Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 15123-15188 [E9-5991]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 62 (Thursday, April 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15123-15188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5991]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2008-0008; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C6]
RIN 1018-AW37


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To 
Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a 
Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 
identify a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis 
lupus) in the Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United States and 
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by removing gray 
wolves within NRM DPS boundaries, except in Wyoming. The NRM gray wolf 
DPS encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a small 
part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Our 
current estimate for 2008 indicates the NRM DPS contains approximately 
1,639 wolves (491 in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in Wyoming) in 95 
breeding pairs (34 in Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). These 
numbers are about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery 
goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal. 
The end of 2008 will mark the ninth consecutive year the population has 
exceeded our numeric and distributional recovery goals.
    The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws, management 
plans, and regulations that meet the requirements of the Act and will 
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. In 
our proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007), we noted that 
removing the Act's protections in Wyoming was dependant upon the 
State's wolf law (W.S. 11-6-302 et seq. and 23-1-101, et seq. in House 
Bill 0213) and wolf management plan adequately conserving Wyoming's 
portion of a recovered NRM wolf population. In light of the July 18, 
2008, U.S. District Court order, we reexamined Wyoming law, its 
management plans and implementing regulations, and now determine they 
are not adequate regulatory mechanisms for the purposes of the Act.
    We determine that the best scientific and commercial data available 
demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is not threatened or endangered 
throughout ``all'' of its range (i.e., not threatened or endangered 
throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of the range 
represents a significant portion of range where the species remains in 
danger of extinction because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. Thus, 
this final rule removes the Act's protections throughout the NRM DPS 
except for Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will continue to be regulated as 
a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).

DATES: This rule becomes effective on May 4, 2009.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena 
office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204. 
Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the 
Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog 
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) 
(40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). 
In the NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may 
weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. 
Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from 
pure white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they 
poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread 
species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations 
were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent 
southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves normally 
live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM, pack sizes average about 
10 wolves in protected areas, but a few complex packs have been 
substantially bigger in some areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
(Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1-3). Packs 
typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 to 1,295 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) and defend these 
areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is occupied by 
resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers become 
regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species conflict, 
other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover 
large areas (See Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS) as they try to 
join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in unoccupied 
habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 11-17).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, 
pp. 243-4; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1-3). Females and males 
typically begin breeding as 2-year olds and may annually produce young 
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April 
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2007, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive 
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2008, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM 
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability 
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack social structure 
is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can be

[[Page 15124]]

quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack and pups can be 
reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 2003, 
p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, wolf 
populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as very 
high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe 
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if 
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 
been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, 
pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2008, Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous U.S. 
(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1974, we listed two subspecies of gray wolf as endangered: The 
NRM gray wolf (C. l. irremotus) and the eastern timber wolf (C. l. 
lycaon) in the Great Lakes region (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). We 
listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) 
as endangered on April 28, 1976, (41 FR 17740) in Mexico and the 
southwestern U.S. On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24064), we listed the Texas 
gray wolf subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and 
Mexico.
    In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting 
the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout 
the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for Minnesota, where the 
gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that time, we designated 
critical habitat in Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. In the NRM, we 
completed a recovery plan in 1980 and revised in 1987. In the Great 
Lakes Region, we completed a recovery plan in 1978 and revised in 1992. 
In the Southwest, we completed a recovery plan in 1982.
    On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray 
wolf under section 10(j) of the Act, including the Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the 
Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266, November 22, 
1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray wolf 
reintroduction projects in central Idaho and in the Greater Yellowstone 
Area (GYA). In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to provide 
increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf population in 
States with Service-approved post-delisting wolf management plans (70 
FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 
17.84(n)).
    The NRM wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional 
recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service 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 (Service et al. 2008, Table 4). To meet the Act's 
requirements Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed to develop post-
delisting wolf management plans to ensure that adequate regulatory 
mechanisms would exist should the Act's protections be removed. In 
2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf management 
plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM wolf 
population would be maintained above recovery levels. However, we found 
the 2003 Wyoming legislation and plan inadequate to conserve Wyoming's 
share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 2004). Wyoming 
challenged this determination but the Federal district court in Wyoming 
dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyoming 
appealed that decision and on April 3, 2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals upheld the district court ruling (442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On July 19, 2005, we received a petition from the Office of the 
Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
(WGFC) to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a 
NRM DPS and to remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Species (Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, we announced 
a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in all of 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 
State law and wolf management plan did not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming challenged this finding in Federal 
District Court. On February 27, 2008, Federal District Judge issued an 
order dismissing the case (Wyoming U.S. District Court Case Number 
2:06-CV-00245).
    On February 8, 2007, we proposed to identify the NRM DPS of the 
gray wolf and to delist all or most portions of the NRM DPS (72 FR 
6106). Specifically, we proposed to delist wolves in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, and parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The proposal 
noted that the Act's protections would be retained in significant 
portions of the range in Wyoming in the final rule if adequate 
regulatory mechanisms were not developed to conserve Wyoming's portion 
of a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future. Under this 
scenario, wolves in portions of Wyoming would continue to be regulated 
under the Act as a non-essential, experimental population per 50 CFR 
17.84(i) and (n).
    On July 6, 2007, the Service extended the comment period in order 
to consider a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf management plan and State law 
that we believed, if implemented, could allow the wolves in all of 
Wyoming to be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife (72 FR 36939). On November 16, 2007, the WGFC unanimously 
approved the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). We then 
determined this plan provided adequate regulatory protections to 
conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf population into the 
foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 2). On February 27, 2008, we issued a 
final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing all of this DPS from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 10514). This rule 
determined that Wyoming's regulatory mechanisms were adequate.
    On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a lawsuit challenging the 
identification and delisting of the NRM DPS. The plaintiffs also moved 
to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Montana granted the plaintiffs' 
motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the Service's 
implementation of the final delisting rule for the NRM DPS of the gray 
wolf. The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf 
population that lacked evidence of genetic exchange between 
subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily and 
capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 statute and wolf 
management plan because the State failed to commit to managing for at 
least 15 breeding pairs and Wyoming's 2007 statute allowed the WGFC to 
diminish the trophy game area if it ``determines the diminution does 
not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will facilitate Wyoming's 
management of wolves.'' The court's preliminary injunction order 
concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the

[[Page 15125]]

merits of their claims. In light of the district court order, on 
September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final rule and 
remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court vacated the final 
delisting rule and remanded it back to the Service for further 
consideration.
    Similarly, on February 8, 2007, we recognized a Western Great Lakes 
(WGL) DPS and removed it from the list of the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). Several groups challenged this rule 
in court, arguing that the Service may not identify a DPS within a 
broader pre-existing listed entity for the purpose of delisting the DPS 
(Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 
07-0677 (PLF) (D.D.C.)). On September 29, 2008, the court vacated the 
WGL DPS final rule and remanded it to the Service. The court found that 
the Service had made that decision based on its interpretation that the 
plain meaning of the Act authorizes the Service to create and delist a 
DPS within an already-listed entity. The court disagreed, and concluded 
that the Act is ambiguous as to whether the Service has this authority. 
The court accordingly remanded the final rule so that the Service can 
provide a reasoned explanation of how its interpretation is consistent 
with the text, structure, legislative history, judicial 
interpretations, and policy objectives of the Act.
    Given the above court rulings, on October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926), 
we reopened the comment period on our February 8, 2007, proposed rule 
(72 FR 6106). Specifically, we sought information, data, and comments 
from the public regarding the 2007 proposal with an emphasis on new 
information relevant to this action, the issues raised by the Montana 
District Court, and the issues raised by the September 29, 2008, ruling 
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to 
the WGL gray wolf DPS. The notice also asked for public comment on what 
portions of Wyoming need to be managed as a trophy game area and what 
portions of Wyoming constitute a significant portion of the NRM DPS's 
range. After further analysis, we determined that Wyoming's regulatory 
framework did not meet the requirements of the Act. On January 15, 2009 
Wyoming's Governor was notified that Wyoming no longer had a Service-
approved wolf management plan (Gould 2009). Wolf management in all of 
Wyoming (except the Wind River Tribal Lands because the tribe had a 
Service-approved plan) again became immediately under the less flexible 
provisions of the 1994 experimental population rules [17.84 (i)].
    We are required to rely upon the best scientific information 
currently available. Therefore, this final rule reflects new data and 
information primarily concerning wolf population numbers, livestock 
depredations and wolf control, and genetic exchange that were received 
after the 2008 public comment period. This new data and information are 
consistent with and did not change our conclusions stated in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and in the notice for the reopened 
comment period.
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions also see the 
2003 Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), the Advanced 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006), 
the 12-month finding on Wyoming's petition to delist (71 FR 43410, 
August 1, 2006), and the February 8, 2007, proposed rule to designate 
the NRM population of gray wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the Act, we consider if information is sufficient to 
indicate that listing, reclassifying, or delisting any species, 
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa may be 
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and 
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service published a policy regarding the recognition of distinct 
vertebrate population segments under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996). Under this policy, the Service considers two factors to 
determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS--(1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a 
DPS, and the Service then evaluates the population segment's 
conservation status according to the standards in section 4 of the Act 
for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS 
endangered or threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM DPS

    We defined the geographic boundaries for the area to be evaluated 
for DPS status based on discreteness and significance as defined by our 
DPS policy. The DPS policy allows an artificial (e.g., State line) or 
manmade (e.g., road or highway) boundary to be used as a boundary of 
convenience for clearly identifying the geographic area for a DPS. The 
NRM DPS includes all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the eastern third 
of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north central Utah. 
Specifically, the DPS includes that portion of Washington east of 
Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that portion of Washington 
east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes that portion of Oregon 
east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that 
portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. Finally, 
the DPS includes that portion of Utah east of Highway 84 and north of 
Highway 80. The centers of these roads are deemed the boundary of the 
DPS (See Figure 1).
    This DPS is consistent with over 30 years of recovery efforts in 
the NRMs in that: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S. historic range of 
the NRM gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; 
Service 1987, p. 2) which was the originally listed entity in 1974 (39 
FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the DPS boundaries are inclusive of the 
areas focused on by both NRM recovery plans (Service 1980, pp. 7-8; 
Service 1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) 
(Service 1994, Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusive of the entire 
Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential Experimental Population 
areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 
50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 15126]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02AP09.003

    One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM DPS 
was the current distribution of known wolf packs in 2007 (Service et 
al. 2008, Figure 1) (except four packs in northwestern Wyoming that did 
not persist). We also examined the annual distribution of wolf packs 
from 2002 (the first year the population exceeded the recovery goal) 
through 2008 (Service et al. 2003-2009, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in 
press). Because outer distribution changed little in these years, we 
used the 2004 data because it had already been analyzed in the February 
8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634).
    Dispersal distances also played a key role in determining the 
boundaries for the DPS. We examined the known dispersal distances of 
over 200 marked dispersing wolves from the NRM from 1993 through 2005 
(Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d). These data indicate that the 
average dispersal distance of wolves from the NRM was about 97 km (60 
mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; Thiessen 2007, 
p. 33; Jimenez et al. 2008d). We determined that 290 km (180 mi), three 
times the average dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in our data for 
unusually long-distance dispersal out from existing wolf pack 
territories (Jimenez et al. 2008, Figures 2 and 3). Only 11 wolves 
(none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed

[[Page 15127]]

farther outside the core population areas and remained in the U.S. None 
of these wolves returned to the core population in Montana, Idaho, or 
Wyoming. Only dispersal from the NRM packs to areas within the U.S. was 
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine 
the appropriate DPS boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to Canada 
were not considered in our calculation of average dispersal difference 
because the distribution of suitable habitat and level of human 
persecution in Canada is significantly different than in the U.S., 
potentially affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We plotted average 
dispersal distance and three times the average dispersal distance from 
existing wolf pack territories in the NRM. The resulting map indicated 
a wide area where wolf dispersal was common enough to support 
intermittent additional pack establishment from the core wolf 
population given the availability of patches of nearby suitable 
habitat. Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM may not be 
applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 
13-16).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western 
U.S. (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27-30) by 
comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas 
currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent 
areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and 
predictions of those models (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559; Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) were similar in many 
respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 
characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant 
year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers 
of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic 
sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see 
Factor A). The models indicate that a large block of suitable wolf 
habitat exists in central Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller extent in 
northwestern Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three 
areas as the most likely locations to support a recovered wolf 
population and are consistent with the actual distribution of all wolf 
breeding pairs in the NRM since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 
Service et al. 1999-2009, Figures 1-4, Tables 1-3). The models indicate 
little habitat is suitable for pack persistence within the portion of 
the NRM DPS in eastern Montana, southern Idaho, eastern Wyoming, 
Washington, Oregon, or northcentral Utah although dispersing wolves may 
utilize these areas (See Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also was important in determining the boundaries 
of our DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and 
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540-541; 2006, p. 27) and our observations 
during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 
2008, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and 
croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high 
desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This 
unsuitability is due to high rates of wolf mortality, high densities of 
livestock compared to wild ungulates, chronic conflict with livestock 
and pets, local cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf 
behavioral characteristics that make them vulnerable to human-caused 
mortality in open landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the 
distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a 
broad boundary separating the NRM population from both the southwestern 
and Midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible 
wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the 
western U.S.
    We included the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon and a small 
portion of north central Utah within the NRM DPS, because--(1) these 
areas are within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from the core wolf 
population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing wolves have 
been documented in these areas more than once in recent times (Boyd et 
al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d); (3) these areas contain some suitable 
habitat (see Factor A); (4) the potential for connectivity exists 
between the relatively small and fragmented patches of suitable habitat 
in these areas with larger blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS; 
and (5) most of the area lies within the historic range of the NRM gray 
wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 
2) originally listed under the Act in 1974 (39 FR 1171, January 4, 
1974). If wolf breeding pairs establish in these areas, habitat 
suitability models indicate these nearby areas would likely be more 
connected to the core populations in central Idaho and northwestern 
Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might become 
established in other large blocks of potentially suitable habitat 
farther beyond the NRM DPS boundary. As noted earlier, large swaths of 
unsuitable habitat would isolate any wolf breeding pairs within the DPS 
from other large patches of suitable habitat to the west or south 
(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541).
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf packs in 
the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 7-13), 
agency efforts to confirm them have been unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have been confirmed there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd et al. 2007). However, a wolf pack (2 
adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of 
the North Cascades), in July 2008. Their territory is west of the NRM 
DPS boundary. Genetic analysis indicated the two adults did not come 
from the wolf population in the NRM DPS. Instead, they likely 
originated from southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). This 
confirms the appropriateness of our western DPS boundary and our 
conclusion that intervening unsuitable habitat makes it unlikely that 
wolves have or will disperse between the North Cascades and the NRM 
population. However, if additional wolves disperse into the North 
Cascades, they will remain protected by the Act as endangered because 
it is outside of the NRM DPS.
    We include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM DPS 
because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply Statewide; and (2) 
expanding the DPS beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely dispersal 
distances to include extreme eastern Montana and Wyoming adds only 
areas unsuitable habitat for pack persistence and does not effect the 
distinctness of the NRM DPS. DPS boundaries that include all of 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are also consistent with the 1994 
designations of the Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential 
Experimental Population areas (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)). Although including 
all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in including portions of the 
Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we do not consider 
these areas to be suitable wolf habitat for pack persistence because of 
their size, shape, and distance from a strong source of dispersing 
wolves. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 558-559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not to 
analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming because they are fairly 
intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed 
by, private land, making pack establishment and persistence unlikely. 
While Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically 
predicted these areas

[[Page 15128]]

were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current 
conditions these areas were largely sink habitat (i.e., a habitat in 
which the species' mortality exceeds reproductive success) and that by 
2025 (within the foreseeable future) they were likely to be ranked as 
low occupancy because of human population growth and road development.
    We chose not to extend the NRM DPS boundary east beyond Montana and 
Wyoming, because those adjacent portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 
and Nebraska are far outside the predicted routine dispersal range of 
NRM wolves. Given the available information on potentially suitable 
habitat, expansion of the DPS to include Colorado or larger portions of 
Utah to the south and west would have included large areas of 
potentially suitable but unoccupied habitat in those States (Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541). Given the current distribution of the NRM wolf 
population to suitable habitat, we concluded that a smaller DPS 
containing occupied suitable habitat, the adjacent areas of largely 
unsuitable habitat where routine wolf dispersal could be expected, and 
that was distinct from other large contiguous blocks of potentially 
suitable habitat to the west and south was more biologically 
appropriate. This DPS is also reflective of areas of recovery focus 
over the last 30 years (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; Service 1980; 
Service 1987; Service 1994; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 
60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)).

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern 
edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 644 km (400 mi) from the 
western edge of the area currently occupied by the WGL wolf population 
(eastern Minnesota) and is separated from it by hundreds of miles of 
unsuitable habitat (see Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS 
boundary is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental 
populations of wolves in the southwestern U.S. with vast amounts of 
unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. While one 
dispersing wolf was confirmed east and two south of the DPS boundary, 
no wolf packs have ever been found there. No wolves from other U.S. 
wolf populations are known to have dispersed as far as the NRM DPS.
    Until recently, no wild wolves had been confirmed west of the DPS 
boundary (although we occasionally got unconfirmed reports and 2 wolves 
were killed close to that boundary). Then, in July 2008, a wolf pack (2 
adults and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, Washington (just east of 
the North Cascades and west of the DPS boundaries). These wolves did 
not originate from the NRM DPS; instead they likely originated from 
southcentral British Columbia (Allen 2008). The pack's territory is 
outside the NRM DPS and remains discrete from the NRM gray wolf 
population. The pack is being monitored via radio telemetry by 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Should this pack persist 
and other wolves follow, they would remain separated from the NRM DPS 
by unsuitable wolf habitat.
    Although wolves can disperse over 1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual 
travel distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166-
167; Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Ream et al. 
1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007; 
Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 1631), the average dispersal of NRM wolves is 
about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Boyd et al. 
2007; Jimenez 2008d; Thiessen 2007, p. 72). Only 11 of over 200 
confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 through 2005 have been 
over 300 km (190 mi) and outside the core population (Boyd and 
Pletscher. 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007). Undoubtedly many other 
dispersal events have occurred but not been detected because only 30 
percent of the NRM wolf population has been radio-collared. All but 
three of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the 
proposed DPS. None of them found mates or survived long enough to form 
packs or breed in the U.S. (Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez 2008d).
    The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond 
the boundary of the NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle collision along 
Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. Although not 
confirmed, in early 2006, video footage of a black wolf-like canid was 
taken near Walden in northern Colorado, suggesting another dispersing 
wolf had traveled into Colorado. The subsequent status or location of 
that animal is unknown. On March 7, 2009, a dispersing wolf from the 
Yellowstone area was located by GPS radio-telemetry near Vail, 
Colorado. Finally, in spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was 
found along Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing 
confirmed it was a wolf that had dispersed from the Yellowstone area.
    No other unusual wolf dispersal events were documented in the NRM 
DPS in 2008. A radio-collared wolf from central Idaho continues to live 
in the GYA. It formed a new pack and bred in 2009. A report of a pack 
of wolves in northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge Reservoir (outside 
the NRM DPS) was investigated in spring 2008. The existence of this 
pack was not confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with pups in 
northeastern Oregon (inside the NRM DPS) was investigated in August 
2008. The existence of this pack was not confirmed. A photograph of a 
black wolf-like canid taken in late 2008 in the central Cascade Range 
in Oregon (outside the NRM DPS) but its origin and fate remain unknown.
    We expect that occasional lone wolves will continue to disperse 
between and beyond the currently occupied wolf habitat areas in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into States adjacent to the NRM 
DPS. However, pack development and persistence outside the NRM DPS is 
unlikely because wolves disperse as individuals that typically have low 
survival (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) and suitable habitat is 
limited and distant (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) from the NRM wolf 
population.
    No connectivity currently exists between the NRM wolf population 
and any other U.S. wolf packs or populations. While it is theoretically 
possible that a lone wolf might travel between the NRM wolf population 
and other U.S. packs or populations, such movement has never been 
documented and is likely to be rare because of both the distance and 
the intervening areas of unsuitable habitat.
    Furthermore, the DPS policy does not require complete separation of 
one DPS from other U.S. packs or populations, but instead requires 
``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional individual wolves or packs 
disperse among populations, the NRM DPS could still display the 
required discreteness. Based on the information presented

[[Page 15129]]

above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly separated 
from all other gray wolf populations in the U.S.
    Differences Among U.S. and Canadian Wolf Populations--The DPS 
policy allows us to use international borders to delineate the 
boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control of 
exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between the 
countries. Significant differences exist in management between U.S. and 
Canadian wolf populations. About 52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 
Canada, where suitable habitat is abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 
Because of this abundance, wolves in Canada are not protected by 
Federal laws and are only minimally protected in most Canadian 
provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike Canada, 
Federal protection and intensive management has been necessary to 
recover the wolf (Carbyn 1983). If delisted, States in the NRM would 
carefully monitor and manage to retain populations at or above the 
recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, we will continue to use the 
U.S.-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the DPS due to the 
difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, and 
regulatory mechanisms between the two countries.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon to which 
it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may include, 
but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) Persistence of the 
discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique 
for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population 
segment would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; 
(3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; and/
or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. 
Below we address factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the 
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
species, the NRM has amongst the highest diversity of large predators 
and native ungulate prey species, resulting in complex ecological 
interaction between the ungulate prey, predator and scavenger groups, 
and vegetation (Smith et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves 
share habitats with black bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (U. 
arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), 
wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis latrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 
badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher (Martes 
pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and diverse 
assemblage of native prey include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule deer 
(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 
moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep 
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn 
antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the 
GYA), and beaver (Castor canadensis). This complexity leads to dramatic 
and unique ecological cascades in pristine areas, such as in YNP. While 
these effects likely still occur at varying degrees elsewhere they are 
increasingly modified and subtle the more an area is affected by humans 
(Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et 
al. 2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott et al. 
2005, p. 1245). For example, wolves appear to be changing elk behavior 
and elk relationships and competition with other native ungulates in 
YNP. These complex interactions may increase streamside willow 
production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn 
can affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). 
This suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes also may be occurring 
with scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a year-round 
source of food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 
2003, p. 996; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf population in 
the NRM has extended the southern range of the contiguous gray wolf 
population in western North America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into a 
much more diverse, ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of 
species than is found elsewhere within occupied wolf habitat in most of 
the northern hemisphere.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Wolves once lived 
throughout most of North America. Wolves have been extirpated from most 
of the southern portions of their historic North American range. The 
loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a significant gap in 
the species' holarctic range in that this loss would create a 15-degree 
latitudinal or over 1,600 km (1,000 mi) gap across the Rocky Mountains 
between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If this potential gap 
were realized, substantial cascading ecological impacts would occur in 
the NRM, most noticeably in the most pristine and wildest areas (Smith 
et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 
2006, pp. 747-753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press, pp. 1-6).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous U.S. and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous U.S. represents, 
recovery in portions of the lower 48 States has long been viewed as 
important to the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 
9, 1978). The NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it 
is 1 of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and 
currently constitutes nearly 25 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 
States.
    We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy. 
Because the NRM gray wolf population is both discrete and significant, 
it is a valid DPS.

Agency's Past Practice and History of Using DPSs

    Of the over 370 native vertebrate ``species'' listed under the Act, 
77 are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies 
(henceforth referred to as populations) under one of several 
authorities including the DPS language in the definition of 
``species''. Of these 77 listed populations 32 predate the 1996 DPS 
policy (61 FR 4722); therefore, the final listing determinations for 
these populations did not include formal DPS analyses per the 1996 DPS 
policy. Specifically, the 77 populations encompass 51 different species 
or subspecies. During the history of the Act, the Service and NMFS have 
taken actions with respect to populations in 98 listing, 
reclassification, and delisting actions. The majority of those actions 
identified a classification other than a taxonomically recognized 
species or subspecies at the time of listing. In several instances, 
however, the agencies have identified a DPS and, as appropriate, 
revised the list of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in a single 
action. For example, we (1) established a DPS of the grizzly bear 
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area and 
surrounding area,

[[Page 15130]]

within the existing listing of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States, 
and removed this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered 
Wildlife (March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2) established two DPSs of the 
Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus): The 
Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River DPS; and removed the Douglas 
County DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife (July 
24, 2003; 68 FR 43647); (3) removed the brown pelican (Pelecanus 
occidentalis) in the Southeastern United States from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and continued to identify the brown 
pelican as endangered throughout the remainder of its range (February 
4, 1985; 50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American crocodile (Crocodylus 
acutus) in Florida as a DPS within the existing endangered listing of 
the American crocodile in the United States and reclassified the 
Florida DPS from endangered to threatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR 
13027); and (5) amended the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants by revising the entry for the gray whale (Eschrichtius 
robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population from the List 
while retaining the western North Pacific population as endangered 
(June 16, 1994; 59 FR 31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to identify 
four DPSs within the existing listing of the gray wolf in the lower 48 
States and to reclassify three of the DPSs from endangered to 
threatened (July 13, 2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above under 
``Previous Federal Action,'' the final rule we issued in 2003 
identified three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified two of the DPSs from 
endangered to threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). Although courts 
subsequently invalidated these DPSs, they did not question the 
Service's authority to identify and reclassify DPSs within a larger 
pre-existing listing. Identifying and delisting the Western Great Lakes 
DPS of gray wolves is consistent with the Service's past practice and 
does not represent a change in agency position.

Recovery

    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et 
al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery plan) was 
approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 
1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are 
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other 
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on 
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There 
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species and recovery may 
be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or 
more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have 
been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that the 
threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust 
enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or to delist. In 
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were 
not known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. These 
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the recovery 
plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not 
known at the time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information 
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing 
recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process 
requiring adaptive management that may, or may not, fully follow the 
guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to re-establish and maintain 
viable populations of the NRM wolf (C. l. irremotus) in its former 
range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii) but there were no recovery 
goals. The 1980 plan covered an area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was 
once believed to be the range of the NRM wolf subspecies. It 
recommended that recovery actions be focused on the large areas of 
public land in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. The 
revised recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the 
subspecies designations may no longer be valid and simply referred to 
gray wolves in the NRMs. Consistent with the 1980 plan it also 
recommended focusing recovery actions on the large blocks on public 
land in the NRM. The 1987 plan specified a recovery criterion of a 
minimum of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite 
sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 
3 successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) 
Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob 
Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 
and private lands); (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, 
Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended 
that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery 
areas, but that connectivity between them be somehow encouraged. 
However, no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment 
outside of the recovery areas unless chronic conflict required 
resolution (Service 1994, p. 1-15, 16; Service 1999, p. 2).
    The 1994 EIS on wolf reintroduction reviewed wolf recovery in the 
NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals because we were concerned 
that the 1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 1994, pp. 6:68-78). 
We were particularly concerned about the 1987 definition of a breeding 
pair, since any male and female wolf are `capable' of producing 
offspring and lone wolves may not have territories. We also believed 
the relatively small `hard' recovery areas greatly reduced the amount 
of area that could be used by wolves and would almost certainly 
eliminate the opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and 
genetic connectivity. The Service conducted a thorough literature 
review of wolf population viability analysis and minimum viable 
populations, reviewed the recovery goals for other wolf populations, 
surveyed the opinions of the top 43 wolf experts in North America, of 
which 25 responded, and incorporated our own expertise into a review of 
the NRM wolf recovery goal. We published our analysis in the Service's 
EIS and in a peer-reviewed paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts 
and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26-38). Our analysis concluded that the 1987 
recovery goal was, at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that 
modifications were warranted on the basis of more recent information 
about wolf distribution, connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded 
``Data on survival of actual wolf populations suggest greater 
resiliency than indicated by theory'' and theoretical treatments of 
population viability ``have created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf 
recovery programs by overstating the required population size'' (Fritts 
and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based on our analysis, we redefined a breeding 
pair as an adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at 
least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the year of their 
birth, during the previous breeding season. We also concluded that 
``Thirty or more breeding pair comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially

[[Page 15131]]

isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic exchange between 
subpopulations should have a high probability of long-term 
persistence'' because it would contain enough individuals in 
successfully reproducing packs that were distributed over distinct but 
somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the long-term (Service 
1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the required genetic exchange 
could occur by natural means or by human-assisted migration management 
and that dispersal of wolves between recovery areas was evidence of 
that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 8, 9). In defining 
a ``Recovered Wolf Population'' we found ``in the northern Rockies a 
recovered wolf population is 10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 3 
areas for 3 successive years with some level of movement between 
areas'' (Service 1994, p. 6-7). We further determined that a 
metapopulation of this size and distribution among the three areas of 
core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in a wolf population 
that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    Since 1994, we have believed movement of individuals between the 
metapopulation segements could occur either naturally or by human-
assisted migration management (Service 1994, p. 7-67). Specifically, we 
stated ``The importance of movement of individuals between sub-
populations cannot be overemphasized. The dispersal ability of wolves 
makes such movement likely, unless wolves were heavily exploited 
between recovery areas, as could happen in the more developed corridor 
between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive migration management might 
become necessary if 1 of the 3 sub-populations should develop genetic 
or demographic problems. (We saw) no reason why migration management 
should be viewed negatively. It will be a necessity in other wolf 
recovery programs. Some, however, may view such management intervention 
as `unnatural' '' (Service 1994, p. 7-67). Furthermore, we found ``that 
the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding pairs of 
wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years (was) 
reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into the 
foreseeable future. The goal is somewhat conservative, however, and 
should be considered minimal. The addition of a few extra pairs would 
add security to the population and should be considered in the post-EIS 
management planning. That could always be done as a periodic infusion 
if deemed necessary'' (Service 1994, p. 6-75).
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We attempted 
to survey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43 
other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized 
experts about wolves and/or conservation biology. In total 53 people 
provided their expert opinion regarding a wide range of issues related 
to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range of literature, 
including wolf population viability analysis from other areas (Bangs 
2002, pp. 1-9). Despite varied professional opinions and a great 
diversity of suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery 
goal derived in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate 
than the 1987 recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a 
viable and recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic 
exchange, either natural or human-facilitated, was important to 
maintaining the metapopulation configuration and wolf population 
viability. Reviewers also thought the proven ability of a breeding pair 
to show successful reproduction was a necessary component of a 
biologically meaningful breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended 
other concepts/numbers for recovery goals, but most were slight 
modifications to those we recommended in our 1994 analysis. While 
experts strongly (78 percent) supported that our 1994 conclusions 
represented a viable wolf population, they also tended to believe that 
wolf population viability was enhanced by higher rather than lower 
population levels and longer than shorter demonstrated time frames. 
Five hundred wolves and five years were common minority 
recommendations. A slight majority indicated that even the 1987 
recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and female 
capable of breeding) in each of three distinct recovery areas may be 
viable, given the persistent of other small wolf populations in other 
parts of the world. The results of previous population viability 
analysis for other wolf populations varied widely, and as we had 
concluded in our 1994 analysis, reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical 
results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used 
in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than 
actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that 
review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition 
of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 
1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, p. 1-9).
    The 2002 reevaluation of the 1994 wolf recovery goal by a broader 
spectrum of experts in wolf conservation also repeatedly recognized 
connectivity among the core recovery areas as critical, but this 
connectivity could be achieved through naturally dispersing wolves and/
or by human-assisted migration management. Specifically, we stated 
``Connectivity was the single issue brought up most often by reviewers. 
Many commented that wolves are unusually good dispersers and movement 
between core recovery areas was probably not going to be a significant 
wolf conservation issue in the NRM. Several believed that wolves would 
soon colonize neighboring states. Nearly everyone commented that the 
interchange of individuals between the sections of the metapopulation 
and more importantly maintenance of connection to the Canadian 
population. Several comments emphasized the importance of maintaining 
some minimum number of wolves in northwestern Montana to maintain the 
connection to the Canadian population. Other reviewers noted that such 
connectivity could be easily maintained by management actions (such as 
translocation) rather than natural dispersal. Movement into the GYA was 
mentioned as a specific concern by some because that was the only 
recovery area where wolf movement from other recovery areas appeared it 
could be a concern, and it was the southern-most tip of a much larger 
connected North American wolf population. A majority believed the 
Service's proposal defined a viable wolf population but others believed 
it needed to be improved by providing a measurable definition of 
connectivity. Others believed that documenting successful reproduction 
was an important measure of population viability and liked the concept 
used in the 1994 EIS definition. The importance of future wolf 
management (state or tribal management), primarily in maintaining 
human-caused mortality below a level that would cause extirpation and 
management that would foster some connectivity (either natural or man-
induced) were the most critical components of determining long-term 
population viability * * * The true test of wolf population viability 
will be determined by subsequent management practices. Past management 
practices--such as (1) reintroduction of wolves

[[Page 15132]]

from two Canadian sources (Alberta and British Columbia) and from 
numerous packs in each area, (2) subsequent management relocations 
between all three recovery areas, (3) the natural dispersal 
capabilities of wolves and proximity of core recovery areas to one 
another, (4) documented routine interchange with Canadian wolf 
populations and between Idaho and northwestern Montana, (5) a young 
population age structure with successful pup production and survival, 
and (6) the establishment of wolf populations in and around core 
refugia (central Idaho Wilderness, YNP, Glacier National Park and 
associated public lands to these areas) have produced a robust and 
viable wolf population that currently has very high genetic and 
demographic diversity that occupies core refugia in the highest quality 
wolf habitat in the NRM of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Maintenance of 
those conditions in the wolf population will depend solely on long-term 
future management to (1) regulate human-caused mortality and (2) 
maintain genetic connectivity among population segments, including 
Canada, either through deliberate relocation of wolves and/or 
encouraging sufficient natural dispersal'' (Bangs 2002, pp. 3-4, 8-9).
    Development of the Service's recovery goal clearly recognized that 
the key to wolf recovery was establishing a viable demographically and 
genetically diverse wolf population in the core recovery areas of the 
NRM. We would ensure its future connectivity by promoting natural 
dispersal and genetic connectivity between the core recovery segments 
and/or by human-assist migration management in the unlikely event it 
was ever required (Fritts and Carbyn 1995; Groen et al. 2008).
    We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs 
as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are 
maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use `breeding 
pairs' (packs that have at least an adult male and an adult female and 
that raised at least 2 pups until December 31) to describe successfully 
reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7-8; Mitchell 
et al. 2008). The breeding pair metric includes most of the important 
biological concepts in wolf conservation. Specifically, we thought it 
was important for breeding pairs to have: Both male and female member 
together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation 
of a distinct territory (generally 500-1,300 km\2\ (200-500 mi\2\) and 
almost always in suitable habitat); enough pups to replace two adults; 
off-spring that become yearling dispersers; at least 4 wolves following 
the point in the year with the highest mortality rates (summer and 
fall); all social structures and age classes represented within a wolf 
population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger wolves.
    Often we do not know if a specific pack actually contains an adult 
male, adult female, and two pups in winter; however, group size has 
proven to have a strong correlation with breeding pair status (Mitchell 
et al. 2008). Research indicates a pack size of around 9 equates to one 
breeding pair (large packs have complex age classes--pups, yearlings 
and older adults). In the future, the States may be able to use pack 
size in winter as a surrogate to help reliably identify each pack's 
contribution toward meeting our breeding pair recovery criteria and to 
better predict the effect of managing for certain pack sizes on wolf 
population recovery.
    We also have determined that an essential part of achieving 
recovery is an equitable distribution of wolf breeding pairs and 
individual wolves among the three States and the three recovery zones. 
Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf 
recovery and long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its 
distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding 
pairs and wolves. While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-
distributed population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a 
disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves 
is needed to maintain wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 
recovery areas and other suitable habitat throughout the NRM and to 
facilitate natural connectivity.
    Following the 2002 review of our recovery criteria, we began to use 
States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward 
recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2009, Table 4). Because Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the 
original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation 
structure would be best conserved by equally dividing the overall 
recovery goal between the three States. This approach made each State's 
responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It 
avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the 
responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf 
br