopulation that spans several States of the United States and two Provinces of Canada. Further, effective dispersal has been documented between West Coast States where gray wolves are federally protected (California, western Oregon, and western Washington), as well as between these areas, the NRM DPS where wolves are delisted (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central Utah), and Canada (USFWS 2020, pp. 5, 17-18, 28). Thus, wolves outside the NRM DPS boundary in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California are an extension of the metapopulation of wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains and western Canada. Although their specific place of origin remains unknown at this time, the group of wolves in Colorado are assumed to be related to NRM wolves based on proximity and the fact that dispersing wolves of known origin documented in Colorado since the early 2000s all originated from the NRM, including the lone individual that dispersed from Wyoming to Colorado and has resided in North Park, Colorado, since at least July 2019 (USFWS 2020, p. 19). Little information is currently available regarding the movements or territory use of the group in northwest Colorado but, to date, all confirmed reports have been in Colorado. Finally, a number of lone long-distance dispersing wolves have been documented outside core populations 3 of the Great Lakes area and Western United States. For example, over the years, dispersing wolves have been detected in all States within historical gray wolf range west of the Mississippi River except Oklahoma and Texas (USFWS 2020, pp. 26, 28-29). Since the early 2000s, confirmed records of individual gray wolves have been reported from Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada. The total number of confirmed records in each of these States, since the early 2000s, ranges from 1 to at least 27, the latter occurring in North Dakota, which also has an additional 45 probable but unverified reports (USFWS 2020, pp. 25-26). 3 A population that inhabits a larger, more continuous, higher quality habitat patch within a species' distribution and, consequently, is larger in size and more genetically diverse (due to higher gene flow), and has greater evolutionary potential and resilience to stochastic events than a population that inhabits smaller, more isolated, lower quality habitat patches. In sum, gray wolves in the lower 48 United States today exist primarily as two large metapopulations: One spread across northern Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the other consisting of the recovered and delisted NRM DPS wolf population that is biologically connected to a small number of colonizing wolves in western Washington, western Oregon, northern California, and, most likely, Colorado (USFWS 2020, pp. 27-29) (figure 2). In addition, a number of lone dispersers have been documented outside of core populations in several States. ER03NO20.017 ER03NO20.018 Gray Wolf Recovery Plans and Recovery Implementation Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not promote the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)(1)). Recovery plans are non-regulatory documents that identify management actions that may be necessary to achieve conservation and survival of the species. They also identify objective, measurable criteria (recovery criteria) which, when met, may result in a determination that the species should be removed from the List. Methods for monitoring recovery progress may also be included in recovery plans. Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species, or to delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless of whether that information differs from the recovery plan. There are many paths to recover a species, and recovery may be achieved without all recovery criteria being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the species is robust enough that it no longer meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance provided in a recovery plan. The Act does not describe recovery in terms of the proportion of historical range that must be occupied by a species, nor does it imply that restoration throughout the entire historical range is required to achieve conservation. In fact, the Act does not contain the phrase “historical range.” Thus, the Act does not require us to restore the gray wolf (or any other species) to its entire historical range, or any specific percentage of currently suitable habitat. For some species, expansion of their distribution or abundance may be necessary to achieve recovery. The amount of expansion necessary is driven by the biological needs of the species for viability (ability to sustain populations in the wild over time) and sustainability. Thus, there is no specific percentage of historical range or currently suitable habitat that must be occupied by the species to achieve recovery. 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 threat reduction. As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, following our 1978 reclassification, we drafted recovery plans and implemented recovery programs for gray wolves in three regions of the lower 48 United States (table 1). Wolves in one of these regions— C. l. baileyi, in the Southwestern United States and Mexico—are listed separately as an endangered subspecies and are not assessed in this rule (see Approach for this Rule). Below, we discuss recovery of wolves in the other two regions—the Eastern United States and the northern Rocky Mountains. Recovery Criteria for the Eastern United States The 1978 Recovery Plan (hereafter Recovery Plan) and the 1992 Revised Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (hereafter Revised Recovery Plan) were developed to guide recovery of the eastern timber wolf subspecies in the Eastern United States. Those recovery plans contain the same two recovery criteria, which are meant to indicate when recovery of the eastern timber wolf throughout its historical range in the Eastern United States has been achieved. These criteria are: (1) The survival of the wolf in Minnesota is assured, and (2) at least one viable population of eastern timber wolves outside Minnesota and Isle Royale in the lower 48 States is reestablished. The first recovery criterion, assuring the survival of the wolf in Minnesota, addresses a need for reasonable assurances that future State, Tribal, and Federal wolf management and protection will maintain a viable recovered population of wolves within the borders of Minnesota for the foreseeable future. Although the recovery criteria predate identification of the conservation biology principles of representation (conserving the adaptive diversity of a taxon), resiliency (ability to withstand demographic and environmental variation), and redundancy (sufficient populations to provide a margin of safety), the recovery criteria for the gray wolf in the Eastern United States are consistent with those principles. The Recovery Team concluded that the remnant Minnesota wolf population must be maintained and protected to achieve wolf recovery in the Eastern United States. Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is important in terms of representation because these wolves include both western gray wolves and wolves that are admixtures of western gray wolves and eastern wolves (see Taxonomy of Gray Wolves in North America ) and are comparable to wolf populations that were present in the area historically. The successful growth of the remnant Minnesota population has maintained and maximized the representation of that genetic diversity among wolves in the Great Lakes area. Maintenance of the Minnesota wolf population is also important in terms of resiliency. Although the Revised Recovery Plan did not establish a specific numerical criterion for the Minnesota wolf population, it did identify, for planning purposes, a population goal of 1,251-1,400 animals for the Minnesota population (USFWS 1992, p. 28). A population of this size not only increases the likelihood of maintaining its genetic diversity over the long term, but also reduces the adverse impacts of unpredictable demographic and environmental events. Furthermore, the Revised Recovery Plan recommends a wolf population that is spread across about 40 percent of Minnesota (Zones 1 through 4) (USFWS 1992, p. 28), adding a geographic component to the resiliency of the Minnesota wolf population. The second recovery criterion states that at least one viable wolf population should be reestablished within the historical range of the eastern timber wolf outside of Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26). The reestablished population enhances both the resiliency and redundancy of the Great Lakes metapopulation. The Revised Recovery Plan provides two options for reestablishing this second population. If it is an isolated population, that is, located more than 100 miles (mi) (160 kilometers (km)) from the Minnesota wolf population, the second population should consist of at least 200 wolves for at least 5 years, based upon late-winter population estimates, to be considered viable. Late-winter estimates are made at a time when most winter mortality has already occurred and before the birth of pups; thus, the count is made at the annual low point of the population. Alternatively, if the second population is located within 100 mi (160 km) of a self-sustaining wolf population (for example, the Minnesota wolf population), it should be maintained at a minimum of 100 wolves for at least 5 years, based on late-winter population estimates, to be considered viable. A nearby second population would be considered viable at a smaller size because it would be closely tied with the Minnesota population, and by occasional immigration of Minnesota wolves, would retain sufficient genetic diversity to cope with environmental fluctuations. The original Recovery Plan did not specify where in the Eastern United States the second population should be reestablished. Therefore, the second population could have been established anywhere within the triangular Minnesota-Maine-Florida area covered by the Recovery Plan and the Revised Recovery Plan, except on Isle Royale (Michigan) or within Minnesota. The Revised Recovery Plan identified potential gray wolf reestablishment areas in northern Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Adirondack Forest Preserve of New York, a small area in eastern Maine, and a larger area of northwestern Maine and adjacent northern New Hampshire (USFWS 1992, pp. 56-58). Neither the 1978 nor the 1992 recovery criteria indicate that the establishment of gray wolves throughout all or most of what was thought to be its historical range in the Eastern United States, or within all of the identified potential reestablishment areas, is necessary to achieve recovery under the Act. Recovery Progress in the Eastern United States Wolves in the Great Lakes area greatly exceed the recovery criteria (USFWS 1992, pp. 24-26) for (1) a secure wolf population in Minnesota, and (2) a second population outside Minnesota and Isle Royale consisting of 100 wolves within 100 mi (160 km) of Minnesota for 5 successive years. Based on the surveys conducted since 1998, the wolf population in Minnesota has exceeded 2,000 individuals over the past 20 years, and populations in Michigan and Wisconsin, which are less than 100 mi (160 km) from the Minnesota population, have exceeded 100 individuals every year since 1994 (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1). Based on the criteria set by the Eastern Wolf Recovery Team in 1992 and reaffirmed in 1997 and 1998 (Peterson in litt. 1997, Peterson in litt. 1998, Peterson in litt. 1999a, Peterson in litt. 1999b), this region contains sufficient wolf numbers and distribution to ensure the long-term survival of gray wolves in the Eastern United States. The maintenance and expansion of the Minnesota wolf population has allowed for the preservation of the genetic diversity that remained in the Great Lakes area when its wolves were first protected in 1974. The Wisconsin-Michigan wolf population far exceeds the numerical recovery criterion, even for a completely isolated second population. Therefore, even in the unlikely event that this two-State population were to become totally isolated and wolf immigration from Minnesota and Ontario completely ceased, it would still remain a viable wolf population for the foreseeable future, as defined by the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1992, pp. 25-26). Finally, each of the wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan has exceeded 200 animals for about 20 years, so if either were somehow to become isolated, they would remain viable. Furthermore, each State has committed to manage its wolf population above viable population levels (see Post-delisting Management). The wolf's numeric and distributional recovery criteria for the Eastern United States have been met. Recovery Criteria for the NRM The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 (USFWS 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (USFWS 1987, p. i). The wolf recovery goal for the NRM was reevaluated and, when necessary, modified as new scientific information warranted (USFWS 1987, p. 12; USFWS 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15130-15135, April 2, 2009). The Service's resulting recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf population was: 30 or more breeding pairs comprising at least 300 wolves equitably distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for 3 consecutive years, with genetic exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency managed) between subpopulations. To provide a buffer above these minimum recovery levels, each State was to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves in mid-winter (77 FR 55538-55539, September 10, 2012; 74 FR 15132, April 2, 2009). Further, the post-delisting monitoring plan stipulated that three scenarios could lead us to initiate a status review and analysis of threats to determine if relisting was warranted: (1) If the wolf population in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming fell below the minimum NRM wolf population recovery level of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves at the end of any one year; (2) if the portion of the wolf population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end of the year in any one of those States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change in State law or management objectives would significantly increase the threat to the wolf population. For additional information on NRM wolf recovery goals and their evolution over time, see 74 FR 15130-15135 and references therein. Recovery Progress in the NRM DPS As indicated in Previous Federal Actions, wolves in the NRM DPS have recovered and were delisted (table 1). The NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (USFWS et al. 2008, table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded for the 3rd successive year (USFWS et al. 2008, table 4). In 2009, we concluded that wolves in the NRM DPS far exceeded recovery goals. We also concluded that “The NRM wolf population: (1) Has at least [45] reproductively successful packs and [450] individual wolves each winter (near the low point in the annual cycle of a wolf population); (2) is equitably distributed within the 100,000 mi 2 (250,000 km 2 ) area containing 3 areas of large core refugia (National Parks, wilderness areas, large blocks of remote secure public land) and at least 65,725 mi 2 (170,228 km 2 ) of suitable wolf habitat; and (3) is genetically diverse and has demonstrated successful genetic exchange through natural dispersal and human-assisted migration management between all three core refugia” (74 FR 15133, April 2, 2009). Post-delisting and subsequent monitoring, and the expansion of the NRM population into western Washington, western Oregon, northern California, and, likely, Colorado (USFWS 2020, pp. 15-19, 28; see also Current Distribution and Abundance ), indicate that the wolf population in the NRM DPS remains well above minimum recovery levels (see Current Distribution and Abundance ). Historical Context of Our Analysis When reviewing the current status of a species, it is important to understand and evaluate the effects of lost historical range on the viability of the species. In fact, when we consider the status of a species, we are considering whether the species is currently ( i.e., without the species' occupying parts of its historical range) an endangered species or threatened species. Range reduction may result in: Reduced numbers of individuals and populations; changes in available resources (such as food) and, consequently, carrying capacity; changes in demographic characteristics (survival, reproductive rate); changes in population distribution and structure; and changes in genetic diversity and gene flow. These, in turn, can increase a species' vulnerability to a wide variety of threats, such as habitat loss, restricted gene flow, reduced genetic diversity, or having all or most of its populations affected by a catastrophic event. In other words, past range reduction can reduce the redundancy, resiliency, and representation of a species in its current range, such that a species may meet the definition of an “endangered species” or “threatened species” under the Act. Thus, loss of historical range is not necessarily determinative of a species' status; rather, it must be considered in the context of other factors affecting a species. In addition to considering the effects that loss of historical range has had on the current and future viability of the species, we must also consider the causes of that loss of historical range. If the causes of the loss are ongoing, then that loss is also relevant as evidence of the effects of an ongoing threat. As indicated above, gray wolves historically occupied a large portion of the lower 48 United States (see figure 2). The range of the gray wolf began receding after the arrival of Europeans as a result of deliberate killing of wolves by humans and government-funded bounty programs aimed at eradication (USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). Further, many historical habitats were converted into agricultural land (Paquet and Carbyn 2003, p. 483), and natural food sources such as deer and elk were reduced, eliminated, or replaced with domestic livestock, which can become anthropogenic food sources for gray wolves (Young 1944 in Fritts et al. 1997, p. 8). The resulting reductions in range and population were dramatic—by the 1970s, gray wolves occupied only a small fraction of their historical range (figure 2). Although the range of the gray wolf in the lower 48 United States has significantly expanded since 1978, its size and distribution remain below historical levels. The alterations to gray wolf historical range in the lower 48 United States increased the vulnerability of gray wolves in the lower 48 United States to a wide variety of threats that would not be at issue without such range reduction. We analyze these potential threats to gray wolves in the lower 48 United States below (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). Regulatory Framework Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” The Act defines an endangered species as a species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,” and a threatened species as a species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects. We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the species' expected response, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future. The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of “threatened species.” Since publication of our proposed rule (84 FR 9648, March 15, 2019), the Service codified its understanding of foreseeable future at 50 CFR 424.11(d) (84 FR 45020). In those regulations, we explain the term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Services can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. The Service will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, using the best available data and taking into account considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics, threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. The Service need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific time period. These regulations did not significantly modify the Service's interpretation; rather they codified a framework that sets forth how the Service will determine what constitutes the foreseeable future based on our longstanding practice. Accordingly, though these regulations do not apply to the determinations for the entities assessed in this final rule because it was proposed prior to their effective date, they do not change the Service's assessment of foreseeable future for the entities assessed in our proposed rule and in this determination. It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors. For the purposes of this rule, and consistent with our proposed rule, we define the “foreseeable future” to be the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data, we can anticipate events or effects, or reliably extrapolate threat trends that relate to the status of wolves within the lower 48 United States. The Great Lakes States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have an established history of cooperating with and assisting in wolf recovery and have made a commitment, through legislative actions, to continue these activities. Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, and Utah are also committed to wolf conservation, as demonstrated by development of management plans and/or codification of laws and regulations protecting wolves (see Post-delisting Management). The best available information indicates that the Great Lakes States, West Coast States, and central Rocky Mountain States (Colorado and Utah) are committed to gray wolf conservation, and, therefore, we conclude that this commitment is likely to continue into the foreseeable future. Further, the NRM States have, for years, demonstrated their commitment to managing their wolf populations at or above recovery levels and the best available information indicates that this commitment will continue into the foreseeable future. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species Wolves within the lower 48 United States are currently listed as endangered under the Act, except wolves in Minnesota, which are listed as threatened, and wolves in the NRM DPS, which were delisted due to recovery (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, and 77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012). In this analysis we evaluate threat factors currently affecting wolves within the lower 48 United States and those that are reasonably likely to have a negative effect on the viability of wolves within the lower 48 United States if the protections of the Act are removed. As explained in our significant portion of the range (SPR) final policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014), we take into account the effect lost historical range may have on the current and future viability of a species in the range it currently occupies and also evaluate whether the causes of that loss are evidence of ongoing or future threats to the species. We do this through our analysis of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species' current condition reflects the effects of historical range loss, and, because threat factors are evaluated in the context of the species' current condition, historical range contraction may affect the outcome of our analysis. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we have identified several factors that could be significant threats to wolves within the lower 48 United States. We summarize our analysis of these factors, and factors identified at the time of listing, below. Due to recent information confirming the presence of a group of six wolves in extreme northwest Colorado, and their proximity to and potential use of habitats within Utah, we included these States in our analysis. Human-Caused Mortality At the time of listing, human-caused mortality was identified as the main factor responsible for the decline of gray wolves (43 FR 9611, March 9, 1978). An active eradication program is the sole reason that wolves were extirpated from much of their historical range in the United States (Weaver 1978, p. i). European settlers attempted to eliminate the wolf entirely, primarily due to the real or perceived threats to livestock, and the U.S. Congress passed a wolf bounty that covered the Northwest Territories in 1817. Bounties on wolves subsequently became the norm for States across the species' range (Hampton 1997, pp. 107-108; Beyer et al. 2009, p. 66; Erb and DonCarlos 2009, p. 50; Wydeven et al. 2009b, p. 88; USFWS 2020, pp. 10-13). For example, in Michigan, an 1838 wolf bounty became the ninth law passed by the First Michigan Legislature. After the gray wolf was listed under the Act, its protections, along with State endangered-species statutes, prohibited the intentional killing of wolves except under very limited circumstances. Such circumstances included defense of human life, scientific or conservation purposes, and special regulations intended to reduce wolf depredations of livestock or other domestic animals. Aside from the reintroduction of wolves into portions of the northern Rocky Mountains, the regulation of human-caused wolf mortality is the primary reason wolf numbers have significantly increased and their range has expanded since the mid-to-late 1970s (Smith et al. 2010, entire; O'Neil et al. 2017, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, entire). The regulation of human-caused mortality has long been recognized as the most significant factor affecting the long-term conservation of wolves. Human-caused mortality includes both controllable and uncontrollable sources of mortality. Controllable sources of mortality are discretionary, can be limited by the managing agency, and include permitted take, sport hunting, and direct agency control. Sources of mortality that will be difficult to limit, or may be uncontrollable, occur regardless of population size and include things such as natural mortalities, illegal take, and accidental deaths ( e.g., vehicle collisions, capture-related mortalities). However, if population levels and controllable sources of mortality are adequately regulated, the life-history characteristics of wolf populations provide natural resiliency to high levels of human-caused mortality. Two Minnesota studies provide some limited insight into the extent of human-caused wolf mortality before and after the species' listing. Examining bounty data from a period that predated wolf protection under the Act by 20 years, Stenlund (1955, p. 33) found an annual human-caused mortality rate of 41 percent. Fuller (1989, pp. 23-24) evaluated data from a north-central Minnesota study area and found an annual human-caused mortality rate of 29 percent from 1980 through 1986, which includes 2 percent mortality from legal depredation-control actions. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions from comparisons of these two studies because of differences in habitat quality, exposure to humans, prey density, time periods, and study design. Nonetheless, these figures indicate that human-caused mortality decreased significantly once the wolf became protected under the Act. Humans kill wolves for a number of reasons. In locations where people, livestock, and wolves coexist, some wolves are killed to resolve conflicts with livestock and pets (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86-107, 345-347). Occasionally, wolves are killed accidentally by vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, caught in traps set for other animals, or subject to accidental capture-related mortality during conservation or research efforts (Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346). A few wolves have been killed by people who believed their physical safety was being threatened. Many wolf killings, however, are intentional, illegal, and never reported to authorities. Although survival can be highly variable across populations (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 176-181), recent estimated annual mortality rates for wolves greater than 1 year of age are relatively consistent among some U.S. populations and range between 20 to 25 percent (Adams et al. 2008, pp. 11-12; Smith et al. 2010, p. 625; Cubaynes et al. 2014, p. 5; O'Neil et al. 2017, p. 9523; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 104). Outside of very remote areas and large protected areas such as Yellowstone and Isle Royale National Parks, anthropogenic causes are the greatest source of mortality for most wolves in the lower 48 United States. Such causes are estimated to account for 60-70 percent of all mortalities in the NRM wolf population (Murray et al. 2010, p. 2518), Michigan (O'Neil 2017, p. 214) and Wisconsin (Treves et al. 2017a, p. 27; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 108) and nearly 80 percent in Minnesota (Fuller 1989, p. 24). The risk of human-caused mortality is not uniform, however, and tends to be highest for dispersing animals (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-631) and for wolves that occupy less suitable habitats generally found on the peripheries of occupied wolf range (Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-631; O'Neil et al. 2017, pp. 9524-9528; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 109). In the absence of high levels of human-caused mortality, for example in Yellowstone and Isle Royale National Parks, wolf populations tend to be regulated by density-dependent, intrinsic mechanisms (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 187-188; Cubaynes et al. 2014, pp. 9-11). Outside of such areas, where anthropogenic influences are greater, the influence of human-caused mortality on wolf populations may be considered either additive (mortality in excess of the number of deaths that would have occurred naturally) or compensatory (mortality that replaces deaths that would have occurred naturally). Some studies have concluded that anthropogenic mortality may be super-additive (increased additive mortality beyond the effect of direct killing itself) due to the effects increased take may have on the reproductive dynamics of wolves and packs (Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 3). Another study implied super-additive mortality occurred through increased legal take, which prompted a concurrent increase in illegal take that reduced reproductive output and population growth rates (Chapron and Treves 2016, p. 5); however, the claims of that study have been questioned (Olson et al. 2017, entire; Pepin et al. 2017, entire; Stein 2017, entire). Another study documented that harvest mortality was largely additive to natural mortality and that evidence for super-additive mortality was weak in Idaho (Horne et al. 2019a, pp. 40-41). Murray et al. (2010, pp. 2522-2523) noted anthropogenic mortality was partially compensatory in the NRM wolf population; however, as population density increased, human-caused mortality became increasingly additive (Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2522-2523), a trend that was also observed in Michigan (O'Neil 2017, pp. 201-229). In Wisconsin, Stenglein et al. (2018, pp. 106-108) noted a different trend in which mortality was largely additive prior to 2004, whereas it became partially compensatory after 2004 as wolves began to occupy most of the available suitable habitat in the State. Borg et al. (2014, pp. 7-9) documented that strong compensatory mechanisms buffered against long-term population-level impacts of breeder loss and pack dissolution in Denali National Park. Fuller et al. (2003, p. 186) concluded that human-caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of natural mortality in wolf populations. Increased levels of human-caused mortality in wolf populations can be compensated for by a reduction in natural mortality (O'Neil 2017, pp. 201-229), dispersal to fill social openings (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 20-21; Smith et al. 2010, pp. 630-633; Bassing et al. 2019, pp. 585-586), or reproduction (Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113-114; Schmidt et al. 2017, p. 25). Similarities in survival rates among wolf populations subject to different levels of human-caused and other forms of mortality (see above for discussion about survival/mortality rates) indicates a moderate level of compensation in mortality occurs in wolf populations. It further indicates that moderate increases in human-caused mortality may not have a large effect on annual wolf survival (O'Neil 2017, p. 220). Increased human-caused mortality may either increase or decrease wolf dispersal rates depending on various factors. For example, if wolf harvest is significant, it can reduce wolf densities leading to an overall decline in dispersal events due to a reduction in the number of individuals available to disperse, reduced competition for resources within the pack, or through direct removal of dispersing animals (Packard and Mech 1980, p. 144; Gese and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Adams et al. 2008, pp. 16-18). Trapping, in particular, may remove the age classes most likely to disperse because younger, less experienced wolves are often more vulnerable to this form of harvest. In a heavily harvested population with a significant portion of the harvest from trapping, long open seasons, and no bag limits, dispersal rates were observed to be up to 50 percent less than in unexploited populations (Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). However, there appears to be considerable variability in dispersal rates from harvested populations that likely depends on a number of factors, including prey availability, pack size, harvest rates, and whether or not harvest was biased toward certain age-classes (Hayes and Harestad 2000, pp. 43-44; Webb et al. 2011, pp. 748-749). Jimenez et al. (2017, p. 588) found that increased human-caused mortality (illegal take and agency lethal control) removed individual wolves and entire packs, and thereby provided a constant source of social openings or vacant habitat for wolves to recolonize. However, long-distance dispersals still occurred at low wolf density even when vacant habitat was nearby. Using data from 197 GPS-collared wolves from 65 wolf packs in Idaho to construct an integrated population model, Horne et al. (2019a, p. 40) found that variation in harvest rates did not translate to changes in the propensity for wolves to disperse. The authors speculated that harvest rates in their study were not high enough to cause widespread breeding vacancies and increased dispersal behavior. In wolf populations that are not hunted, lethal control of depredating wolves (see below for discussion) and illegal take are the two primary anthropogenic causes of mortality. In the NRM, Smith et al. (2010, p. 625) estimated that illegal take accounted for 24 percent of all mortalities (or approximately 6 percent of the population); however, 12 percent of the documented mortalities were attributed to unknown causes, so it is highly plausible that the number of wolves illegally taken may have been higher (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 914; O'Neil 2017, pp. 220-221; Treves et al. 2017b, p. 7). Ausband et al. (2017a, p. 7) used radio-collared wolves to estimate that 8.2 percent of the Idaho wolf population was illegally killed annually while the annual rate of illegal take in Michigan was estimated at approximately 9 percent (O'Neil 2017, p. 214). In Wisconsin, it was estimated that 9 percent of wolves were killed illegally (Stenglein et al. 2018; p. 104) while Stenglein et al. (2015b, p. 1183) concluded that as many as 400 wolves were illegally killed but were not detected between 2003 and 2012. Another study conducted outside of the lower 48 United States estimated the percentage of unknown illegal take that occurred and estimated that approximately 69 percent of all poaching incidents were undocumented (Liberg et al. 2012, p. 912). Similarly, Treves et al. (2017b, entire) concluded that illegal take was the primary cause of wolf mortality and that the relative risk of poaching was grossly underestimated in both the NRM and Wisconsin. We acknowledge the challenges of documenting and estimating illegal take, and note that illegal take may have slowed wolf population growth in the lower 48 United States to some extent (Liberg et al. 2012, entire; Stenglein et al. 2018, p. 105). However, based on wolf minimum counts and population estimates (USFWS 2020, Appendix 1 and 2), illegal take, whether documented or not, has not prevented recovery of the species, the maintenance of viable wolf populations, or the continued recolonization of vacant, suitable habitat. Vehicle collisions also contribute to wolf mortality. The total number of wolf mortalities associated with vehicle collisions is expected to rise with increasing wolf populations as wolves attempt to colonize more human-dominated areas that contain a denser network of roads and vehicular traffic. However, mortalities associated with vehicle collisions are unlikely to increase as a percentage of the total wolf population if increases occur concurrently. Regardless, mortalities from vehicle collisions will likely continue to constitute a small proportion of total wolf mortalities. Neither scientific research nor the use of wolves for educational purposes are significant sources of human-caused mortality. Each of the States in the current range of gray wolves in the lower 48 United States conduct scientific research and monitoring of wolf populations. Even the most intensive and disruptive of these activities (ground or aerial capture for the purpose of radio-collaring) involves a very low rate of mortality for wolves (73 FR 10542, February 27, 2008). We expect that capture-related mortality during wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and research activities will remain low, and will have an insignificant impact on population dynamics. The best available information does not indicate any wolves have been removed from the wild solely for educational purposes in recent years. Wolves that are used for such purposes are typically privately held, captive-reared offspring of wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons. However, States may get requests to place wolves that would otherwise be euthanized in captivity for research or educational purposes. Such requests have been and will continue to be rare, would be closely regulated by the State wildlife-management agencies through the requirement for State permits for protected species, and would not substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates. Some federally listed wolves have been legally removed by private citizens in the lower 48 United States through defense of life or property statutes. It is a rare occurrence for non-habituated wild wolves in North America to pose a threat to humans (McNay 2002, pp. 836-837); nonetheless, on rare occasions, humans have killed wolves due to a real or perceived threat to their safety or the safety of others, which is permissible even under the Act's protections. For example, since wolves began recolonizing the West Coast States in 2008, a single wolf has been killed by a private individual who claimed self-defense in the federally listed portion of Washington. Under the rules that governed Federal wolf management for nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act in portions of the NRM DPS (59 FR 60252 and 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008), private individuals were lawfully allowed to kill a wolf in defense of property provided the incident was immediately reported to the Service and an investigation confirmed evidence of an attack. To our knowledge, most States within occupied wolf range already have rules and regulations related to the taking of wildlife when life or property are threatened and the taking of wolves under these circumstances will be regulated under the same rules post-delisting. Although the number of wolves lawfully killed in defense of human life and property by private individuals may be slightly higher in areas with greater human or livestock density and may increase after delisting as authority for this action expands, overall this type of mortality is rare and is not expected to have a significant impact on gray wolf populations in the lower 48 United States. For information related to defense of life or property mortalities, refer to the Post-delisting Management section of this rule for the Great Lakes area and the Human-caused Mortality in the NRM DPS section for the NRM DPS. The use of lethal depredation control to mitigate wolf-human conflicts or to minimize risk associated with repeated livestock depredations will likely increase in the lower 48 United States after delisting. Although most wolf conflicts are rare or one-time incidents that do not require management action or may be resolved using preventative or nonlethal methods, in some instances lethal control by wildlife management agencies or private individuals is used to resolve imminent threats to human life or property or to minimize the risk of recurrent conflicts. The number of wolves killed for this purpose in the lower 48 United States is small when compared to the greater population (see information in subsequent paragraph). With respect to the area of the lower 48 United States currently listed as endangered (see figure 1), lethal control of depredating wolves is not currently authorized; however, after delisting, State and Tribal wildlife agencies may choose to use lethal control as a mitigation response. Human-Caused Mortality in the Currently Listed Entities Lethal control of depredating wolves was authorized in Minnesota while wolves were listed under the authority of 50 CFR 17.40(d) pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act. However, such control was not authorized in Michigan or Wisconsin, except (1) as authorized under section 4(d) when the population was reclassified to threatened (from April 13, 2003, to January 31, 2005), (2) by special permits (from April 1, 2005, to September 13, 2005, and from April 24, 2006, to August 10, 2006), and (3) when delisted (from March 12, 2007, to September 29, 2008, May 4, 2009, to July 1, 2009, and January 27, 2012, to December 19, 2014). The depredation control program in Minnesota killed between 6 and 216 wolves annually from 1979 to 2006. The 5-year annual average of statewide populations for wolves killed ranged from 26 (2 percent of the estimated population) to 152 (7 percent of the estimated population) during that time period (Ruid et al. 2009, p. 287). During the periods when wolves were managed under the 4(d) rule in the State, the Minnesota wolf population continued to grow or remain stable. During the times that lethal control of depredating wolves was authorized in Wisconsin and Michigan, there was no evidence of resulting adverse impacts to the maintenance of a viable wolf population in those States. In Wisconsin, during the almost 5 years (cumulative over three different time periods) that lethal depredation control was allowed in the State, a total of 256 wolves were killed for this purpose, including 46 legally shot by private landowners. A total of 64 wolves were killed in Michigan (half of these (32) were legally killed by private landowners) in response to depredation events during the same nearly 5-year period (cumulative over three different time periods). Following delisting, we anticipate that wolf depredation control would occur in Wisconsin and Michigan consistent with their State management plans. We anticipate the level of mortality due to depredation control would be similar to what was observed during previous periods when wolves were delisted. See the Post-delisting Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal control of problem wolves (primarily for depredation control). Regulated public harvest is another form of human-caused mortality that has occurred in the Great Lakes area during periods when wolves were delisted, and will likely occur in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan if wolves are delisted again. Using an adaptive-management approach that adjusts harvest based on population estimates and trends, the initial objectives of States may be to reduce or stabilize wolf populations and then manage for sustainable populations, similar to how States manage all other hunted species. See the Post-delisting Management section for a more detailed discussion of legal harvest. Regulation of human-caused mortality has significantly reduced the number of wolf mortalities caused by humans and, although illegal and accidental killing of wolves is likely to continue with or without the protections of the Act, at current levels those mortalities have had minimal impact on wolf abundance or distribution. We assume that legal human-caused mortality will increase when wolves are delisted as State managers continue or have the ability to implement lethal control to mitigate repeated conflicts with livestock and decide whether to incorporate regulated public harvest to assist in achievi [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%3A2020-24171. Public record. Not legal advice.