Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Gray Wolf in Wyoming From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Removal of the Wyoming Wolf Population's Status as an Experimental Population, 61782-61823 [2011-25359]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61782-61823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25359]



[[Page 61781]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 193

October 5, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 5, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61782]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039; 92220-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AX94


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

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of a public hearing.

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

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

DATES: Public Comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked 
on or before January 13, 2012. Please note that if you are using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES), the deadline for submitting 
an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on this date.
    Public Hearing: We will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule 
on November 15, 2011, as well as an informational open house 
immediately preceding the public hearing. For more information, see 
``Public Hearing and Open House'' in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R6-ES-
2011-0039, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel at the top of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
check the box next to Proposed Rules to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Submit a Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0039, Division of Policy and 
Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see ``Public Comments'' in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 
information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains see https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/wolf/, or contact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Mountain-Prairie Region Office, Ecological Services Division, 134 Union 
Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 303-236-7400. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned government agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. Specifically, we request information on 
the following questions:
    (1) Is our description and analysis of the biology, population, and 
distribution accurate?
    (2) Does the proposed rule provide accurate and adequate review and 
analysis of the factors relating to the threats?
    (3) Are the conclusions we reach, including their projection of 
maintenance of a viable population, logical and supported by the 
evidence provided?
    (4) Did we include all the necessary and pertinent literature to 
support our assumptions, arguments, and conclusions?
    (5) Is it reasonable for us to conclude that Wyoming's approach to 
wolf management is likely to maintain Wyoming's wolf population above 
recovery levels?
    (6) Is it reasonable for us to conclude that Wyoming's approach to 
wolf management is likely to provide for sufficient levels of gene flow 
(either natural or human assisted) to prevent genetic problems from 
negatively impacting the GYA's population or the larger NRM 
metapopulation in a manner that would meaningfully impact viability?
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept 
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the Mountain-Prairie 
Region Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing and Open House

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

[[Page 61783]]

with a question-and-answer period) from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and a 
public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on November 15, 2011, at 
the Robert A. Peck Arts Center, Central Wyoming College, 2660 Peck 
Avenue, Riverton, WY 82501; 307-855-2000.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for 
the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement 
to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the 
time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up 
at the informational meeting and hearing if they desire to make an oral 
statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. 
There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. 
If you have any questions concerning the public hearing or need 
reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public 
hearing, please contact the Denver Regional Office's Ecological 
Service's Division at 303-236-7400 [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section below], as soon as possible, but no later than 1 week before 
the hearing date, to allow sufficient time to process requests. 
Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats 
upon request.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we intend to subject 
this proposal to peer review. A peer review panel will conduct this 
assessment. We anticipate this assessment will be completed during the 
public comment period and posted online at https://www.regulations.gov 
to allow for public review and comment.
    We will consider all comments and information received during this 
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final 
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Table of Contents

Background
    Delisting Wolves in Wyoming--The Focus of This Rule
    Previous Federal Actions
    Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Their Wolf Management Plan
    Species Description and Basic Biology
    Recovery Planning and Implementation
    [cir] Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria
    [cir] Monitoring and Managing Recovery
    [cir] Recovery by State
    [cir] Recovery by Recovery Area
    [cir] Genetic Exchange Relative to Our Recovery Criteria
    [cir] Conclusion on Progress Towards Our Recovery Goals
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, 
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
    [cir] Suitable Habitat
    [cir] Unoccupied Suitable Habitat
    [cir] Currently Occupied Habitat
    [cir] Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or Range
    Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
    [cir] Commercial or Recreational Uses
    [cir] Overutilization for Scientific or Educational Purposes
    Factor C. Disease or Predation
    [cir] Disease
    [cir] Natural Predation
    [cir] Human-caused Predation
    Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    [cir] National Park Service
    [cir] National Wildlife Refuges
    [cir] Tribal Lands
    [cir] Forest Service
    [cir] State Regulatory Mechanisms
    [cir] Environmental Protection Agency
    Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 
Continued Existence
    [cir] Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf
    [cir] Genetic Considerations
    [cir] Poison
    [cir] Climate Change
    [cir] Catastrophic Events
    [cir] Impacts to Wolf Pack Social Structure as a Result of 
Human-Caused Mortality
Conclusion (Including Cumulative Impacts)
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Effects of the Proposed Rule
Required Determinations
    Clarity of the Rule
    Paperwork Reduction Act
    National Environmental Policy Act
    Executive Order 13211
    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
References Cited
Authority
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Background

Delisting Wolves in Wyoming--The Focus of This Rule

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

Previous Federal Actions

    In 1967, we determined the eastern timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in 
the Great Lakes region was threatened with extinction (32 FR 4001, 
March 11, 1967). In 1973, we added the NRM gray wolf (C. l. irremotus) 
to the U.S. List of Endangered Fish and Wildlife (38 FR 14678, June 4, 
1973). Both of these listings were pursuant to the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act of 1969. In 1974, these subspecies were listed as 
endangered under the Act of 1973 (39 FR 1158, January 4, 1974). We 
listed a third gray wolf subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) 
as endangered on April 28, 1976 (41 FR 17736) in Mexico and the 
southwestern United States. In 1976, we listed the Texas gray wolf 
subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as endangered in Texas and Mexico (41 
FR 24062, June 14, 1976).
    Due to questions about the validity of subspecies classification at 
the time and issues associated with the narrow geographic scope of each 
subspecies, we published a rule reclassifying the gray wolf as 
endangered at the species level (C. lupus) throughout the coterminous 
48 States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The exception was 
Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. This 
rule also provided assurance that this reclassification would not alter 
our intention to focus recovery on each population as separate 
entities. Accordingly, recovery plans were developed for: The Great 
Lakes in 1978 (revised in 1992) (Service 1978, entire; Service 1992, 
entire); the NRM region in 1980 (revised in 1987) (Service 1980, 
entire; Service 1987, entire); and the Southwest in 1982 (Service 1982, 
entire). A revision to the southwest recovery plan is now under way.
    In 1994, we designated portions of Idaho and Montana, and all of 
Wyoming as nonessential experimental gray wolf populations under 
section 10(j) of the Act (50 CFR 17.84(i)), including the Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994) and the 
Central Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 FR 60266,

[[Page 61784]]

November 22, 1994). These designations assisted us in initiating gray 
wolf reintroductions in central Idaho and in Yellowstone National Park 
(YNP). The Yellowstone Experimental Population Area included the entire 
State of Wyoming. In 2005 and 2008, we revised these regulations to 
provide increased management flexibility for this recovered wolf 
population in States and on Tribal lands with Service-approved post-
delisting wolf management plans (70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 
4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)).
    The NRM gray wolf population achieved its numerical and 
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2011, 
Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 
2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded 
for the third successive year (Service et al. 2011, Table 4). In light 
of this success, we once reclassified and twice delisted all or part of 
this population (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 
2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). These reclassification and delisting 
rules were overturned by Federal District courts (Defenders of 
Wildlife, et al. v. Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); 
National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d 
553 (D. Vt. 2005); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Hall, et al., 565 
F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. Mont. 2008); Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. 
Salazar, et al., 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010). Each of these 
rulemakings and the subsequent litigation are discussed below.
    In 2003, we reclassified the coterminous 48-State listing into 
three DPSs including a threatened Western DPS, a threatened Eastern 
DPS, and an endangered Southwestern DPS (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). 
The Western DPS, centered around the recovered NRM gray wolf 
population, included California, northern Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
Oregon, northern Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. This rule also removed 
the protections of the Act for gray wolves in all or parts of 16 
southern and eastern States where the species historically did not 
occur. Finally, this rule established a special 4(d) rule to respond to 
wolf-human conflicts in areas not covered by existing nonessential 
experimental population rules. In 2005, the U.S. District Courts in 
Oregon and Vermont concluded that the 2003 final rule was ``arbitrary 
and capricious'' and violated the Act (Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. 
Norton, et al., 354 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D. Or. 2005); National Wildlife 
Federation, et al. v. Norton, et al., 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005)). 
Both courts ruled the Service improperly downlisted entire DPSs based 
just on the viability of a core population. The courts' rulings 
invalidated the April 2003 changes to the gray wolf listing under the 
Act.
    In 2003, we also published an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking announcing our intention to delist the Western DPS as the 
recovery goals had been satisfied (68 FR 15879, April 1, 2003). This 
notice explained that delisting would require consideration of threats, 
and that the adequacy of State wolf management plans to address threats 
in the absence of protections of the Act would be a major determinant 
in any future delisting evaluation.
    In 2004, we determined that Montana's and Idaho's laws and wolf 
management plans were adequate to assure that their shares of the NRM 
wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels (Williams 
2004a, in litt.; Williams 2004b, in litt.). However, we also found the 
2003 Wyoming legislation and plan would not ensure maintenance of 
Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM gray wolf population (Williams 
2004c, in litt.). Wyoming challenged this determination, and the United 
States District Court in Wyoming dismissed the case (State of Wyoming, 
et al. v. United States Department of Interior, et al., 360 F.Supp.2d 
1214, (D. Wyoming 2005)). Wyoming's subsequent appeal was unsuccessful 
(State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States Department of Interior, et 
al., 442 F.Supp.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2006)). Wyoming lost this case on 
procedural grounds because it failed to identify a final agency action 
necessary to confer standing prior to the litigation. To address this 
procedural shortcoming, in 2005, Wyoming petitioned us to revise the 
listing status for the gray wolf by recognizing a NRM DPS and to remove 
it from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species 
(Freudenthal 2005, entire). In 2006, we announced a 12-month finding 
that Wyoming's petition (delisting wolves in all of Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming) was not warranted because the 2003 Wyoming State laws and its 
2003 wolf management plan did not provide adequate regulatory 
mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf 
population would be conserved (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006). Wyoming 
challenged this finding in Wyoming Federal District Court. This 
challenge was made moot by Wyoming's revisions to its laws and 
management plan in 2007, which allowed delisting to move forward. On 
February 27, 2008, a Wyoming Federal District Court issued an order 
dismissing the case (State of Wyoming, et al. v. United States 
Department of Interior, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 2:06-CV-
00245).
    In 2008, we issued a final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and 
removing it from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (73 FR 
10514, February 27, 2008). This DPS included Idaho, Montana, eastern 
Oregon, north-central Utah, eastern Washington, and Wyoming. This DPS 
was smaller than the 2003 Western DPS and more closely approximates the 
historic range of the originally listed NRM gray wolf in the United 
States and the areas focused on in both NRM recovery plans (39 FR 1171, 
January 4, 1974; Service 1980, pp. 3, 7-8; Service 1987, pp. 2, 23). 
The Service removed protections across the entire DPS after Wyoming 
revised its wolf management plan and State law. At the time, we 
concluded this Wyoming framework provided adequate regulatory 
protections to conserve Wyoming's portion of a recovered wolf 
population into the foreseeable future (Hall 2007, in litt.).
    Environmental litigants challenged this final rule in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs also moved 
to preliminarily enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, the court 
granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and 
enjoined the Service's implementation of the final delisting rule 
(Defenders of Wildlife, et al., v. Hall, et al., 565 F.Supp.2d 1160 (D. 
Mont. 2008)). The court stated that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a 
wolf population that lacked evidence of natural genetic exchange 
between subpopulations. The court also stated that we acted arbitrarily 
and capriciously when we approved Wyoming's 2007 wolf management plan 
because the State failed to commit to managing for at least 15 breeding 
pairs, and Wyoming's 2007 statute allowed the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission (WGFC) to diminish the trophy game area if it ``determines 
the diminution does not impede the delisting of gray wolves and will 
facilitate Wyoming's management of wolves.'' In light of the court 
order, on September 22, 2008, we asked the court to vacate the final 
rule and remand it to us. On October 14, 2008, the court granted our 
request (Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall, 9:08-CV-00056-DWM (D. Mont 
2008)). The court's rulings invalidated the February 2008 rule 
designating and delisting the NRM DPS.
    Following the July 18, 2008 court ruling, we reexamined the NRM DPS 
and Wyoming's statutes, regulations, and management plan. This

[[Page 61785]]

reevaluation considered several issues not considered in the previous 
evaluation. We determined that the best scientific and commercial data 
available demonstrated that: (1) The NRM DPS was not threatened or 
endangered throughout ``all'' of its range (i.e., not threatened or 
endangered throughout all of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming portion of 
the range represented a significant portion of its range where the 
species remained in danger of extinction because of the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms. Thus, on April 2, 2009, we published a 
final rule recognizing the NRM DPS and removing the DPS from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming, where wolves 
continued to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population 
under 50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n) (74 FR 15123). The decision to retain the 
Act's protections only in Wyoming was consistent with a March 16, 2007, 
Memorandum Opinion issued by the Solicitor of the Department of the 
Interior, ``The Meaning of `In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a 
Significant Portion of Its Range' '' (M-Opinion) (Department of the 
Interior 2007, in litt.). The final rule determined that Wyoming's 
existing regulatory framework did not provide the necessary regulatory 
mechanisms to assure that Wyoming's share of a recovered NRM wolf 
population would be conserved if the protections of the Act were 
removed and stated that, until Wyoming revised its statutes, 
regulations, and management plan, and obtained Service approval, wolves 
in Wyoming would remain protected by the Act (74 FR 15123, April 2, 
2009).
    The April 2009 rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009) was challenged in 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana by environmental 
litigants and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming by 
the State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, and Park County, 
Wyoming. On August 5, 2010, the U.S District Court for Montana ruled on 
the merits of the case and vacated our April 2009 final rule (Defenders 
of Wildlife, et al. v. Salazar, et al., 729 F. Supp.2d 1207 (D. Mont. 
2010)). The court concluded that the NRM DPS must be listed or delisted 
in its entirety. The court rejected the rule's approach allowing 
protection of only a portion of the species' range because it was 
inconsistent with the Act's definition of ``species.'' (The Department 
of Interior withdrew the M-Opinion on this topic on May 4, 2011 
(Department of the Interior 2011, in litt.)). Thus, before delisting 
could occur, Wyoming had to develop a regulatory framework that was 
determined by the Service to be adequate to maintain Wyoming's share of 
a recovered NRM gray wolf population. The court's ruling invalidated 
the April 2009 rule designating and delisting most of the NRM DPS.
    On October 26, 2010, in compliance with the order of the U.S. 
District Court for Montana, we published a final rule notifying the 
public that the Federal protections in place prior to the 2009 
delisting had been reinstated (75 FR 65574). Wolves in eastern 
Washington, eastern Oregon, northcentral Utah, the Idaho panhandle, and 
northern Montana were again listed as endangered. Former special rules 
designating the gray wolf in the remainder of Montana and Idaho as 
nonessential experimental populations were likewise reinstated. 
Additionally, the NRM gray wolf DPS established by the April 2, 2009, 
final rule was set aside. Because wolves in Wyoming were not delisted 
by the April 2, 2009 final rule, their listed status was not impacted 
by the October 26, 2010 rule.
    Following the Montana District Court decision, the United States 
Congress passed, and President Obama signed, H.R. 1473, Public Law 112-
10--The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations 
Act of 2011. Section 1713 of the law directed the Service to reissue 
its April 2009 delisting rule. The Service complied with this directive 
on May 5, 2011 (76 FR 25590). The constitutionality of H.R. 1473 was 
challenged by environmental plaintiffs (Alliance for the Wild Rockies 
et al., v. Salazar, et al., case no. CV 11-70-M-DWM). The United States 
District Court for Montana ruled on August 3, 2011, that the law was 
constitutional. This ruling was appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Alliance 
for the Wild Rockies, et al., v. Salazar, et al., case no. 11-35670). 
Plaintiffs also filed an emergency motion for injunction in order to 
stop Idaho's and Montana's planned fall 2011 hunts, which was denied. 
As of this writing, a decision on the appeal is pending.
    As for the Wyoming challenge to the April 2009 partial delisting 
rule (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009), a United States District Court for 
Wyoming ruled in favor of the three Wyoming plaintiffs on November 18, 
2010 (Wyoming et al., v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., 2010 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122829). The court rejected the Service position that 
recommended the entire State of Wyoming be designated as a trophy game 
area and found this position to be arbitrary and capricious, as it was 
not supported by the administrative record. The court concluded that 
the record indicated only northwestern Wyoming, which has the vast 
majority of the State's suitable habitat, was biologically essential to 
maintenance of the NRM population. However, the court did not render an 
opinion on whether Wyoming's current plan, including the proposed size 
and location of its 2007 trophy game area, was sufficient. Instead, the 
court remanded the matter to us to reconsider whether Wyoming's 
regulatory framework would maintain its share of a recovered wolf 
population and provide adequate genetic connectivity. Subsequent to 
this order, the Service and the State reinitiated negotiations on 
revisions to their wolf management framework that would satisfy the 
standards of the Act and allow delisting to again move forward. The 
results of this process led to development of a revised wolf management 
plan and are incorporated in this proposal.

Reengaging Wyoming and Changes to Their Wolf Management Plan

    The April 2009 rule stated that ``until Wyoming revises their 
statutes, management plan, and associated regulations, and is again 
Service approved, wolves in Wyoming continue to require the protections 
of the Act'' (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). This rule specifically 
expressed concern over: (1) The size and permanency of Wyoming's Wolf 
Trophy Game Management Area (WTGMA); (2) conflicting language within 
the State statutes concerning whether Wyoming would manage for at least 
15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves, exactly 15 breeding pairs 
and 150 wolves, or only 7 breeding pairs and 70 wolves; and (3) liberal 
depredation control authorizations and legislative mandates to 
aggressively manage the population down to minimum levels.
    In early 2011, we began discussions with Wyoming seeking to develop 
a strategy for each of these issues. In August 2011, the Service and 
the State of Wyoming announced the framework of an agreement that we 
believe will allow us to delist wolves in Wyoming (WGFC 2011, appendix 
I). Following this announcement, Wyoming revised their 2008 wolf 
management plan (WGFC 2008, entire) to reflect the terms of this 
agreement (WGFC 2011, entire). Below we summarize the key points in the 
agreement relative to the three overarching Service concerns 
highlighted above.
    First, this agreement commits Wyoming to make permanent the 
existing WTGMA. In total, Wyoming wolves will be permanently managed as 
game animals or protected (e.g., in

[[Page 61786]]

National Parks) in about 40,000 km\2\ (15,400 mi\2\) in the 
northwestern portion of the State (15.7 percent of Wyoming), including 
YNP, Grand Teton National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, 
adjacent U.S. Forest Service-designated Wilderness Areas, adjacent 
public and private lands, the National Elk Refuge, and the Wind River 
Indian Reservation (Lickfett 2011, in litt.). Wolves will be designated 
as predatory animals in the remainder of the State (predator area). The 
above protected and game areas (see Figure 1) include: 100 percent of 
the portion of the GYA recovery area within Wyoming (Service 1987, 
Figure 2); approximately 79 percent of the portion of the primary 
analysis area in Wyoming focused on by the 1994 reintroduction EIS 
(Service 1994, Figure 1.1); the entire home range for 24 of 27 breeding 
pairs in Wyoming and 24 of 34 packs in the State (Service et al. 2011, 
Figure 3); and approximately 76 percent of the State's suitable habitat 
as determined by Oakleaf et al. (2006, entire) (including 81 percent of 
the high-quality habitat (with an 80 percent or greater chance of 
supporting wolves) and 62 percent of the medium-high-quality habitat 
(with a 50 to 79 percent chance of supporting wolves) (Oakleaf 2011, in 
litt.)). This area is of sufficient size to support a recovered wolf 
population in Wyoming, under the management regime proposed for this 
area.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 61787]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05OC11.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The Service's prior concern that the size of the WTGMA would impact 
natural connectivity and genetic exchange was also addressed in the 
agreement. The agreement and the State's wolf management plan clearly 
articulate a goal for gene flow of at least one effective natural 
migrant per generation entering into the GYA, as measured over multiple 
generations (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 9, 26-29, 54). To address our concerns 
about genetics and connectivity, Wyoming agreed to a seasonal expansion 
of the WTGMA. This seasonal adjustment expands the WTGMA approximately 
80 kilometers (km) (50 miles (mi)) south for four and a half months 
during peak wolf dispersal periods (WGFC 2011, pp. 2, 8, 52). We 
believe this will benefit natural dispersal. Furthermore, Wyoming 
commits to an adaptive management approach that adjusts management if 
the above minimum level of gene flow is not documented, as well as to 
use human-assisted migration if necessary (WGFC 2011, pp. 26-29). 
Collectively, these measures will ensure that inbreeding depression 
resulting from

[[Page 61788]]

the loss of genetic diversity never threatens the population.
    Next, Wyoming agreed to maintain a population of at least 10 
breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves in areas under State 
jurisdiction (WGFC 2011, pp. 1-5, 16-26, 52). Importantly, this 
commitment does not reflect an intention by Wyoming Game and Fish 
Department (WGFD) to reduce the population down to this minimum 
population level. Rather, Wyoming intends to maintain an adequate 
buffer above minimum population objectives to accommodate management 
needs (the desire to hunt wolves annually) and ensure uncontrollable 
sources of mortality (such as disease or take in defense of property) 
do not drop the population below this minimum population level (WGFC 
2011, p. 24). This management strategy will provide for the 
population's representation, resiliency, and redundancy (Shaffer and 
Stein 2000, entire) within the GYA as well as improve public acceptance 
for wolves outside YNP.
    The wolf populations in YNP and on the lands of sovereign nations 
will provide an additional buffer above the minimum recovery goal 
intended by the step-down management objective of at least 15 breeding 
pairs and at least 150 wolves Statewide (see ``Recovery Planning and 
Implementation'' below for more information). From 2001 to the end of 
2010, the wolf population in YNP ranged from 96 to 171 wolves, and 
between 6 to 16 breeding pairs, with an average of 9.8 breeding pairs. 
While a lower long-term future population level in YNP is predicted 
(Smith 2010, pers. comm.), YNP will always provide a large, secure wolf 
population providing a safety margin above the minimum recovery goal. 
The Wind River Indian Reservation typically contains a small number of 
wolves (single digits), which sometimes form packs that count toward 
Tribal population totals. On the whole, we expect the statewide wolf 
population in Wyoming will be maintained well above minimum recovery 
levels.
    Another substantial improvement is Wyoming's management framework 
inside the WTGMA. For example, Wyoming has committed to remove current 
statutory mandates for aggressive management of wolves (WGFC 2011, pp. 
24, 52). Current Wyoming law requires aggressive management until the 
population outside the National Parks falls to six breeding pairs or 
below. This issue was a major Service concern with Wyoming's existing 
law, and will be remedied.
    Additionally, Wyoming agreed wolves in the permanent or seasonal 
WTGMA would never be treated as predatory animals (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 
16-17, 23). Existing State laws allow depredating wolves within the 
WTGMA to be treated as predatory animals under certain circumstances at 
the discretion of the State Fish and Game Commission (WGFC 2011, pp. 3, 
16-17, 23). Wyoming has indicated an intention to modify W.S. 23-1-
302(a)(ii) to ensure it does not apply to wolves in the WTGMA. This 
change is a substantial improvement over current Wyoming law that will 
help ensure that the wolf population in Wyoming (outside of YNP and the 
Wind River Indian Reservation) always remains at or above 10 breeding 
pairs and 100 individuals.
    Furthermore, Wyoming intends to establish defense-of-property 
regulations that are similar to our nonessential experimental 
population rules (50 CFR 17.84(n)) (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 
53). Also, management of depredating wolves will be similar to Service 
management under the Act's protections (WGFC 2011, pp. 4, 22-23, 30-31, 
53). Such rules were in place in Montana and Idaho prior to delisting 
and allowed continued population growth. These management approaches 
are an additional improvement over the framework Wyoming had in place 
for most of 2008.
    These, and other improvements discussed in more detail below, have 
addressed the Service's concerns about wolf management in Wyoming and 
made this proposed delisting rule possible. Wyoming's wolf management 
plan was recently revised to reflect the new agreement (WGFC 2011, 
entire). However, conforming changes to Wyoming State law and WGFC 
regulations are also necessary to implement this plan. Wyoming 
recognizes statutory and regulatory changes will be required to 
implement this agreement and intends to pursue these changes. These 
changes will be made prior to any final decision that delists gray 
wolves in Wyoming.

Species Description and Basic Biology

    Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog 
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) 
(40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and geographic region (Mech 
1974, p. 1). In the NRM region, adult male gray wolves average just 
over 45 kg (100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh 
about 20 percent less than males. Wolves' fur color is frequently a 
grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure white to coal black (Gipson et 
al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe, and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they 
poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once-widespread 
species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States (Mech 1970, pp. 31-34; McIntyre 1995, entire). Gray wolf 
populations were eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well 
as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, 
p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolf prey in the 
NRM region is composed mainly of elk (Cervus canadensis), white tailed 
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), moose 
(Alces alces), and (in the GYA) bison (Bison bison). Bighorn sheep 
(Ovis canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus), and pronghorn 
antelope (Antilocapra americana) also are common but less important, at 
least to date, as wolf prey.
    Wolves normally live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the NRM 
region, pack sizes average 7 wolves but are slightly larger in 
protected areas. A few complex packs have been substantially bigger in 
some areas of YNP (Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et al. 2011, 
Tables 1-3). Packs typically occupy large distinct territories from 518 
to 1,295 square kilometers (km\2\) (200 to 500 square miles (mi\2\)) 
and defend these areas from other wolves or packs. Once a given area is 
occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes saturated and wolf numbers 
become regulated by the amount of available prey, intra-species 
conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal. Dispersing wolves 
may cover large areas as they try to join other packs or attempt to 
form their own pack in unoccupied habitat (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 
11-17).
    Typically, only one male and female in each pack breed and produce 
pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243-4; Service et al. 
2011, Tables 1-3). Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-
year-olds and may annually produce young until they are over 10 years 
old. In the NRM region, litters are typically born in mid to late April 
and range from 1 to 7 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2011, Tables 1-3). Most years, four pups survive until winter 
(Service et al. 1989-2011, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 years 
(Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan in the NRM 
region is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production 
and survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food 
availability per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Pack 
social structure is very adaptable and resilient. Breeding members can 
be

[[Page 61789]]

quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack, and pups can 
be reared by another pack member should their parents die (Packard 
2003, p. 38; Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 1482). Consequently, 
wolf populations can rapidly recover from severe disruptions, such as 
very high levels of human-caused mortality or disease. After severe 
declines, wolf populations can more than double in just 2 years if 
mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 percent per year have 
been documented in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, 
pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2011, Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous 
United States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Recovery Planning and Implementation

    This section discusses recovery planning and implementation. 
Specifically, this section includes a detailed discussion of the 
recovery criteria including their development, continuous evaluation, 
and revision as necessary. Finally, this section includes our summary 
of progress towards recovery including an assessment of whether the 
criteria are met. This section discusses the entire NRM population 
because the recovery criteria apply to the entire population.
    Recovery Planning and the Development of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after the gray wolf was listed, we formed the Interagency Wolf Recovery 
Team to complete a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, 
p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery 
plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 
(Service 1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents, but 
are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and 
other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and 
on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. 
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and 
recovery may be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For 
example, one or more criteria may have been exceeded while other 
criteria may not have been accomplished. In that instance, the Service 
may judge that the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the 
species is robust enough to reclassify from endangered to threatened or 
to delist. In other cases, recovery opportunities may have been 
recognized that were not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. These opportunities may be used instead of methods 
identified in the recovery plan. Likewise, information on the species 
may be learned that was not known at the time the recovery plan was 
finalized. The new information may change the extent that criteria need 
to be met for recognizing recovery of the species. Recovery of a 
species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive management that may, or 
may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan.
    The 1980 recovery plan's objective was to reestablish and maintain 
viable populations of the NRM wolf (C. l. irremotus) in its former 
range where feasible (Service 1980, p. iii). This plan did not include 
recovery goals (i.e., delisting criteria). The 1980 plan covered an 
area similar to the NRM DPS, as it was once believed to be the range of 
the purported NRM wolf subspecies. It recommended that recovery actions 
be focused on the large areas of public land in northwestern Montana, 
central Idaho, and the GYA. The 1987 revised recovery plan (Service 
1987, p. 57) concluded that the subspecies designations may no longer 
be valid and simply referred to gray wolves in the NRM region. 
Consistent with the 1980 plan, it also recommended focusing recovery 
actions on the large blocks on public land in the NRM region.
    The 1987 plan specified a recovery criterion of a minimum of 10 
breeding pairs of wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite sex and 
adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for a minimum of 3 
successive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas including: (1) 
Northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob 
Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 
and private lands); (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, 
Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) the YNP area (including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). That plan recommended 
that wolf establishment not be promoted outside these distinct recovery 
areas, but it encouraged connectivity between recovery areas. However, 
no attempts were made to prevent wolf pack establishment outside of the 
recovery areas unless chronic conflict required resolution (Service 
1994, pp. 1-15, 16; Service 1999, p. 2). Since completion of the 1987 
recovery plan, we have expended considerable effort to develop, 
repeatedly reevaluate, and when necessary modify, the recovery goals 
(Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 
1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 
15123, April 2, 2009, and this proposed rule).
    The 1994 Environmental Impact Statement on The Reintroduction of 
Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho (EIS) 
reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM region and the adequacy of the 
recovery goals to assure that the 1987 goals were sufficient (Service 
1994, pp. 6:68-78). We were particularly concerned about the 1987 
definition of a breeding pair, since any male and female wolf are 
`capable' of producing offspring and lone wolves may not have 
territories. We also believed the relatively small recovery areas 
identified in the 1987 plan greatly reduced the amount of area that 
could be used by wolves and would almost certainly eliminate the 
opportunity for meaningful natural demographic and genetic 
connectivity. We conducted a thorough literature review of wolf 
population viability analysis and minimum viable populations, reviewed 
the recovery goals for other wolf populations, surveyed the opinions of 
the top 43 wolf experts in North America (of which 25 responded), and 
incorporated our own expertise into a review of the NRM wolf recovery 
goal. We published our analysis in the EIS and a peer-reviewed paper 
(Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26-38).
    Our 1994 analysis concluded that the 1987 recovery goal was, at 
best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on 
the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, 
connectivity, and numbers. We also concluded ``Data on survival of 
actual wolf populations suggest greater resiliency than indicated by 
theory'' and theoretical treatments of population viability ``have 
created unnecessary dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by overstating 
the required population size'' (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). Based 
on our analysis, we redefined a breeding pair as an adult male and an 
adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups that survived 
until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous 
breeding season. We also concluded that ``Thirty or more breeding pairs 
comprising some 300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a population that 
exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic 
exchange between subpopulations should have a high

[[Page 61790]]

probability of long-term persistence'' because it would contain enough 
individuals in successfully reproducing packs that were distributed 
over distinct but somewhat connected large areas, to be viable for the 
longterm (Service 1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the required 
genetic exchange could occur by natural means or by human-assisted 
migration management and that dispersal of wolves between recovery 
areas was evidence of that genetic exchange (Service et al. 1994, 
Appendix 8, 9). In defining a ``Recovered Wolf Population'' we found 
``in the northern Rockies a recovered wolf population is 10 breeding 
pairs of wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 successive years with some 
level of movement between areas'' (Service 1994, pp. 6-7). We further 
determined that a metapopulation of this size and distribution among 
the three areas of core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would result in 
a wolf population that would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    For more than 15 years, we have concluded that movement of 
individuals between the metapopulation segments could occur either 
naturally or by human-assisted migration management (Service 1994, pp. 
7-67). Specifically, the 1994 EIS stated ``The importance of movement 
of individuals between sub-populations cannot be overemphasized. The 
dispersal ability of wolves makes such movement likely, unless wolves 
were heavily exploited between recovery areas, as could happen in the 
more developed corridor between central Idaho and YNP. Intensive 
migration management might become necessary if 1 of the 3 sub-
populations should develop genetic or demographic problems.'' (Service 
1994, pp. 7-67). The finding went on to say that human-assisted 
migration should not be viewed negatively and would be necessary in 
other wolf recovery programs (Service 1994, pp. 7-67). Furthermore, we 
found that the 1987 wolf recovery plan's population goal of 10 breeding 
pairs of wolves in 3 separate recovery areas for 3 consecutive years 
was reasonably sound and would maintain a viable wolf population into 
the foreseeable future. We did caution that the numerical recovery goal 
was somewhat conservative, and should be considered minimal (Service 
1994, pp. 6-75).
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate and update our 
1994 analysis and conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). We attempted 
to resurvey the same 43 experts we had contacted in 1994 as well as 43 
other biologists from North America and Europe who were recognized 
experts about wolves and conservation biology. We asked experts with a 
wide diversity of perspectives to participate in our review. In total, 
53 people provided their expert opinion regarding a wide range of 
issues related to the NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a wide range 
of literature, including wolf population viability analyses from other 
areas (Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9).
    Despite varied professional opinions and a great diversity of 
suggestions, experts overwhelmingly thought the recovery goal derived 
in our 1994 analysis was more biologically appropriate than the 1987 
recovery plan's criteria for recovery and represented a viable and 
recovered wolf population. Reviewers also thought genetic exchange, 
either natural or human-facilitated, was important to maintaining the 
metapopulation configuration and wolf population viability. Reviewers 
also believed the proven ability of a breeding pair to show successful 
reproduction was a necessary component of a biologically meaningful 
breeding pair definition. Reviewers recommended other concepts/numbers 
for recovery goals, but most were slight modifications to those we 
recommended in our 1994 analysis. While experts strongly (78 percent) 
supported our 1994 conclusions regarding a viable wolf population, they 
also tended to believe that wolf population viability was enhanced by 
higher, rather than lower, population levels and longer, rather than 
shorter, demonstrated timeframes.
    A common minority recommendation was an alternative goal of 500 
wolves and 5 years. A slight majority of reviewers indicated that even 
the 1987 recovery goal of only 10 breeding pairs (defined as a male and 
female capable of breeding) in each of 3 distinct recovery areas may be 
viable, given the persistence of other small wolf populations in other 
parts of the world. The results of previous population viability 
analyses for other wolf populations varied widely, and as we had 
concluded in our 1994 analysis, reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical 
results were strongly dependent on the variables and assumptions used 
in such models and conclusions often predicted different outcomes than 
actual empirical data had conclusively demonstrated. Based on that 
review, we reaffirmed our more relevant and stringent 1994 definition 
of wolf breeding pairs, population viability, and recovery (Service 
1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, pp. 1-9).
    We measure the wolf recovery goal by the number of breeding pairs 
as well as by the number of wolves because wolf populations are 
maintained by packs that successfully raise pups. We use ``breeding 
pairs'' (packs that have at least one adult male and at least one adult 
female and that raised at least two pups until December 31) to describe 
successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 
7-8; Mitchell et al. 2008, p. 881; Mitchell et al. 2010, p. 101). The 
breeding pair metric includes most of the important biological concepts 
in wolf conservation, including the potential disruption of human-
caused mortality that might affect breeding success in social 
carnivores (Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 89; Wallach et al. 2009, p. 1; 
Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 1). Specifically, we thought it was 
important for breeding pairs to have: both male and female members 
together going into the February breeding season; successful occupation 
of a distinct territory (generally 500-1,300 km\2\ (200-500 mi\2\) and 
almost always in suitable habitat; enough pups to replace themselves; 
offspring that become yearling dispersers; at least four wolves 
following the point in the year with the highest mortality rates 
(summer and fall); all social structures and age classes represented 
within a wolf population; and adults that can raise and mentor younger 
wolves.
    We also have determined that an equitable distribution of wolf 
breeding pairs and individual wolves among the three States and the 
three recovery zones is an essential part of achieving recovery. Like 
peer reviewers in 1994 and 2002, we concluded that NRM wolf recovery 
and long-term wolf population viability is dependent on its 
distribution as well as maintaining the minimum numbers of breeding 
pairs and wolves. While uniform distribution is not necessary, a well-
distributed population with no one State/recovery area maintaining a 
disproportionately low number of packs or number of individual wolves 
is needed. This approach will maintain wolf distribution in and 
adjacent to all three recovery areas and most of the region's suitable 
habitat. Such an approach will facilitate natural connectivity.
    Following the 2002 review of our recovery criteria, we began to use 
States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure progress toward 
recovery goals (Service et al. 2003-2011, Table 4). Because Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming each contain the vast majority of one of the 
original three core recovery areas, we determined the metapopulation 
structure would be best conserved by

[[Page 61791]]

equally dividing the overall recovery goal between the three States (73 
FR 10514, February 27, 2008, p. 10522). This approach made each State's 
responsibility for wolf conservation fair, consistent, and clear. It 
avoided any possible confusion that one State might assume the 
responsibility for maintaining the required number of wolves and wolf 
breeding pairs in a shared recovery area that was the responsibility of 
the adjacent State. State regulatory authorities and traditional 
management of resident game populations occur on a State-by-State 
basis. We determined that management by State would still maintain a 
robust wolf population in each core recovery area because they each 
contain manmade or natural refugia from human-caused mortality (e.g., 
National Parks, wilderness areas, and remote Federal lands) that 
guarantee those areas remain the stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and 
source of dispersing wolves in each State. Recovery targets by State 
promote connectivity and genetic exchange between the metapopulation 
segments by avoiding management that focuses solely on wolf breeding 
pairs in relatively distinct core recovery areas. This approach also 
will increase the numbers of potential wolf breeding pairs in the GYA 
because it is shared by all three States. A large and well-distributed 
population within the GYA is especially important because it is the 
most isolated recovery segment within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, 
p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19) and the southern tip of a larger 
western gray wolf population that now contains more than 14,000 wolves 
when combined with western Canada (Boitani 2003, p. 322).
    The numerical component of the recovery goal represents the minimum 
number of breeding pairs and individual wolves needed to achieve and 
maintain recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf population always 
exceeds the recovery goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves, we 
required that each State manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and at 
least 150 wolves in mid-winter in accordance with a step-down 
management objective. This 50 percent safety margin above minimum 
recovery levels was intended to provide an adequate safety margin 
recognizing that all wildlife populations, including wolves, can 
fluctuate widely over a relatively short period of time. Managing for a 
buffer above the minimum recovery target is consistent with our 1994 
determination that the addition of a few extra pairs would add security 
to the population and should be considered in the post-EIS management 
planning (Service 1994, pp. 6-75). Additionally, because the recovery 
goal components are measured in mid-winter when the wolf population is 
near its annual low point, the average annual wolf population will be 
higher than these minimal goals.
    Because Wyoming, unlike Montana and Idaho, has a large portion of 
its wolf population in areas outside the State's control (e.g., YNP and 
the Wind River Indian Reservation), we developed an alternative 
approach for Wyoming to achieve the desired safety margin above the 
minimum recovery goal. Specifically, we determined that at least 10 
breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves at mid-winter in Wyoming outside 
YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will satisfy Wyoming's 
contribution to NRM gray wolf recovery. Under this approach, the wolf 
populations in YNP and the Wind River Indian Reservation will provide 
the remaining buffer above the minimum recovery goal intended by the 
step-down management objective employed in Montana and Idaho (i.e., 
population targets 50 percent above minimum recovery levels).
    Wyoming's wolf population will be further buffered because WGFD 
intends to maintain an adequate buffer above minimum population 
objectives to accommodate management needs and ensure uncontrollable 
sources of mortality do not drop the population below the 10 breeding 
pair and 100 wolf minimum population level. The State of Wyoming is 
also committed to coordinate with YNP and the Wind River Indian 
Reservation to contribute to the step-down recovery target of at least 
15 breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves statewide, including YNP and 
the Wind River Indian Reservation. In our view, this alternative 
approach to the step-down wolf population target in Wyoming is 
biologically superior to a single statewide standard in that: It 
provides population stability outside the park, minimizing the chances 
of a bad year in YNP compromising maintenance of the recovery goal 
(such a scenario is described in our 2009 delisting rule's analysis of 
Wyoming's 2007 wolf plan (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009)); It adds an 
extra layer of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to the 
Greater Yellowstone Area's gray wolf population; and it builds public 
acceptance for a minimum wolf population outside YNP.
    To summarize, based on the information above, the current recovery 
goal for the NRM gray wolf population is: Thirty or more breeding pairs 
(an adult male and an adult female that raise at least 2 pups until 
December 31) comprising 300+ wolves well-distributed between Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming functioning as a metapopulation (a population that 
exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) with genetic 
exchange (either natural or, if necessary, agency-managed) between 
subpopulations. This overarching NRM recovery goal is stepped-down by 
State. The step-down recovery target requires Montana and Idaho to each 
maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves by managing 
for a safety margin of at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 
wolves in mid-winter. In Wyoming, the step-down recovery target is at 
least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves primarily within the 
State's jurisdiction while the YNP and the Wind River Indian 
Reservation provide the remainder of the buffer above the minimum 
recovery goal. Our recovery and post-delisting management goals were 
designed to provide the NRM gray wolf population with sufficient 
representation, resilience, and redundancy for their long-term 
conservation. After evaluating all available information, we conclude 
that the best scientific and commercial information available indicates 
the population will remain viable following delisting if the recovery 
targets continue to be met.
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--In 1989, we formed an Interagency 
Wolf Working Group (Working Group) composed of Federal, State, and 
Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; 
Service et al. 1989-2009, p. 1). The Working Group conducted four basic 
recovery tasks (Service et al. 1989-2009, pp. 1-2), in addition to the 
standard enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed 
species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 
(2) control wolves that attacked livestock by moving them, conducting 
other nonlethal measures, or by killing them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); 
(3) conduct research and publish scientific publications on wolf 
relationships to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, 
livestock, and people; and (4) provide accurate science-based 
information to the public and mass media so that people could develop 
their opinions about wolves and wolf management from an informed 
perspective.
    The size and distribution of the wolf population is estimated by 
the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is 
published in an interagency annual report (Service et al.

[[Page 61792]]

1989-2009, Table 4, Figure 1). Since the early 1980s, the Service and 
our cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored 
approximately 2,000 wolves in the NRM region to assess population 
status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve conflict with 
livestock. The Working Group's annual population estimates represent 
the best scientific and commercial data available regarding year-end 
NRM gray wolf population size and trends, as well as distributional and 
other information.
    Recovery by State--At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met 
its overall numerical and distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 
30 breeding pairs and more than 300 wolves well-distributed among 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 
2011, Table 4). Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 
consecutive years, the temporal element of recovery was not achieved 
until the end of 2002 when 663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were 
present (Service et al. 2003, Table 4). By the end of 2010, the NRM 
wolf population achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal 
for 11 consecutive years (Service et al. 2001-2008, Table 4; 68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006). By the end of 
2010, the NRM gray wolf population included approximately 1,651 wolves 
(566 in Montana; 705 in Idaho; 343 in Wyoming; 16 in eastern 
Washington; 21 in eastern Oregon) in 111 breeding pairs (35 in Montana; 
46 in Idaho; 27 in Wyoming; 1 in Washington; 2 in Oregon). Distribution 
at the end of 2010 is illustrated in Figure 2. Populati