Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered or Threatened Species, 435-458 [2015-32473]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 435-458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32473]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2015-0167; FF07C00000 FXES11190700000 167F1611MD]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as an Endangered 
or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
(Canis lupus ligoni) as an endangered or threatened species and to 
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). The petitioners provided three listing options for 
consideration by the Service: Listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
throughout its range; listing Prince of Wales Island (POW) as a 
significant portion of its range; or listing the population on Prince 
of Wales Island as a distinct population segment (DPS). After review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not warranted at this time 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, including POW. We 
also find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf population on POW does 
not not meet the criteria of the Service's DPS policy, and, therefore, 
it does not constitute a listable entity under the Act. We ask the 
public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning the threats to the Alexander Archipelago wolf or its habitat 
at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on January 6, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2015-0167. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field 
Office, 4700 BLM Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507-2546. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Soch Lor, Field Supervisor, Anchorage 
Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 907-
271-2787; or by facsimile at 907-271-2786. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In this finding, we will determine that the petitioned action is: (1) 
Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are 
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add 
or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires 
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.
    This finding is based upon the ``Status Assessment for the 
Alexander Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)'' (Service 2015, 
entire) (hereafter, Status Assessment) and the scientific analyses of 
available information prepared by Service biologists from the Anchorage 
Fish and Wildlife Field Office, the Alaska Regional Office, and the 
Headquarters Office. The Status Assessment contains the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, including the past, present, and future stressors. As 
such, the Status Assessment provides the scientific basis that informs 
our regulatory decision in this document, which involves the further 
application

[[Page 436]]

of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and 
policies.

Previous Federal Actions

    On December 17, 1993, the Service received a petition, from the 
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Eric Holle, and Martin Berghoffen, to 
list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act. On May 20, 1994, we announced a 90-day finding 
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that the 
requested action may be warranted, and we initiated a status review of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf and opened a public comment period until 
July 19, 1994 (59 FR 26476). On August 26, 1994, we reopened the 
comment period on the status review to accept comments until October 1, 
1994 (59 FR 44122). The Service issued its 12-month finding that 
listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf was not warranted on February 
23, 1995 (60 FR 10056).
    On February 7, 1996, the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity, 
Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Save the West, Save America's Forests, 
Native Forest Network, Native Forest Council, Eric Holle, Martin 
Berghoffen, and Don Muller filed suit in the U.S. Court for the 
District of Columbia challenging the Service's not-warranted finding. 
On October 9, 1996, the U.S. District Court remanded the 12-month 
finding to the Secretary of the Interior, instructing him to reconsider 
the determination ``on the basis of the current forest plan, and status 
of the wolf and its habitat, as they stand today'' (96 CV 00227 DDC). 
The Court later agreed to the Service's proposal to issue a new finding 
on June 1, 1997. On December 5, 1996, we published a document 
announcing the continuation of the status review for the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and opening a public comment period until January 21, 
1997 (61 FR 64496). The comment period was then extended or reopened 
through three subsequent publications (61 FR 69065, December 31, 1996; 
62 FR 6930, February 14, 1997; 62 FR 14662, March 27, 1997), until it 
closed on April 4, 1997.
    Prior to the publication of a 12-month finding, however, the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) issued the 1997 Tongass Land and Resource 
Management Plan Revision, which superseded the 1979 version of the 
plan. In keeping with the U.S. District Court's order that a finding be 
based upon the ``current forest plan,'' the District Court granted us 
an extension until August 31, 1997, to issue our 12-month finding so 
that the petitioners, the public, and the Service could reconsider the 
status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf under the revised Tongass Land 
and Resource Management Plan. Therefore, the Service reopened the 
public comment period on the status review of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf from June 12, 1997, to July 28, 1997 (62 FR 32070, June 12, 1997), 
and we then reevaluated all of the best available information on the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf, as well as long-term habitat projections 
for the Tongass National Forest included in the 1997 Tongass Land and 
Resource Management Plan Revision. On September 4, 1997, we published a 
12-month finding that listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf was not 
warranted (62 FR 46709).
    On August 10, 2011, we received a petition dated August 10, 2011, 
from the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace, requesting 
that the Alexander Archipelago wolf be listed as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act and critical habitat be designated. 
Included in the petition was supporting information regarding the 
subspecies' taxonomy and ecology, distribution, abundance and 
population trends, causes of mortality, and conservation status. The 
petitioners also requested that we consider: (1) Prince of Wales Island 
(POW) as a significant portion of the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf; and (2) wolves on POW and nearby islands as a 
distinct population segment. We note here that a significant portion of 
the range is not a listable entity in and of itself, but instead 
provides an independent basis for listing and is part of our analysis 
to determine whether or not listing as an endangered or threatened 
species is warranted. We published the 90-day finding for the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf on March 31, 2014, stating that the petition presented 
substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted (79 FR 
17993).
    On June 20, 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, 
Inc., and The Boat Company (collectively, plaintiffs) filed a complaint 
against the Service for failure to complete a 12-month finding for the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf within the statutory timeframe. On September 
22, 2014, the Service and the aforementioned plaintiffs entered into a 
stipulated settlement agreement stating that the Service shall review 
the status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf and submit to the Federal 
Register a 12-month finding as to whether listing as endangered or 
threatened is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by 
other pending proposals, on or before December 31, 2015. In Fiscal Year 
2015, the Service initiated work on a 12-month finding for the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf.
    On September 14, 2015, the Service received a petition to list on 
an emergency basis the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act. The petition for emergency listing 
was submitted by Alaska Wildlife Alliance, Cascadia Wildlands, Center 
for Biological Diversity, Greater Southeast Alaska Conservation 
Community, Greenpeace, and The Boat Company. The petitioners stated 
that harvest of the Alexander Archipelago wolf in Game Management Unit 
(GMU) 2, in light of an observed recent population decline, would put 
the population in danger of extinction. On September 28, 2015, the 
Service acknowledged receipt of the petition for emergency listing to 
each of the petitioners. In those letters, we indicated that we would 
continue to evaluate the status of the Alexander Archipelago wolf as 
part of the settlement agreement and that if at any point we determined 
that emergency listing was warranted, an emergency rule may be promptly 
developed.
    This document constitutes the 12-month finding on the August 10, 
2011, petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered 
or threatened species. For additional information and a detailed 
discussion of the taxonomy, physical description, distribution, 
demography, and habitat of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, please see 
the Status Assessment for Alexander Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus 
ligoni) (Service 2015, entire) available under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-
2015-0167 at https://www.regulations.gov, or from the Anchorage Fish and 
Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Current Taxonomy Description

    Goldman (1937, pp. 39-40) was the first to propose the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf as a subspecies of the gray wolf. He described C. l. 
ligoni as a dark colored subspecies of medium size and short pelage 
(fur) that occupied the Alexander Archipelago and adjacent mainland of 
southeastern Alaska. Additional morphometric analyses supported the 
hypothesis that wolves in southeastern Alaska were phenotypically 
distinct from other gray wolves in Alaska (Pedersen 1982, pp. 345, 
360), although results also indicated similarities with wolves that 
historically occupied coastal British Columbia, Vancouver Island, and 
perhaps the contiguous western United States (Nowak 1983, pp. 14-15; 
Friis 1985, p. 82). Collectively, these findings demonstrated that 
wolves in southeastern Alaska had a closer affinity

[[Page 437]]

to wolves to the south compared to wolves to the north, suggesting that 
either C. l. ligoni was not confined to southeastern Alaska and its 
southern boundary should be extended southward (Friis 1985, p. 78) or 
that C. l. ligoni should be combined with C. l. nubilus, the subspecies 
that historically occupied the central and western United States (Nowak 
1995, p. 396). We discuss these morphological studies and others in 
detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Morphological 
analyses'').
    More recently, several molecular ecology studies have been 
conducted on wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal British 
Columbia, advancing our knowledge of wolf taxonomy beyond morphometric 
analyses. Generally, results of these genetic studies were similar, 
suggesting that coastal wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal 
British Columbia are part of the same genetic lineage (Breed 2007, pp. 
5, 27, 30; Weckworth et al. 2011, pp. 2, 5) and that they appear to be 
genetically differentiated from interior continental wolves (Weckworth 
et al. 2005, p. 924; Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 9; Weckworth et al. 
2010, p. 368; Cronin et al. 2015, pp. 1, 4-6). However, interpretation 
of the results differed with regard to subspecific designations; some 
authors concluded that the level of genetic differentiation between 
coastal and interior continental wolves constitutes a distinct coastal 
subspecies, C. l. ligoni (Weckworth et al. 2005, pp. 924, 927; Munoz-
Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 12; Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 372; Weckworth et 
al. 2011, p. 6), while other authors asserted that it does not 
necessitate subspecies status (Cronin et al. 2015, p. 9). Therefore, 
the subspecific identity, if any, of wolves in southeastern Alaska and 
coastal British Columbia remained unresolved. As a cautionary note, the 
inference of these genetic studies depends on the type of genetic 
marker used and the spatial and temporal extent of the samples 
analyzed; we review these studies and their key findings as they relate 
to wolf taxonomy in detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, 
``Genetic analyses'').
    In the most recent meta-analysis of wolf taxonomy in North America, 
Chambers et al. (2012, pp. 40-42) found evidence for differentiating 
between coastal and inland wolves, although ultimately the authors 
grouped wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia with 
wolf populations that historically occupied the central and western 
United States (C. l. nubilus). One of their primary reasons for doing 
so was because coastal wolves harbored genetic material that also was 
found only in historical samples of C. l. nubilus (Chambers et al. 
2012, p. 41), suggesting that prior to extirpation of wolves by humans 
in the western United States, C. l. nubilus extended northward into 
coastal British Columbia and southeastern Alaska. However, this study 
was conducted at a broad spatial scale with a focus on evaluating 
taxonomy of wolves in the eastern and northeastern United States and 
therefore was not aimed specifically at addressing the taxonomic status 
of coastal wolves in western North America. Further, Chambers et al. 
(2012, p. 41) recognized that understanding the phylogenetic 
relationship of coastal wolves to other wolf populations assigned as C. 
l. nubilus is greatly impeded by the extirpation of wolves (and the 
lack of historical specimens) in the western United States. Lastly, 
Chambers et al. (2012, p. 2) explicitly noted that their views on 
subspecific designations were not intended as recommendations for 
management units or objects of management actions, nor should they be 
preferred to alternative legal classifications for protection, such as 
those made under the Act. Instead, the authors stated that the 
suitability of a subspecies as a unit for legal purposes requires 
further, separate analysis weighing legal and policy considerations.
    We acknowledge that the taxonomic status of wolves in southeastern 
Alaska and coastal British Columbia is unresolved and that our 
knowledge of wolf taxonomy in general is evolving as more sophisticated 
and powerful tools become available (Service 2015, ``Uncertainty in 
taxonomic status''). Nonetheless, based on our review of the best 
available information, we found persuasive evidence suggesting that 
wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia currently 
form an ecological and genetic unit worthy of analysis under the Act. 
Although zones of intergradation exist, contemporary gene flow between 
coastal and interior continental wolves appears to be low (e.g., 
Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 923; Cronin et al. 2015, p. 8), likely due to 
physical barriers, but perhaps also related to ecological differences 
(Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009, p. 6); moreover, coastal wolves currently 
represent a distinct portion of genetic diversity for all wolves in 
North America (Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 363; Weckworth et al. 2011, 
pp. 5-6). Thus, we conclude that at most, wolves in southeastern Alaska 
and coastal British Columbia are a distinct subspecies, C. l. ligoni, 
of gray wolf, and at least, are a remnant population of C. l. nubilus. 
For the purpose of this 12-month finding, we assume that the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf (C. l. ligoni) is a valid subspecies of gray wolf that 
occupies southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia and, 
therefore, is a listable entity under the Act.

Species Information

Physical Description

    The Alexander Archipelago wolf has been described as being darker 
and smaller, with coarser and shorter hair, compared to interior 
continental gray wolves (Goldman 1937, pp. 39-40; Wood 1990, p. 1), 
although a comprehensive study or examination has not been completed. 
Like most gray wolves, fur coloration of Alexander Archipelago wolves 
varies considerably from pure white to uniform black, with most wolves 
having a brindled mix of gray or tan with brown, black, or white. Based 
on harvest records and wolf sightings, the black color phase appears to 
be more common on the mainland of southeastern Alaska and coastal 
British Columbia (20-30 percent) (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 
[ADFG] 2012, pp. 5, 18, 24; Darimont and Paquet 2000, p. 17) compared 
to the southern islands of the Alexander Archipelago (2 percent) (ADFG 
2012, p. 34), and some of the gray-colored wolves have a brownish-red 
tinge (Darimont and Paquet 2000, p. 17). The variation in color phase 
of Alexander Archipelago wolves is consistent with the level of 
variation observed in other gray wolf populations (e.g., Central Brooks 
Range, Alaska) (Adams et al. 2008, p. 170).
    Alexander Archipelago wolves older than 6 months weigh between 49 
and 115 pounds (22 and 52 kilograms), with males averaging 83 pounds 
(38 kilograms) and females averaging 69 pounds (31 kilograms) (British 
Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations 
[BCMO] 2014, p. 3; Valkenburg 2015, p. 1). On some islands in the 
archipelago (e.g., POW) wolves are smaller on average compared to those 
on the mainland, although these differences are not statistically 
significant (Valkenburg 2015, p. 1) (also see Service 2015, ``Physical 
description''). The range and mean weights of Alexander Archipelago 
wolves are comparable to those of other populations of gray wolves that 
feed primarily on deer (Odocoileus spp.; e.g., northwestern Minnesota) 
(Mech and Paul 2008, p. 935), but are lower than those of adjacent gray 
wolf populations that regularly feed on larger ungulates

[[Page 438]]

such as moose (Alces americanus) (e.g., Adams et al. 2008, p. 8).

Distribution and Range

    The Alexander Archipelago wolf currently occurs along the mainland 
of southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia and on several 
island complexes, which comprise more than 22,000 islands of varying 
size, west of the Coast Mountain Range. Wolves are found on all of the 
larger islands except Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof islands and all 
of the Haida Gwaii, or Queen Charlotte Islands (see Figure 1, below) 
(Person et al. 1996, p. 1; BCMO 2014, p. 14). The range of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf is approximately 84,595 square miles (mi\2\) 
(219,100 square kilometers [km\2\]), stretching roughly 932 mi (1,500 
km) in length and 155 mi (250 km) in width, although the northern, 
eastern, and southern boundaries are porous and are not defined 
sharply.
    The majority (67 percent) of the range of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf falls within coastal British Columbia, where wolves occupy all or 
portions of four management ``regions.'' These include Region 1 
(entire), Region 2 (83 percent of entire region), Region 5 (22 percent 
of entire region), and Region 6 (17 percent of entire region) (see 
Figure 1, below). Thirty-three percent of the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf lies within southeastern Alaska where it occurs in all 
of GMUs 1, 2, 3, and 5, but not GMU 4. See the Status Assessment 
(Service 2015, ``Geographic scope'') for a more detailed explanation on 
delineation of the range.
    The historical range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, since the 
late Pleistocene period when the last glacial ice sheets retreated, was 
similar to the current range with one minor exception. Between 1950 and 
1970, wolves on Vancouver Island likely were extirpated by humans 
(Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2010, pp. 547-548; Chambers et al. 2012, p. 41); 
recolonization of the island by wolves from mainland British Columbia 
occurred naturally and wolves currently occupy Vancouver Island.
    In southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia, the landscape 
is dominated by coniferous temperate rainforests, interspersed with 
other habitat types such as sphagnum bogs, sedge-dominated fens, alpine 
areas, and numerous lakes, rivers, and estuaries. The topography is 
rugged with numerous deep, glacially-carved fjords and several major 
river systems, some of which penetrate the Coast Mountain Range, 
connecting southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia with 
interior British Columbia and Yukon Territory. These corridors serve as 
intergradation zones of variable width with interior continental 
wolves; outside of them, glaciers and ice fields dominate the higher 
elevations, separating the coastal forests from the adjacent inland 
forest in continental Canada.
    Within the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, land 
stewardship largely lies with State, provincial, and Federal 
governments. In southeastern Alaska, the majority (76 percent) of the 
land is located within the Tongass National Forest and is managed by 
the USFS. The National Park Service manages 12 percent of the land, 
most of which is within Glacier Bay National Park. The remainder of the 
land in southeastern Alaska is managed or owned by the State of Alaska 
(4 percent), Native Corporations (3 percent), and other types of 
ownership (e.g., private, municipal, tribal reservation; 5 percent). In 
British Columbia (entire), most (94 percent) of the land and forest are 
owned by the Province of British Columbia (i.e., Crown lands), 4 
percent is privately owned, 1 percent is owned by the federal 
government, and the remaining 1 percent is owned by First Nations and 
others (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Mines, and Lands 2010, p. 
121).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 439]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JA16.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Life History

    In this section, we briefly describe vital rates and population 
dynamics, including population connectivity, of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. For this 12-month finding, we considered a population 
to be a collection of individuals of a species in a defined area; the 
individuals in a population may or may not breed with other groups of 
that species in other places (Mills 2013, p. 3). We delineated wolves 
into populations based on GMUs in southeastern Alaska and Regions in 
British Columbia (coastal portions only) because these are defined 
areas and wolf populations are managed at these spatial

[[Page 440]]

scales (see Figure 1). For example, GMU 2 comprises one population of 
wolves on POW and adjacent islands.
Abundance and Trend
    Using the most recent and best available information, we estimate a 
current, rangewide population of 850-2,700 Alexander Archipelago 
wolves. The majority (roughly 62 percent) occurs in coastal British 
Columbia with approximately 200-650 wolves in the southern portion 
(Regions 1 and 2; about 24 percent of rangewide population) and 300-
1,050 wolves in the northern portion (Regions 5 and 6; about 38 percent 
of rangewide population) (see Figure 1). In southeastern Alaska, we 
estimate that currently the mainland (GMUs 1 and 5A) contains 150-450 
wolves (about 18 percent of rangewide population), the islands in the 
middle portion of the area (GMU 3) contain 150-350 wolves (about 14 
percent of rangewide population), and the southwestern set of islands 
(GMU 2) has 50-159 wolves (95 percent confidence intervals [CI], mean = 
89 wolves; about 6 percent of rangewide population) (Person et al. 
1996, p. 13; ADFG 2015a, p. 2). Our estimates are based on a variety of 
direct and indirect methods with the only empirical estimate available 
for GMU 2, which comprises POW and surrounding islands. See the Status 
Assessment (Service 2015, ``Abundance and density'') for details on 
derivation, assumptions, and caveats.
    Similar to abundance, direct estimates of population trend of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf are available only for GMU 2 in southeastern 
Alaska. In this GMU, fall population size has been estimated on four 
occasions (1994, 2003, 2013, and 2014). Between 1994 and 2014, the 
population was reduced from 356 wolves (95 percent CI = 148-564) 
(Person et al. 1996, pp. 11-12; ADFG 2014, pp. 2-4) to 89 wolves (95 
percent CI = 50-159) (ADFG 2015a, pp. 1-2), equating to an apparent 
decline of 75 percent (standard error [SE] = 15), or 6.7 percent (SE = 
2.8) annually. Although the numerical change in population size over 
the 20-year period is notable, the confidence intervals of the 
individual point estimates overlap. The most severe reduction occurred 
over a single year (2013-2014), when the population dropped by 60 
percent and the proportion of females in the sample was reduced from 
0.57 (SE = 0.13) to 0.25 (SE = 0.11) (ADFG 2015a, p. 2). In the 
remainder of southeastern Alaska, the trend of wolf populations is not 
known.
    In British Columbia, regional estimates of wolf population 
abundance are generated regularly using indices of ungulate biomass, 
and, based on these data, the provincial wolf population as a whole has 
been stable or slightly increasing since 2000 (Kuzyk and Hatter 2014, 
p. 881). In Regions 1, 2, 5, and 6, where the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf occurs in all or a portion of each of these regions (see 
Distribution and Range, above), the same trend has been observed (BCMO 
2015a, p. 1). Because estimates of population trend are not specific to 
the coastal portions of these regions only, we make the necessary 
scientific assumption that the trend reported for the entire region is 
reflective of the trend in the coastal portion of the region. This 
assumption applies only to Regions 5 and 6, where small portions (22 
and 17 percent, respectively) of the region fall within the range of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf; all of Region 1 and nearly all (83 
percent) of Region 2 are within the range of the coastal wolf (see 
Figure 1). Thus, based on the best available information, we found that 
the wolf populations in coastal British Columbia have been stable or 
slightly increasing over the last 15 years. See the Status Assessment 
(Service 2015, ``Abundance and density'') for a more thorough 
description of data assumptions and caveats.
Reproduction and Survival
    Similar to the gray wolf, sizes of litters of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf can vary substantially (1-8 pups, mean = 4.1) with 
inexperienced breeding females producing fewer pups than older, more 
experienced mothers (Person and Russell 2009, p. 216). Although 
uncommon, some packs fail to exhibit denning behavior or produce 
litters in a given year, and no pack has been observed with multiple 
litters (Person and Russell 2009, p. 216). Age of first breeding of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf is about 22 to 34 months (Person et al. 
1996, p. 8).
    We found only one study that estimated survival rates of Alexander 
Archipelago wolves. Based on radio-collared wolves in GMU 2 between 
1994 and 2004, Person and Russell (2008, p. 1545) reported mean annual 
survival rate of wolves greater than 4 months old as 0.54 (SE = 0.17); 
survival did not differ between age classes or sexes, but was higher 
for resident wolves (0.65, SE = 0.17) compared to nonresidents (i.e., 
wolves not associated with a pack; 0.34, SE = 0.17). Average annual 
rates of mortality attributed to legal harvest, unreported harvest, and 
natural mortality were 0.23 (SE = 0.12), 0.19 (SE = 0.11), and 0.04 (SE 
= 0.05), respectively, and these rates were correlated positively with 
roads and other landscape features that created openings in the forest 
(Person and Russell 2008, pp. 1545-1546).
    In 2012, another study was initiated (and is ongoing) in GMU 2 that 
involves collaring wolves, but too few animals have been collared so 
far to estimate annual survival reliably (n = 12 wolves between 2012 
and May 2015). Nonetheless, of those 12 animals, 5 died from legal 
harvest, 3 from unreported harvest, and 1 from natural causes; 
additionally, the fate of 2 wolves is unknown and 1 wolf is alive still 
(ADFG 2015b, p. 4). Thus, overall, harvest of Alexander Archipelago 
wolves by humans has accounted for most of the mortality of collared 
wolves in GMU 2. Our review of the best available information did not 
reveal any estimates of annual survival or mortality of wolves on other 
islands or the mainland of southeastern Alaska and coastal British 
Columbia.
Dispersal and Connectivity
    Similar to gray wolves, Alexander Archipelago wolves either remain 
in their natal pack or disperse (Person et al. 1996, p. 10), here 
defined as permanent movement of an individual away from its pack of 
origin. Dispersers typically search for a new pack to join or associate 
with other wolves and ultimately form a new pack in vacant territories 
or in vacant areas adjacent to established territories. Dispersal can 
occur within or across populations; when it occurs across populations, 
then population connectivity is achieved. Both dispersal and 
connectivity contribute significantly to the health of individual 
populations as well as the taxon as a whole.
    Dispersal rates of the Alexander Archipelago wolf are available 
only for GMU 2, where the annual rate of dispersal of radio-collared 
wolves was 39 percent (95 percent CI = 23 percent, n = 18) with adults 
greater than 2 years of age composing 79 percent of all dispersers 
(Person and Ingle 1995, p. 20). Minimum dispersal distances from the 
point of capture and radio-collaring ranged between 8 and 113 mi (13 
and 182 km); all dispersing wolves remained in GMU 2 (Person and Ingle 
1995, p. 23). Successful dispersal of individuals tends to be short in 
duration and distance in part because survival of dispersing wolves is 
low (annual survival rate = 0.16) (e.g., Peterson et al. 1984, p. 29; 
Person and Russell 2008, p. 1547).
    Owing to the rugged terrain and island geography across most of 
southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia, population 
connectivity probably is more limited for the

[[Page 441]]

Alexander Archipelago wolf compared to the gray wolf that inhabits 
interior continental North America. Of the 67 Alexander Archipelago 
wolves radio-collared in GMU 2, none emigrated to a different GMU 
(Person and Ingle 1995, p. 23; ADFG 2015c, p. 2); similarly, none of 
the four wolves collared in northern southeastern Alaska (GMU 1C and 
1D) attempted long-distance dispersal, although the home ranges of 
these wolves were comparatively large (ADFG 2015c, p. 2). Yet, of the 
three wolves opportunistically radio-collared on Kupreanof Island (GMU 
3), one dispersed to Revillagigedo Island (GMU 1A) (USFS 2015, p. 1), 
an event that required at least four water crossings with the shortest 
being about 1.2 mi (2.0 km) in length (see Figure 1). Thus, based on 
movements of radio-collared wolves, demographic connectivity appears to 
be more restricted for some populations than others; however, few data 
exist outside of GMU 2, where the lack of emigration is well documented 
but little is known about the rate of immigration.
    Likewise, we found evidence suggesting that varying degrees of 
genetic connectivity exist across populations of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, indicating that some populations are more insular 
than others. Generally, of the populations sampled, gene flow was most 
restricted to and from the GMU 2 wolf population (Weckworth et al. 
2005, p. 923; Breed 2007, p. 19; Cronin et al. 2015, Supplemental Table 
3), although this population does not appear to be completely isolated. 
Breed (2007, pp. 22-23) classified most wolves in northern coastal 
British Columbia (Regions 5 and 6) as residents and more than half of 
the wolves in the southern portion of southeastern Alaska (GMUs 1A and 
2) as migrants of mixed ancestry. Further, the frequency of private 
alleles (based on nuclear DNA) in the GMU 2 wolf population is low 
relative to other Alexander Archipelago wolves (Weckworth et al. 2005, 
p. 921; Breed 2007, p. 18), and the population does not harbor unique 
haplotypes (based on mitochondrial DNA), both of which suggest that 
complete isolation has not occurred. Thus, although some genetic 
discontinuities of Alexander Archipelago wolves is evident, likely due 
to geographical disruptions to dispersal and gene flow, genetic 
connectivity among populations seems to be intact, albeit at low levels 
for some populations (e.g., GMU 2). The scope of inference of these 
genetic studies depends on the type of genetic marker used and the 
spatial and temporal extent of the samples analyzed; we review key 
aspects of these studies in more detail in the Status Assessment 
(Service 2015, ``Genetic analyses,'' ``Genetic connectivity'').
    Collectively, the best available information suggests that 
demographic and genetic connectivity among Alexander Archipelago wolf 
populations exists, but at low levels for some populations such as that 
of GMU 2, likely due to geographical disruptions to dispersal and gene 
flow. Based on the range of samples used by Breed (2007, pp. 21-23), 
gene flow to GMU 2 appears to be uni-directional, which is consistent 
with the movement data from wolves radio-collared in GMU 2 that 
demonstrated no emigration from that population (ADFG 2015c, p. 2). 
These findings, coupled with the trend of the GMU 2 wolf population 
(see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above), suggest that this population may 
serve as a sink population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf; 
conversely, the northern coastal British Columbian population may be a 
source population to southern southeastern Alaska, as suggested by 
Breed (2007, p. 34). This hypothesis is supported further with genetic 
information indicating a low frequency of private alleles and no unique 
haplotypes in the wolves occupying GMU 2. Nonetheless, we recognize 
that persistence of this population may be dependent on the health of 
adjacent populations (e.g., GMU 3), but conclude that its demographic 
and genetic contribution to the rangewide population likely is lower 
than other populations such as those in coastal British Columbia.

Ecology

    In this section, we briefly describe the ecology, including food 
habits, social organization, and space and habitat use, of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf. Again, we review each of these topics in 
more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, entire).
Food Habits
    Similar to gray wolves, Alexander Archipelago wolves are 
opportunistic predators that eat a variety of prey species, although 
ungulates compose most of their overall diet. Based on scat and stable 
isotope analyses, black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus), moose, 
mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), and elk (Cervus spp.), either 
individually or in combination, constitute at least half of the wolf 
diet across southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia (Fox and 
Streveler 1986, pp. 192-193; Smith et al. 1987, pp. 9-11, 16; Milne et 
al. 1989, pp. 83-85; Kohira and Rexstad 1997, pp. 429-430; Szepanski et 
al. 1999, p. 331; Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871; Darimont et al. 2009, 
p. 130; Lafferty et al. 2014, p. 145). Other prey species regularly 
consumed, depending on availability, include American beaver (Castor 
canadensis), hoary marmot (Marmota caligata), mustelid species 
(Mustelidae spp.), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), and marine mammals 
(summarized more fully in the Status Assessment, Service 2015, ``Food 
habits'').
    Prey composition in the diet of the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
varies across space and time, usually reflecting availability on the 
landscape, especially for ungulate species that are not uniformly 
distributed across the islands and mainland. For instance, mountain 
goats are restricted to the mainland and Revillagigedo Island 
(introduced). Similarly, moose occur along the mainland and nearby 
islands as well as most of the islands in GMU 3 (e.g., Kuiu, Kupreanof, 
Mitkof, and Zarembo islands); moose distribution is expanding in 
southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia (Darimont et al. 2005, 
p. 235; Hundertmark et al. 2006, p. 331). Elk also occur only on some 
islands in southeastern Alaska (e.g., Etolin Island) and on Vancouver 
Island. Deer are the only ungulate distributed throughout the range of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf, although abundance varies greatly with 
snow conditions. Generally, deer are abundant in southern coastal 
British Columbia, where the climate is mild, with their numbers 
decreasing northward along the mainland due to increasing snow depths, 
although they typically occur in high densities on islands such as POW, 
where persistent and deep snow accumulation is less common.
    Owing to the disparate patterns of ungulate distribution and 
abundance, some Alexander Archipelago wolf populations have a more 
restricted diet than others. For example, in GMU 2, deer is the only 
ungulate species available to wolves, but elsewhere moose, mountain 
goat, elk, or a combination of these ungulates are available. Szepanski 
et al. (1999, pp. 330-331) demonstrated that deer and salmon 
contributed equally to the diet of wolves on POW (GMU 2), Kupreanof 
Island (GMU 3), and the mainland (GMUs 1A and 1B) (deer = 45-49 percent 
and salmon = 15-20 percent), and that ``other herbivores'' composed the 
remainder of the diet (34-36 percent). On POW, ``other herbivores'' 
included only beaver and voles (Microtus spp.), but on Kupreanof 
Island, moose also was included, and on the mainland, mountain goat was 
added

[[Page 442]]

to the other two herbivore prey species. Therefore, we hypothesize that 
wolves in GMU 2, and to a lesser extent in parts of GMU 3, are more 
vulnerable to changes in deer abundance compared to other wolf 
populations that have a more diverse ungulate prey base available to 
them.
    Given the differences in prey availability throughout the range of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf, some general patterns in their food 
habits exist. On the northern mainland of southeastern Alaska, where 
deer occur in low densities, wolves primarily eat moose and mountain 
goat (Fox and Streveler 1986, pp. 192-193; Lafferty et al. 2014, p. 
145). As one moves farther south and deer become more abundant, they 
are increasingly represented in the diet, along with correspondingly 
smaller proportions of moose and mountain goat where available 
(Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 331; Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1869). On the 
outer islands of coastal British Columbia, marine mammals compose a 
larger portion of the diet compared to other parts of the range of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130); salmon 
appear to be eaten regularly by coastal wolves in low proportions (less 
than 20 percent), although some variation among populations exists. 
Generally, the diet of wolves in coastal British Columbia appears to be 
more diverse than in southeastern Alaska (e.g., Kohira and Rexstad 
1997, pp. 429-430; Darimont et al. 2004, pp. 1869, 1871), consistent 
with a more diverse prey base in the southern portion of the range of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We review these diet studies and others 
in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Food habits'').
    One of the apparently unusual aspects of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf diet is consumption of marine-derived foods. However, we found 
evidence suggesting that this behavior is not uncommon for gray wolves 
in coastal areas or those that have inland access to marine prey (e.g., 
spawning salmon). For example, wolves on the Alaska Peninsula in 
western Alaska have been observed catching and eating sea otters 
(Enhydra lutris), using offshore winter sea ice as a hunting platform 
and feeding on marine mammal carcasses such as Pacific walrus (Odobenus 
rosmarus divergens) and beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) (Watts et 
al. 2010, pp. 146-147). In addition, Adams et al. (2010, p. 251) found 
that inland wolves in Denali National Park, Alaska, ate salmon in 
slightly lower but similar quantities (3-17 percent of lifetime diet) 
compared to Alexander Archipelago wolves (15-20 percent of lifetime 
diet; Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 327). These findings and others suggest 
that marine-derived resources are not a distinct component of the diet 
of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Nonetheless, marine prey provide 
alternate food resources to coastal wolves during periods of the year 
with high food and energy demands (e.g., provisioning of pups when 
salmon are spawning; Darimont et al. 2008, pp. 5, 7-8) and when and 
where abundance of terrestrial prey is low.
Social Organization
    Wolves are social animals that live in packs usually composed of 
one breeding pair (i.e., alpha male and female) plus offspring of 1 to 
2 years old. The pack is a year-round unit, although all members of a 
wolf pack rarely are observed together except during winter (Person et 
al. 1996, p. 7). Loss of alpha members of a pack can result in social 
disruption and unstable pack dynamics, which are complex and shift 
frequently as individuals age and gain dominance, disperse from, 
establish or join existing packs, breed, and die (Mech 1999, pp. 1197-
1202). Although loss of breeding individuals impacts social stability 
within the pack, at the population level wolves appear to be resilient 
enough to compensate for any negative impacts to population growth 
(Borg et al. 2015, p. 183).
    Pack sizes of the Alexander Archipelago wolf are difficult to 
estimate owing to the heavy vegetative cover throughout most of its 
range. In southeastern Alaska, packs range from one to 16 wolves, but 
usually average 7 to 9 wolves with larger packs observed in fall than 
in spring (Smith et al. 1987, pp. 4-7; Person et al. 1996, p. 7; ADFG 
2015c, p. 2). Our review of the best available information did not 
reveal information on pack sizes from coastal British Columbia.
Space and Habitat Use
    Similar to gray wolves in North America, the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf uses a variety of habitat types and is considered a habitat 
generalist (Person and Ingle 1995, p. 30; Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 
xv). Person (2001, pp. 62-63) reported that radiocollared Alexander 
Archipelago wolves spent most of their time at low elevation during all 
seasons (95 percent of locations were below 1,312 feet [ft] [400 m] in 
elevation), but did not select for or against any habitat types except 
during the pup-rearing season. During the pup-rearing season, 
radiocollared wolves selected for open- and closed-canopy old-growth 
forests close to lakes and streams and avoided clearcuts and roads 
(Person 2001, p. 62), a selection pattern that is consistent with den 
site characteristics.
    Alexander Archipelago wolves den in root wads of large living or 
dead trees in low-elevation, old-growth forests near freshwater and 
away from logged stands and roads, when possible (Darimont and Paquet 
2000, pp. 17-18; Person and Russell 2009, pp. 211, 217, 220). Of 25 
wolf dens monitored in GMU 2, the majority (67 percent) were located 
adjacent to ponds or streams with active beaver colonies (Person and 
Russell 2009, p. 216). Although active dens have been located near 
clearcuts and roads, researchers postulate that those dens probably 
were used because suitable alternatives were not available (Person and 
Russell 2009, p. 220).
    Home range sizes of Alexander Archipelago wolves are variable 
depending on season and geographic location. Generally, home ranges are 
about 50 percent smaller during denning and pup-rearing periods 
compared to other times of year (Person 2001, p. 55), and are roughly 
four times larger on the mainland compared to the islands in 
southeastern Alaska (ADFG 2015c, p. 2). Person (2001, pp. 66, 84) found 
correlations between home range size, pack size, and the proportion of 
``critical winter deer habitat''; he thought that the relation between 
these three factors was indicative of a longer-term influence of 
habitat on deer density. We review space and habitat use of Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and Sitka black-tailed deer, the primary prey item 
consumed by wolves throughout most of their range, in detail in the 
Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Space and habitat use'').

Summary of Species Information

    In summary, we find that the Alexander Archipelago wolf currently 
is distributed throughout most of southeastern Alaska and coastal 
British Columbia with a rangewide population estimate of 850-2,700 
wolves. The majority of the range (67 percent) and the rangewide 
population (approximately 62 percent) occur in coastal British 
Columbia, where the population is stable or increasing. In southeastern 
Alaska, we found trend information only for the GMU 2 population 
(approximately 6 percent of the rangewide population) that indicates a 
decline of about 75 (SE = 15) percent since 1994, although variation 
around the point estimates (n = 4) was substantial. This apparent 
decline is consistent with low estimates of annual survival of wolves 
in GMU 2, with the primary source of mortality being harvest by humans. 
For the remainder of

[[Page 443]]

southeastern Alaska (about 32 percent of the rangewide population), 
trends of wolf populations are not known.
    Similar to the continental gray wolf, the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf has several life-history and ecological traits that contribute to 
its resiliency, or its ability to withstand stochastic disturbance 
events. These traits include high reproductive potential, ability to 
disperse long distances (over 100 km), use of a variety of habitats, 
and a diverse diet including terrestrial and marine prey. However, some 
of these traits are affected by the island geography and rugged terrain 
of most of southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia. Most 
notably, we found that demographic and genetic connectivity of some 
populations, specifically the GMU 2 population, is low, probably due to 
geographical disruptions to dispersal and gene flow. In addition, not 
all prey species occur throughout the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, and, therefore, some populations have a more limited 
diet than others despite the opportunistic food habits of wolves. 
Specifically, the GMU 2 wolf population is vulnerable to fluctuations 
in abundance of deer, the only ungulate species that occupies the area. 
We postulate that the insularity of this population, coupled with its 
reliance on one ungulate prey species, likely has contributed to its 
apparent recent decline, suggesting that, under current conditions, the 
traits associated with resiliency may not be sufficient for population 
stability in GMU 2.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf in relation to the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors 
might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the 
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the 
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, 
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species 
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat; we then attempt to 
determine if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that 
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened 
species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not 
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of 
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely 
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could 
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that 
listing is appropriate, however; we require evidence that these factors 
are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the 
species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act.
    In making our 12-month finding on the petition we considered and 
evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information.

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

    The Alexander Archipelago wolf uses a variety of habitats and, like 
other gray wolves, is considered to be a habitat generalist. Further, 
it is an opportunistic predator that eats ungulates, rodents, 
mustelids, fish, and marine mammals, typically killing live prey, but 
also feeding on carrion if fresh meat is not available or circumstances 
are desirable (e.g., large whale carcass). For these reasons and others 
(e.g., dispersal capability), we found that wolf populations often are 
resilient to changes in their habitat and prey. Nonetheless, we also 
recognize that the Alexander Archipelago wolf inhabits a distinct 
ecosystem, partially composed of island complexes, that may restrict 
wolf movement and prey availability of some populations, thereby 
increasing their vulnerability to changes in habitat.
    In this section, we review stressors to terrestrial and intertidal 
habitats used by the Alexander Archipelago wolf and its primary prey, 
specifically deer. We identified timber harvest as the principal 
stressor modifying wolf and deer habitat in southeastern Alaska and 
coastal British Columbia, and, therefore, we focus our assessment on 
this stressor by evaluating possible direct and indirect impacts to the 
wolf at the population and rangewide levels. We also consider possible 
effects of road development, oil development, and climate-related 
events on wolf habitat. We describe the information presented here in 
more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Cause and effect 
analysis'').
Timber Harvest
    Throughout most of the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, 
timber harvest has altered forested habitats, especially those at low 
elevations, that are used by wolves and their prey. Rangewide, we 
estimate that 19 percent of the productive old-growth forest has been 
logged, although it has not occurred uniformly across the landscape or 
over time. A higher percentage of productive old-growth forest has been 
logged in coastal British Columbia (24 percent) compared to 
southeastern Alaska (13 percent), although in both areas, most of the 
harvest has occurred since 1975 (85 percent and 66 percent, 
respectively). Within coastal British Columbia, the majority of harvest 
(66 percent of total harvest) has happened in Region 1, where 34 
percent of the forest has been logged; in the coastal portions of 
Regions 2, 5, and 6, timber harvest has been comparatively lower, 
ranging from 12 to 17 percent of the productive forest in these 
regions. Similarly, in southeastern Alaska, logging has occurred 
disproportionately in GMU 2, where 23 percent of the forest has been 
logged (47 percent of all timber harvest in southeastern Alaska); in 
other GMUs, only 6 to 14 percent of the forest has been harvested. We 
discuss spatial and temporal patterns of timber harvest in more detail 
in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Timber harvest'').
    Owing to past timber harvest in southeastern Alaska and coastal 
British Columbia, portions of the landscape currently are undergoing 
succession and will continue to do so. Depending on site-specific 
conditions, it can take up to several hundred years for harvested 
stands to regain old-growth forest characteristics fully (Alaback 1982, 
p. 1939). During the intervening period, these young-growth stands 
undergo several successional stages that are relevant to herbivores 
such as deer. Briefly, for 10 to 15 years following clearcut logging, 
shrub and herb biomass production increases (Alaback 1982, p. 1941), 
providing short-term benefits to herbivores such as deer, which select 
for these stands under certain conditions (e.g., Gilbert 2015, p.

[[Page 444]]

129). After 25 to 35 years, early seral stage plants give way to young-
growth coniferous trees, and their canopies begin to close, 
intercepting sunlight and eliminating most understory vegetation. These 
young-growth stands offer little nutritional browse for deer and 
therefore tend to be selected against by deer (e.g., Gilbert 2015, pp. 
129-130); this stage typically lasts for at least 50 to 60 years, at 
which point the understory layer begins to develop again (Alaback 1982, 
pp. 1938-1939). An understory of deciduous shrubs and herbs, similar to 
pre-harvest conditions, is re-established 140 to 160 years after 
harvest. Alternative young-growth treatments (e.g., thinning, pruning) 
are used to stimulate understory growth, but they often are applied at 
small spatial scales, and their efficacy in terms of deer use is 
unknown; regardless, to date, over 232 mi\2\ (600 km\2\) of young-
growth has been treated in southeastern Alaska (summarized in Service 
2015, ``Timber harvest'').
    We expect timber harvesting to continue to occur throughout the 
range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, although given current and 
predicted market conditions, the rate of future harvest is difficult to 
project. In southeastern Alaska, primarily in GMUs 2 and 3, some timber 
has been sold by the USFS already, but has not yet been cut. In 
addition, new timber sales currently are being planned for sale between 
2015 and 2019, and most of this timber is expected to be sourced from 
GMUs 2 and 3; however, based on recent sales, it is unlikely that the 
planned harvest will be implemented fully due to lack of bidders. Also, 
we anticipate at least partial harvest of approximately 277 km\2\ of 
land in GMU 2 that was transferred recently from the Tongass National 
Forest to Sealaska Native Corporation. In coastal British Columbia, we 
estimate that an additional 17 percent of forest will be harvested by 
2100 on Vancouver Island (Region 1) and an additional 39 percent on the 
mainland of coastal British Columbia; however, some of this timber 
volume would be harvested from old young-growth stands. See the Status 
Assessment for more details (Service 2015, ``Future timber harvest'').
    Since 2013, the USFS has been developing a plan to transition 
timber harvest away from primarily logging old-growth and toward 
logging young-growth stands, although small amounts of old-growth 
likely will continue to be logged. An amendment to the current Tongass 
Land and Resource Management Plan is underway and is expected to be 
completed by the end of 2016. Although this transition is expected to 
reduce further modification of habitat used by wolves and deer, the 
amendment that outlines the transition is still in the planning phase.
Potential Effects of Timber Harvest
    After reviewing the best available information, we determined that 
the only potential direct effect from timber harvest to Alexander 
Archipelago wolves is the modification of and disturbance at den sites. 
Although coastal wolves avoided using den sites located in or near 
logged stands, other landscape features such as gentle slope, low 
elevation, and proximity to freshwater had greater influence on den 
site use (Person and Russell 2009, pp. 217-219). Further, our review of 
the best available information did not indicate that denning near 
logged stands had fitness consequences to individual wolves or that 
wolf packs inhabiting territories with intensive timber harvest were 
less likely to breed due to reduced availability of denning habitat. 
Therefore, we conclude that modification of and disturbance at den 
sites as a result of timber harvest does not constitute a threat to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf at the population or rangewide level.
    We then examined reduction in prey availability, specifically deer, 
as a potential indirect effect of timber harvest to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. Because deer selectively use habitats that minimize 
accumulation of deep snow in winter, including productive old-growth 
forest (e.g., Schoen and Kirchhoff, 1990, p. 374; Doerr et al. 2005, p. 
322; Gilbert 2015, p. 129), populations of deer in areas of intensive 
timber harvest are expected to decline in the future as a result of 
long-term reduction in the carrying capacity of their winter habitat 
(e.g., Person 2001, p. 79; Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 18-19). However, we 
found that most populations of Alexander Archipelago wolf likely will 
be resilient to predicted declines in deer abundance largely owing to 
their ability to feed on alternate ungulate prey species and non-
ungulate species, including those that occur in intertidal and marine 
habitats (greater than 15 percent of the diet; see ``Food Habits,'' 
above) (Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 331; Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871, 
Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130). Moreover, in our review of the best 
available information, we found nothing to suggest that these 
intertidal and marine species, non-ungulate prey, and other ungulate 
species within the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf (i.e., 
moose, goat, elk) are affected significantly by timber harvest (Service 
2015, ``Response of wolves to timber harvest''). Therefore, we focus 
the remainder of this section on predicted response of wolves to 
reduction in deer numbers as a result of timber harvest and 
availability of alternate ungulate prey.
    In coastal British Columbia, where a greater proportion of 
productive old-growth forest has been harvested compared to 
southeastern Alaska, deer populations are stable (Regions 1, 2, and 5) 
or decreasing (Region 6) (BCMO 2015b, p. 1). Yet, corresponding wolf 
populations at the regional scale are stable or slightly increasing 
(Kuzyk and Hatter 2014, p. 881; BCMO 2015a, p. 1). We attribute the 
stability in wolf numbers, in part, to the availability of other 
ungulate species, specifically moose, mountain goat, and elk (Region 1 
only), which primarily have stable populations and do not use habitats 
affected by timber harvest. Therefore, we presume that these wolf 
populations have adequate prey available and are not being affected 
significantly by changes in deer abundance as a result of timber 
harvest.
    Similarly, throughout most of southeastern Alaska, wolves have 
access to multiple ungulate prey species in addition to deer. Along the 
mainland (GMUs 1 and 5A), where deer densities are low naturally, moose 
and mountain goats are available, and, in GMU 3, moose occur on all of 
the larger islands and elk inhabit Etolin and Zarembo islands. Also, 
although we expect deer abundance in these GMUs to be lower in the 
future, deer will continue to be available to wolves; between 1954 and 
2002, deer habitat capability was reduced by only 15 percent in parts 
of GMU 1 and by 13 to 23 percent in GMU 3 (Albert and Schoen 2007, p. 
16). Thus, although we lack estimates of trend in these wolf 
populations, we postulate that they have sufficient prey to maintain 
stable populations and are not being impacted by timber harvest.
    Only one Alexander Archipelago wolf population, the GMU 2 
population, relies solely on deer as an ungulate prey species and 
therefore it is more vulnerable to declines in deer numbers compared to 
all other populations. Additionally, timber harvest has occurred 
disproportionately in this area, more so than anywhere else in the 
range of the wolf except Vancouver Island (where the wolf population is 
stable). As a result, in GMU 2, deer are projected to decline by 
approximately 21 to 33 percent over the next 30 years, and, 
correspondingly, the wolf population is predicted to decline by an 
average of 8 to 14 percent (Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 19, 43). Further, 
the GMU 2 wolf population already has been reduced by about 75

[[Page 445]]

percent since 1994, although most of the apparent decline occurred over 
a 1-year period between 2013 and 2014 (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' 
above), suggesting that the cause of the decline was not specifically 
long-term reduction in deer carrying capacity, although it probably was 
a contributor. These findings indicate that for this wolf population, 
availability of non-ungulate prey does not appear to be able to 
compensate for declining deer populations, especially given other 
present stressors such as wolf harvest (see discussion under Factor B). 
Therefore, we conclude that timber harvest is affecting the GMU 2 wolf 
population by reducing its ungulate prey and likely will continue to do 
so in the future.
    In reviewing the best available information, we conclude that 
indirect effects from timber harvest likely are not having and will not 
have a significant effect on the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the 
rangewide level. Although timber harvest has reduced deer carrying 
capacity, which in turn is expected to cause declines in deer 
populations, wolves are opportunistic predators, feeding on a variety 
of prey species, including intertidal and marine species that are not 
impacted by timber harvest. In addition, the majority (about 94 
percent) of the rangewide wolf population has access to ungulate prey 
species other than deer. Further, currently the wolf populations in 
coastal British Columbia, which constitute 62 percent of the rangewide 
population, are stable or slightly increasing despite intensive and 
extensive timber harvest.
    However, we also conclude that the GMU 2 wolf population likely is 
being affected and will continue to be affected by timber harvest, but 
that any effects will be restricted to the population level. This wolf 
population represents only 6 percent of the rangewide population, is 
largely insular and geographically peripheral to other populations, and 
appears to function as a sink population (see ``Abundance and Trend'' 
and ``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above). For these reasons, we find 
that the demographic and genetic contributions of the GMU 2 wolf 
population to the rangewide population are low. Thus, although we 
expect deer and wolf populations to decline in GMU 2, in part as a 
result of timber harvest, we find that these declines will not result 
in a rangewide impact to the Alexander Archipelago wolf population.
Road Development
    Road development has modified the landscape throughout the range of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Most roads were constructed to support 
the timber industry, although some roads were built as a result of 
urbanization, especially in southern coastal British Columbia. Below, 
we briefly describe the existing road systems in southeastern Alaska 
and coastal British Columbia using all types of roads (e.g., sealed, 
unsealed) that are accessible with any motorized vehicle (e.g., 
passenger vehicle, all-terrain vehicle). See the Status Assessment for 
a more detailed description (Service 2015, ``Road construction and 
management'').
    Across the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, the majority 
(86 percent) of roads are located in coastal British Columbia 
(approximately 41,943 mi [67,500 km] of roads), where mean road density 
is 0.76 mi per mi\2\ (0.47 km per km\2\), although road densities are 
notably lower in the northern part of the province (Regions 5 and 6, 
mean = 0.21-0.48 mi per km\2\ [0.13-0.30 km per km\2\]) compared to the 
southern part (Regions 1 and 2, mean = 0.85-0.89 mi per mi\2\ [0.53-
0.55 km per km\2\]), largely owing to the urban areas of Vancouver and 
Victoria. In southeastern Alaska, nearly 6,835 mi [11,000 km] of roads 
exist within the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, resulting in 
a mean density of 0.37 mi per mi\2\ (0.23 km per km\2\). Most of these 
roads are located in GMU 2, where the mean road density is 1.00 mi per 
mi\2\ (0.62 km per km\2\), more than double that in all other GMUs, 
where the mean density ranges from 0.06 mi per mi\2\ (0.04 km per 
km\2\) (GMU 5A) to 0.42 mi per mi\2\ (0.26 km per km\2\) (GMU 3). Thus, 
most of the roads within the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
are located in coastal British Columbia, especially in Regions 1 and 2, 
but the highest mean road density occurs in GMU 2 in southeastern 
Alaska, which is consistent with the high percentage of timber harvest 
in this area (see ``Timber Harvest,'' above). In addition, we 
anticipate that most future road development also will occur in GMU 2 
(46 mi [74 km] of new road), with smaller additions to GMUs 1 and 3 
(Service 2015, ``Road construction and management'').
    Given that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is a habitat generalist, 
we find that destruction and modification of habitat due to road 
development likely is not affecting wolves at the population or 
rangewide level. In fact, wolves occasionally use roads as travel 
corridors between habitat patches (Person et al. 1996, p. 22). As 
reviewed above in ``Timber Harvest,'' we recognize that wolves used den 
sites located farther from roads compared to unused sites; however, 
other landscape features were more influential in den site selection, 
and proximity to roads did not appear to affect reproductive success or 
pup survival, which is thought to be high (Person et al. 1996, p. 9; 
Person and Russell 2009, pp. 217-219). Therefore, we conclude that 
roads are not a threat to the habitats used by the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, although we address the access that they afford to 
hunters and trappers as a potential threat to some wolf populations 
under Factor B.
Oil and Gas Development
    We reviewed potential loss of habitat due to oil and gas 
development as a stressor to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We found 
no existing oil and gas projects within the range of the coastal wolf, 
although two small-scale exploration projects occurred in Regions 1 and 
2 of coastal British Columbia, but neither project resulted in 
development. In addition, we considered a proposed oil pipeline project 
(i.e., Northern Gateway Project) intended to transport oil from Alberta 
to the central coast of British Columbia, covering about 746 mi (1,200 
km) in distance. If the proposed project was approved and implemented, 
risk of oil spills on land and on the coast within the range of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf would exist. However, given its diverse 
diet, terrestrial habitat use, and dispersal capability, we conclude 
that wolf populations would not be affected by the pipeline project 
even if an oil spill occurred because exposure would be low. Further, 
oil development occurs in portions of the range of the gray wolf (e.g., 
Trans Alaska Pipeline System) and is not thought to be impacting wolf 
populations negatively. We conclude that oil development is not a 
threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf now and is not likely to 
become one in the future.
Climate-Related Events
    We considered the role of climate and projected changes in climate 
as a potential stressor to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We 
identified three possible mechanisms through which climate may be 
affecting habitats used by coastal wolves or their prey: (1) Frequency 
of severe winters and impacts to deer populations; (2) decreasing 
winter snow pack and impacts to yellow cedar; and (3) predicted 
hydrologic change and impacts to salmon productivity. We review each of 
these briefly here and in

[[Page 446]]

more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Climate-related 
events'').
    Severe winters with deep snow accumulation can negatively affect 
deer populations by reducing availability of forage and by increasing 
energy expenditure associated with movement. Therefore, deer 
selectively use habitats in winter that accumulate less snow, such as 
those that are at low elevation, that are south-facing, or that can 
intercept snowfall (i.e., dense forest canopy). Timber harvest has 
reduced some of these preferred winter habitats. However, while 
acknowledging that severe winters can result in declines of local deer 
populations, we postulate that those declines are unlikely to affect 
wolves substantially at the population or rangewide level for several 
reasons.
    First, in southern coastal British Columbia where 24 percent of the 
rangewide wolf population occurs, persistent snowfall is rare except at 
high elevations. Second, in GMU 2, where wolves are limited to deer as 
ungulate prey and therefore are most vulnerable to declines in deer 
abundance, the climate is comparatively mild and severe winters are 
infrequent (Shanley et al. 2015, p. 6); Person (2001, p. 54) estimated 
that six winters per century may result in general declines in deer 
numbers in GMU 2. Lastly, climate projections indicate that 
precipitation as snow will decrease by up to 58 percent over the next 
80 years (Shanley et al. 2015, pp. 5-6), reducing the likelihood of 
severe winters. Therefore, we conclude that winter severity, and 
associated interactions with timber harvest, is not a threat to the 
persistence of the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the population or 
rangewide level now or in the future.
    In contrast to deer response to harsh winter conditions, recent and 
ongoing decline in yellow cedar in southeastern Alaska is attributed to 
warmer winters and reduced snow cover (Hennon et al. 2012, p. 156). 
Although not all stands are affected or affected equally, the decline 
has impacted about 965 mi\2\ (2,500 km\2\) of forest (Hennon et al. 
2012, p. 148), or less than 3 percent of the forested habitat within 
the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In addition, yellow cedar 
is a minor component of the temperate rainforest, which is dominated by 
Sitka spruce and western hemlock and neither of these tree species 
appears to be impacted negatively by reduced snow cover (e.g., Schaberg 
et al. 2005, p. 2065). Therefore, we conclude that any effects 
(positive or negative) to the wolf as a result of loss of yellow cedar 
would be negligible given that it constitutes a small portion of the 
forest and that the wolf is a habitat generalist.
    Predicted hydrologic changes as a result of changes in climate are 
expected to reduce salmon productivity within the range of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (e.g., Edwards et al. 2013, p. 43; Shanley 
and Albert 2014, p. 2). Warmer winter temperatures and extreme flow 
events are predicted to reduce egg-to-fry survival of salmon, resulting 
in lower overall productivity. Although salmon compose 15 to 20 percent 
of the lifetime diet of Alexander Archipelago wolves in southeastern 
Alaska (Szepanski et al. 1999, pp. 330-331) and 0 to 16 percent of the 
wolf diet in coastal British Columbia (Darimont et al. 2004, p. 1871; 
Darimont et al. 2009, p. 13) (see ``Food Habits,'' above), we do not 
anticipate negative effects to them in response to projected declines 
in salmon productivity at the population or rangewide level owing to 
the opportunistic predatory behavior of wolves.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of Its Range
    We are not aware of any nonregulatory conservation efforts, such as 
habitat conservation plans, or other voluntary actions that may help to 
ameliorate potential threats to the habitats used by the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
Summary of Factor A
    Although several stressors such as timber harvest, road 
development, oil development, and climate-related events may be 
impacting some areas within the range of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf, available information does not indicate that these impacts are 
affecting or are likely to affect the rangewide population. First and 
foremost, wolf populations in coastal British Columbia, where most (62 
percent) of the rangewide population occurs, are stable or slightly 
increasing even though the landscape has been modified extensively. In 
fact, a higher proportion of the forested habitat has been logged (24 
percent) and the mean road density (0.76 mi per mi\2\ [0.47 km per 
km\2\]) is higher in coastal British Columbia compared to southeastern 
Alaska (13 percent and 0.37 mi per mi\2\ [0.23 km per km\2\], 
respectively). Second, we found no direct effects of habitat-related 
stressors that resulted in lower fitness of Alexander Archipelago 
wolves, in large part because the wolf is a habitat generalist. Third, 
although deer populations likely will decline in the future as a result 
of timber harvest, we found that most wolf populations will be 
resilient to reduced deer abundance because they have access to 
alternate ungulate and non-ungulate prey that are not impacted 
significantly by timber harvest, road development, or other stressors 
that have altered or may alter habitat within the range of the wolf. 
Only the GMU 2 wolf population likely is being impacted and will 
continue to be impacted by reduced numbers of deer, the only ungulate 
prey available; however, we determined that this population does not 
contribute substantially to the other Alexander Archipelago wolf 
populations or the rangewide population. Therefore, we posit that most 
(94 percent) of the rangewide population of Alexander Archipelago wolf 
likely is not being affected and will not be affected in the future by 
loss or modification of habitat.
    We conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available, that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range does not currently 
pose a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the rangewide level, 
nor is it likely to become a threat in the future.

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

    The Alexander Archipelago wolf is harvested by humans for 
commercial and subsistence purposes. Mortality of wolves due to harvest 
can be compensated for at the population or rangewide level through 
increased survival, reproduction, or immigration (i.e., compensatory 
mortality), or harvest mortality may be additive, causing overall 
survival rates and population growth to decline. The degree to which 
harvest is considered compensatory, partially compensatory, or at least 
partially additive is dependent on population characteristics such as 
age and sex structure, productivity, immigration, and density (e.g., 
Murray et al. 2010, pp. 2519-2520). Therefore, each wolf population (or 
group of populations) is different, and a universal rate of sustainable 
harvest does not exist. In our review, we found rates of human-caused 
mortality of gray wolf populations varying from 17 to 48 percent, with 
most being between 20 and 30 percent (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184-185; 
Adams et al. 2008, p. 22; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 5; Sparkman et al. 
2011, p. 5; Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113-116). For the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf in GMU 2, Person and Russell (2008, p. 1547) reported 
that total annual mortality greater than 38 percent was unsustainable 
and that natural mortality averaged about 4 percent (SE

[[Page 447]]

= 5) annually, suggesting that human-caused mortality should not exceed 
34 percent annually. In our review, we did not find any other estimates 
of sustainable harvest rates specific to the coastal wolf.
    Across the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, hunting and 
trapping regulations, including reporting requirements, vary 
substantially. In southeastern Alaska, wolf harvest regulations are set 
by the Alaska Board of Game for all resident and nonresident hunters 
and trappers, and by the Federal Subsistence Board for federally-
qualified subsistence users on Federal lands. In all GMUs, each hunter 
can harvest a maximum of five wolves, and trappers can harvest an 
unlimited number of wolves; all harvested wolves must be reported and 
sealed within a specified time following harvest. In GMU 2 only, an 
annual harvest guideline is applied; between 1997 and 2014, the harvest 
guideline was set as 25 to 30 percent of the most recent fall 
population estimate, and in 2015, this guideline was reduced to 20 
percent in response to an apparent decline in the population (see 
``Abundance and Trend,'' above). If the annual harvest guideline is 
exceeded, then an emergency order closing the hunting and trapping 
seasons is issued. In coastal British Columbia, the provincial 
government manages wolf harvest, following an established management 
plan. The hunting bag limit is three wolves per hunter annually, and, 
similar to southeastern Alaska, no trapping limit is set. In Regions 1 
and 2, all wolf harvest is required to be reported, but no compulsory 
reporting program exists for Regions 5 and 6.
    In this section, we consider wolf harvest as a stressor to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf at the population and rangewide levels. 
Given that harvest regulations and the biological circumstances (e.g., 
degree of insularity; see ``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above) of 
each wolf population vary considerably, we examined possible effects of 
wolf harvest to each population by first considering the current 
condition of the population. If the population is stable or increasing, 
we presumed that wolves in that population are not being overharvested; 
if the population is declining or unknown, we assessed mean annual 
harvest rates based on reported wolf harvest. Because some wolves are 
harvested and not reported, even in areas where reporting is required, 
we then applied proportions of unreported harvest to reported harvest 
for a given year to estimate total harvest, where it was appropriate to 
do so. We used the population-level information collectively to 
evaluate impacts of total harvest to the rangewide population of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf. We present our analyses and other 
information related to wolf harvest in southeastern Alaska and coastal 
British Columbia in more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, 
``Wolf harvest'').
    In coastal British Columbia, populations of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf are considered to be stable or slightly increasing 
(see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above), and, therefore, we presume that 
current harvest levels are not impacting those populations. Moreover, 
in Regions 1 and 2, where reporting is required, few wolves are being 
harvested on average relative to the estimated population size; in 
Region 1, approximately 8 percent of the population was harvested 
annually on average between 1997 and 2012, and in Region 2, the rate is 
even lower (4 percent). It is more difficult to assess harvest in 
Regions 5 and 6 because reporting is not required; nonetheless, based 
on the minimum number of wolves harvested annually from these regions, 
we estimated that 2 to 7 percent of the populations are harvested on 
average with considerable variation among years, which could be 
attributed to either reporting or harvest rates. Overall, we found no 
evidence indicating that harvest of wolves in coastal British Columbia 
is having a negative effect on the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the 
population level and is not likely to have one in the future.
    In southeastern Alaska, the GMU 2 wolf population apparently has 
declined considerably, especially in recent years, although the 
precision of individual point estimates was low and the confidence 
intervals overlapped (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above). In our 
review, we found compelling evidence to suggest that wolf harvest 
likely contributed to this apparent decline. Although annual reported 
harvest of wolves in GMU 2 equated to only about 17 percent of the 
population on average between 1997 and 2014 (range = 6-33 percent), 
documented rates of unreported harvest (i.e., illegal harvest) over a 
similar time period were high (approximately 38 to 45 percent of total 
harvest) (Person and Russell 2008, p. 1545; ADFG 2015b, p. 4). Applying 
these unreported harvest rates, we estimate that mean total annual 
harvest was 29 percent with a range of 11 to 53 percent, suggesting 
that in some years, wolves in GMU 2 were being harvested at 
unsustainable rates; in fact, in 7 of 18 years, total wolf harvest 
exceeded 34 percent of the estimated population (following Person and 
Russell [2008, p. 1547], and accounting for natural mortality), 
suggesting that harvest likely contributed to or caused the apparent 
population decline. In addition, it is unlikely that increased 
reproduction and immigration alone could reverse the decline, at least 
in the short term, owing to this population's insularity (see 
``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above) and current low proportion of 
females (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above). Thus, we conclude that 
wolf harvest has impacted the GMU 2 wolf population and, based on the 
best available information, likely will continue to do so in the near 
future, consistent with a projected overall population decline on 
average of 8 to 14 percent (Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 43, 50), unless 
total harvest is curtailed.
    Trends in wolf populations in the remainder of southeastern Alaska 
are not known, and, therefore, to evaluate potential impact of wolf 
harvest to these populations, we reviewed reported wolf harvest in 
relation to population size and considered whether or not the high 
rates of unreported harvest in GMU 2 were applicable to populations in 
GMUs 1, 3, and 5A. Along the mainland (GMUs 1 and 5A) between 1997 and 
2014, mean percent of the population harvested annually and reported 
was 19 percent (range = 11-27), with most of the harvest occurring in 
the southern portion of the mainland. In GMU 3, the same statistic was 
21 percent, ranging from 8 to 37 percent, but with only 3 of 18 years 
exceeding 25 percent. Thus, if reported harvested rates from these 
areas are accurate, wolf harvest likely is not impacting wolf 
populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A because annual harvest rates typically 
are within sustainable limits identified for populations of gray wolf 
(roughly 20 to 30 percent), including the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
(approximately 34 percent) (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184-185; Adams et 
al. 2008, p. 22; Person and Russell 2008, p. 1547; Creel and Rotella 
2010, p. 5; Sparkman et al. 2011, p. 5; Gude et al. 2012, pp. 113-116). 
In our review, we found evidence indicating that unreported harvest 
occasionally occurs in GMUs 1 and 3 (Service 2015, ``Unreported 
harvest''), but we found nothing indicating that it is occurring at the 
high rates documented in GMU 2.
    Harvest rates of wolves in southeastern Alaska are associated with 
access afforded primarily by boat and motorized vehicle (85 percent of 
successful hunters and trappers) (ADFG 2012, ADFG 2015d). Therefore, we 
considered road density, ratio of

[[Page 448]]

shoreline to land area, and the total number of communities as proxies 
to access by wolf hunters and trappers and determined that GMU 2 is not 
representative of the mainland (GMUs 1 and 5A) or GMU 3 and that 
applying unreported harvest rates from GMU 2 to other wolf populations 
is not appropriate. Mean road density in GMU 2 (1.00 mi per mi\2\ [0.62 
km per km\2\]) is more than twice that of all other GMUs (GMU 1 = 0.13 
[0.08], GMU 3 = 0.42 [0.26], and GMU 5A = 0.06 [0.04]). Similarly, 
nearly all (13 of 15, 87 percent) of the Wildlife Analysis Areas 
(smaller spatial units that comprise each GMU) that exceed the 
recommended road density threshold for wolves (1.45 mi per mi\2\ [0.9 
km per km\2\]) (Person and Russell 2008, p. 1548) are located in GMU 2; 
one each occurs in GMUs 1 and 3. In addition, the ratio of shoreline to 
land area, which serves as an indicator of boat acess, in GMU 2 (1.30 
mi per mi\2\ [0.81 km per km\2\]) is greater than all other GMUs (GMU 1 
= 0.29 [0.18], GMU 3 = 1.00 [0.62], and GMU 5A = 0.19 [0.12]). Lastly, 
although the human population size of GMU 2 is comparatively smaller 
than in the other GMUs, 14 communities are distributed throughout the 
unit, more than any other GMU (GMU 1 = 11, GMU 3 = 4, and GMU 5A = 1).
    Collectively, these data indicate that hunting and trapping access 
is greater in GMU 2 than in the rest of southeastern Alaska and that 
applying unreported harvest rates from GMU 2 to elsewhere is not 
supported. Therefore, although we recognize that some level of 
unreported harvest likely is occurring along the mainland of 
southeastern Alaska and in GMU 3, we do not know the rate at which it 
may be occurring, but we hypothesize that it likely is less than in GMU 
2 because of reduced access. We expect wolf harvest rates in the future 
to be similar to those in the past because we have no basis from which 
to expect a change in hunter and trapper effort or success. 
Consequently, we think that reported wolf harvest rates for GMUs 1, 3, 
and 5A are reasonably accurate and that wolf harvest is not impacting 
these populations nor is it likely to do so in the future.
    In summary, we find that wolf harvest is not affecting most 
populations of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In coastal British 
Columbia, wolf populations are stable or slightly increasing, 
suggesting that wolf harvest is not impacting those populations; in 
addition, mean annual harvest rates of those populations appear to be 
low (2 to 8 percent of the population based on the best available 
information). In southeastern Alaska, we determined that the GMU 2 wolf 
population is being affected by intermediate rates of reported harvest 
(annual mean = 17 percent) and high rates of unreported harvest (38 to 
45 percent of total harvest), which have contributed to an apparent 
population decline that is projected to continue. We also find that 
wolf populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A experience intermediate rates of 
reported harvest, 19 to 21 percent of the populations annually, but 
that these populations likely do not experience high rates of 
unreported harvest like those estimated for GMU 2 because of 
comparatively low access to hunters and trappers. In addition, these 
GMUs are less geographically isolated than GMU 2 and likely have higher 
immigration rates of wolves. Therefore, based on the best available 
information, we conclude that wolf harvest of these populations (GMUs 
1, 3, and 5A) is occurring at rates similar to or below sustainable 
harvest rates proposed for gray wolf (roughly 20 to 30 percent) and the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (approximately 34 percent) (Fuller et al. 
2003, pp. 184-185; Adams et al. 2008, p. 22; Person and Russell 2008, 
p. 1547; Creel and Rotella 2010, p. 5; Sparkman et al. 2011, p. 5; Gude 
et al. 2012, pp. 113-116).
    Although wolf harvest is affecting the GMU 2 wolf population and 
likely will continue to do so, we conclude that wolf harvest is not 
impacting the rangewide population of Alexander Archipelago wolf. The 
GMU 2 wolf population constitutes a small percentage of the rangewide 
population (6 percent), is largely insular and geographically 
peripheral to other populations, and appears to function as a sink 
population (see ``Abundance and Trend'' and ``Dispersal and 
Connectivity,'' above). Therefore, although we found that this 
population is experiencing unsustainable harvest rates in some years, 
owing largely to unreported harvest, we think that the condition of the 
GMU 2 population has a minor effect on the condition of the rangewide 
population. The best available information does not suggest that wolf 
harvest is having an impact on the rangewide population of Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, nor is it likely to have an impact in the future.
    Our review of the best available information does not suggest that 
overexploitation of the Alexander Archipelago wolf due to scientific or 
educational purposes is occurring or is likely to occur in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes
    The ADFG has increased educational efforts with the public, 
especially hunters and trappers, in GMU 2 with the goal of improving 
communication and coordination regarding management of the wolf 
population. In recent years, the agency held public meetings, launched 
a newsletter, held a workshop for teachers, and engaged locals in wolf 
research. We do not know if these efforts ultimately will be effective 
at lowering rates of unreported harvest.
    We are not aware of any additional conservation efforts or other 
voluntary actions that may help to reduce overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf.
Summary of Factor B
    We find that wolf harvest is not affecting most Alexander 
Archipelago wolf populations. In coastal British Columbia, wolf harvest 
rates are low and are not impacting wolves at the population level, as 
evidenced by stable or slightly increasing populations. In southeastern 
Alaska, we found that the GMU 2 wolf population is experiencing high 
rates of unreported harvest, which has contributed to an apparent 
population decline, and, therefore, we conclude that this population is 
being affected by wolf harvest and likely will continue to be affected. 
We determined that wolf harvest in the remainder of southeastern Alaska 
is occurring at rates that are unlikely to result in population-level 
declines. Overall, we found that wolf harvest is not having an effect 
on the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the rangewide level, although we 
recognize that the GMU 2 population likely is being harvested at 
unsustainable rates, especially given other stressors facing the 
population (e.g., reduced prey availability due to timber harvest). 
Thus, based on the best available information, we conclude that 
overexploitation for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes does not currently pose a threat to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf throughout its range, nor is it likely to become a 
threat in the future.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

    In this section, we briefly review disease and predation as 
stressors to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We describe information 
presented here in more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, 
``Disease'').

[[Page 449]]

Disease
    Several diseases have potential to affect Alexander Archipelago 
wolf populations, especially given their social behavior and pack 
structure (see ``Social Organization,'' above). Wolves are susceptible 
to a number of diseases that can cause mortality in the wild, including 
rabies, canine distemper, canine parvovirus, blastomycosis, 
tuberculosis, sarcoptic mange, and dog louse (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 
419-422). However, we found few incidences of diseases reported in 
Alexander Archipelago wolves; these include dog louse in coastal 
British Columbia (Hatler et al. 2008, pp. 88-91) and potentially 
sarcoptic mange (reported in British Columbia, but it is unclear 
whether or not it occurred along the coast or inland; Miller et al. 
2003, p. 183). Both dog louse and mange results in mortality only in 
extreme cases and usually in pups, and, therefore, it is unlikely that 
either disease is having or is expected to have a population- or 
rangewide-level effect on the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
    Although we found few reports of diseases in Alexander Archipelago 
wolves, we located records of rabies, canine distemper, and canine 
parvovirus in other species in southeastern Alaska and coastal British 
Columbia, suggesting that transmission is possible but unlikely given 
the low number of reported incidences. Only four individual bats have 
tested positive for rabies in southeastern Alaska since the 1970s; bats 
also are reported to carry rabies in British Columbia, but we do not 
know whether or not those bats occur on the coast or inland. Canine 
distemper and parvovirus have been found in domestic dogs on rare 
occasions; we found only one case of canine distemper, and information 
suggested that parvovirus has been documented but is rare due to the 
high percentage of dogs that are vaccinated for it. Nonetheless, we 
found no documented cases of rabies, canine distemper, or canine 
parvovirus in wolves from southeastern Alaska or coastal British 
Columbia.
    We acknowledge that diseases such as canine distemper and 
parvovirus have affected gray wolf populations in other parts of North 
America (Brand et al. 1995, p. 420 and references therein), but the 
best available information does not suggest that disease, or even the 
likelihood of disease in the future, is a threat to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. We conclude that, while some individual wolves may be 
affected by disease on rare occasions, disease is not having a 
population- or rangewide-level effect on the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
now or in the future.
Predation
    Our review of the best available information did not indicate that 
predation is affecting or will affect the Alexander Archipelago wolf at 
the population or rangewide level. As top predators in the ecosystem, 
predation most likely would occur by another wolf as a result of inter- 
or intra-pack strife or other territorial behavior. The annual rate of 
natural mortality, which includes starvation, disease, and predation, 
was 0.04 (SE = 0.05) for radio-collared wolves in GMU 2 (Person and 
Russell 2008, p. 1545), indicating that predation is rare and is 
unlikely to be having a population or rangewide effect. Therefore, we 
conclude that predation is not a threat to the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf, nor is it likely to become one in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease or Predation
    We are not aware of any conservation efforts or other voluntary 
actions that may help to reduce disease or predation of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
Summary of Factor C
    We identified several diseases with the potential to affect wolves 
and possible vectors for transmission, but we found only a few records 
of disease in individual Alexander Archipelago wolves, and, to the best 
of our knowledge, none resulted in mortality. Further, we found no 
evidence that disease is affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf at 
the population or rangewide level. Therefore, we conclude that disease 
is not a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and likely will not 
become a threat in the future.
    We also determined that the most likely predator of individual 
Alexander Archipelago wolves is other wolves and that this type of 
predation is a component of their social behavior and organization. 
Further, predation is rare and is unlikely to be having an effect at 
population or rangewide levels. Thus, we conclude that predation is not 
a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor is it likely to become 
one in the future.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In this section, we review laws aimed to help reduce stressors to 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf and its habitats. However, because we 
did not find any stressors examined under Factors A, B, and C 
(described above) and Factor E (described below) to rise to the level 
of a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide, we also did 
not find the existing regulatory mechanisms authorized by these laws to 
be inadequate for the Alexander Archipelago wolf. In other words, we 
cannot find an existing regulatory mechanism to be inadequate if the 
stressor intended to be reduced by that regulatory mechanism is not 
considered a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Nonetheless, we 
briefly discuss relevant laws and regulations below.
Southeastern Alaska
National Forest Management Act (NFMA)
    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA; 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) 
is the primary statute governing the administration of National Forests 
in the United States, including the Tongass National Forest. The stated 
objective of NFMA is to maintain viable, well-distributed wildlife 
populations on National Forest System lands. As such, the NFMA requires 
each National Forest to develop, implement, and periodically revise a 
land and resource management plan to guide activities on the forest. 
Therefore, in southeastern Alaska, regulation of timber harvest and 
associated activities is administered by the USFS under the current 
Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan that was signed and adopted 
in 2008.
    The 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan describes a 
conservation strategy that was developed originally as part of the 1997 
Plan with the primary goal of achieving objectives under the NFMA. 
Specifically, the conservation strategy focused primarily on 
maintaining viable, well-distributed populations of old-growth 
dependent species on the Tongass National Forest, because these species 
were considered to be most vulnerable to timber harvest activities on 
the forest. The Alexander Archipelago wolf, as well as the Sitka black-
tailed deer, was used to help design the conservation strategy. Primary 
components of the strategy include a forest-wide network of old-growth 
habitat reserves linked by connecting corridors of forested habitat, 
and a series of standards and guidelines that direct management of 
lands available for timber harvest and other activities outside of the 
reserves. We discuss these components in more detail in the Status 
Assessment (Service 2015, ``Existing conservation mechanisms'').
    As part of the conservation strategy, we identified two elements 
specific to the Alexander Archipelago wolf (USFS 2008a, p. 4-95). The 
first addresses

[[Page 450]]

disturbance at and modification of active wolf dens, requiring buffers 
of 366 m (1,200 ft) around active dens (when known) to reduce risk of 
abandonment, although if a den is inactive for at least 2 years, this 
requirement is relaxed. The second pertains to elevated wolf mortality; 
in areas where wolf mortality concerns have been identified, a Wolf 
Habitat Management Program will be developed and implemented, in 
conjunction with ADFG; such a program might include road access 
management and changes to wolf harvest limit guidelines. However, this 
element, as outlined in the Plan, does not offer guidance on 
identifying how, when, or where wolf mortality concerns may exist, but 
instead it is left to the discretion of the agencies. The only other 
specific elements relevant to the Alexander Archipelago wolf in the 
strategy are those that relate to providing sufficient deer habitat 
capability, which is intended first to maintain sustainable wolf 
populations, then to consider meeting estimated human deer harvest 
demands. The strategy offers guidelines for determining whether deer 
habitat capability within a specific area is sufficient or not.
    We find the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan, 
including the conservation strategy, not to be inadequate as a 
regulatory mechanism aimed to reduce stressors to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and its habitats. Although some parts of the Tongass 
National Forest have sustained high rates of logging in the past, the 
majority of it occurred prior to the enactment of the Plan and the 
conservation strategy. We think that the provisions included in the 
current Plan are sufficient to maintain habitat for wolves and their 
prey, especially given that none of the stressors evaluated under 
Factors A, B, C, and E constitutes a threat to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
    However, we recognize that some elements of the Plan have not been 
implemented fully yet, as is required under the NFMA. For example, 
despite evidence of elevated mortality of wolves in GMU 2 (see 
discussion under Factor B, above), the USFS and ADFG have not developed 
and implemented a Wolf Habitat Management Program for GMU 2 to date. 
The reason for not doing so is because the agencies collectively have 
not determined that current rates of wolf mortality in GMU 2 
necessitate concern for maintaining a sustainable wolf population. 
Although we think that a Wolf Habitat Management Program would benefit 
the GMU 2 wolf population, we do not view the lack of it as enough to 
deem the entire Plan, or the existing regulatory mechanisms driving it, 
to be inadequate for the Alexander Archipelago wolf rangewide. Thus, we 
conclude that the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan is not 
inadequate to maintain high-quality habitat for the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and its prey.
Roadless Rule
    On January 12, 2001, the USFS published a final rule prohibiting 
road construction and timber harvesting in ``inventoried roadless 
areas'' on all National Forest System lands nationwide (hereafter 
Roadless Rule) (66 FR 3244). On the Tongass National Forest, 109 
roadless areas have been inventoried, covering approximately 14,672 
mi\2\ (38,000 km\2\), although only 463 mi\2\ (1,200 km\2\) of these 
areas have been described as ``suitable forest land'' for timber 
harvest (USFS 2008a, p. 7-42; USFS 2008b, pp. 3-444, 3-449). All of 
these roadless areas are located within the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. However, the Roadless Rule was challenged in court 
and currently a ruling has not been finalized and additional legal 
challenges are pending; in the meantime, the Tongass is subject to the 
provisions in the Roadless Rule, although the outcome of these legal 
challenges is uncertain. Thus, currently, the Roadless Rule protects 
14,672 mi\2\ (38,000 km\2\) of land, including 463 mi\2\ (1,200 km\2\) 
of productive forest, from timber harvest, road construction, and other 
development, all of which is within the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
State Regulations
    The Alaska Board of Game sets wolf harvest regulations for all 
resident and nonresident hunters and trappers, and the ADFG implements 
those regulations. (However, for federally-qualified subsistence users, 
the Federal Subsistence Board sets regulations, and those regulations 
are applicable only on Federal lands.) Across most of southeastern 
Alaska, State regulations of wolf harvest appear not to be resulting in 
overutilization of the Alexander Archipelago wolf (see discussion under 
Factor B, above). However, in GMU 2, wolf harvest is having an effect 
on the population, which apparently has declined over the last 20 years 
(see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above). Although the population decline 
likely was caused by multiple stressors acting synergistically (see 
Cumulative Effects from Factors A through E, below), overharvest of 
wolves in some years was a primary contributor, suggesting that the 
wolf harvest regulations for GMU 2 have been allowing for greater 
numbers to be harvested than would be necessary to maintain a viable 
wolf population.
    In March 2014, ADFG and the USFS, Tongass National Forest, as the 
in-season manager for the Federal Subsistence Program, took emergency 
actions to close the wolf hunting and trapping seasons in GMU 2, yet 
the population still declined between fall 2013 and fall 2014, likely 
due to high levels of unreported harvest (38 to 45 percent of total 
harvest, summarized under Factor B, above). In early 2015, the agencies 
issued another emergency order and, in cooperation with the Alaska 
Board of Game, adopted a more conservative wolf harvest guideline for 
GMU 2, but an updated population estimate is not available yet, and, 
therefore, we do not know if the recent change in regulation has been 
effective at avoiding further population decline. Therefore, based on 
the best available information, we think that wolf harvest regulations 
in GMU 2 are inadequate to avoid exceeding sustainable harvest levels 
of Alexander Archipelago wolves, at least in some years. In order to 
avoid future unsustainable harvest of wolves in GMU 2, regulations 
should consider total harvest of wolves, including loss of wounded 
animals, not just reported harvest. Although we found that regulations 
governing wolf harvest in GMU 2 have been inadequate, we do not expect 
their inadequacy to impact the rangewide population of Alexander 
Archipelago wolf for reasons outlined under Factor B, above.
    The Alexander Archipelago wolf receives no special protection as an 
endangered species or species of concern by the State of Alaska (AS 
16.20.180). However, in the draft State Wildlife Action Plan, which is 
not yet finalized, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is identified as a 
``species of greatest conservation need'' because it is a species for 
which the State has high stewardship responsibility and it is 
culturally and ecologically important (ADFG 2015e, p. 154).
Coastal British Columbia
    In coastal British Columbia, populations of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf have been stable or slightly increasing for the last 
15 years (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above). Nonetheless, we 
identified several laws that ensure its continued protection such as 
the Forest and Range Practices Act (enacted in 2004), Wildlife Act of 
British Columbia (amended in 2008), Species at Risk Act, Federal 
Fisheries Act, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
of Wild Fauna

[[Page 451]]

and Flora (CITES), and other regional land use and management plans. We 
review these laws in more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 
2015, ``Existing conservation measures'').
    In 1999, the gray wolf was designated as ``not at risk'' by the 
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, because it 
has a widespread, large population with no evidence of a decline over 
the last 10 years (BCMO 2014, p. 2). In British Columbia, the gray wolf 
is ranked as ``apparently secure'' by the Conservation Data Centre and 
is on the provincial Yellow list, which indicates ``secure.'' We note 
here that Canada does not recognize the Alexander Archipelago wolf as a 
subspecies of gray wolf that occupies coastal British Columbia, and, 
therefore, these designations are applicable to the province or country 
scale.
Summary of Factor D
    The laws described above regulate timber harvest and associated 
activities, protect habitat, minimize disturbance at den sites, and aim 
to ensure sustainable harvest of Alexander Archipelago wolves in 
southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia. As discussed under 
Factors A, B, C, and E, although we recognize that some stressors such 
as timber harvest and wolf harvest are having an impact on the GMU 2 
wolf population, we have not identified any threat that would affect 
the taxon as a whole at the rangewide level. Therefore, we find that 
the existing regulatory mechanisms authorized by the laws described 
above are not inadequate for the rangewide population of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf now and into the future.

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

    In this section, we consider other natural or manmade factors that 
may be affecting the continued persistence of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf and were not addressed in Factors A through D above. Specifically, 
we examined effects of small and isolated populations, hybridization 
with dogs, and overexploitation of salmon runs.
Small and Isolated Population Effects
    In the petition, island endemism was proposed as a possible 
stressor to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. An endemic is a distinct, 
unique organism found within a restricted area or range; a restricted 
range may be an island, or group of islands, or a restricted region 
(Dawson et al. 2007, p. 1). Although small, isolated populations are 
more vulnerable to extinction than larger ones due to demographic 
stochasticity, environmental variability, genetic problems, and 
catastrophic events (Lande 1993, p. 921), endemism or ``rarity'' alone 
is not a stressor. Therefore, we instead considered possible effects 
associated with small and isolated populations of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
    Several aspects of the life history of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf result in it being resilient to effects associated with small and 
isolated populations. First, the coastal wolf is distributed across a 
broad range and is not concentrated in any one area, contributing to 
its ability to withstand catastrophic events, which typically occur at 
small scales (e.g., wind-caused disturbance) in southeastern Alaska and 
coastal British Columbia. Second, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is a 
habitat and diet generalist with high reproductive potential and high 
dispersal capability in most situations, making it robust to 
environmental and demographic variability. However, owing to the island 
geography and steep, rugged terrain within the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, some populations are small (fewer than 150 to 250 
individuals, following Carroll et al. 2014, p. 76) and at least 
partially isolated, although most are not. Nonetheless, we focus the 
remainder of this section on possible genetic consequences to small, 
partially isolated populations of the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
    The primary genetic concern of small, isolated wolf populations is 
inbreeding, which, at extreme levels, can reduce litter size and 
increase incidence of skeletal effects (e.g., Liberg et al. 2005, p. 
17; Raikkonen et al. 2009, p. 1025). We found only one study that 
examined inbreeding in the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Breed (2007, p. 
18) tested for inbreeding using samples from Regions 5 and 6 in 
northern British Columbia and GMUs 1 and 2 in southern southeastern 
Alaska, and found that inbreeding coefficients were highest for wolves 
in GMU 1, followed by GMU 2, then by Regions 5 and 6. This finding was 
unexpected given that GMU 2 is the smaller, more isolated population, 
indicating that inbreeding likely is not affecting the GMU 2 population 
despite its comparatively small size and insularity. Further, we found 
no evidence of historic or recent genetic bottlenecking in the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 924; Breed 2007, 
p. 18), although Weckworth et al. (2011, p. 5) speculated that a severe 
bottleneck may have taken place long ago (over 100 generations).
    Therefore, while we recognize that some populations of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf are small and insular (e.g., GMU 2 
population), our review of the best available information does not 
suggest that these characteristics currently are having a measurable 
effect at the population or rangewide level. However, given that the 
GMU 2 population is expected to decline by an average of 8 to 14 
percent over the next 30 years, inbreeding depression and genetic 
bottlenecking may be a concern for this population in the future, but 
we think that possible future genetic consequences experienced by the 
GMU 2 population will not have an effect on the taxon as a whole. Thus, 
we conclude that small and isolated population effects do not 
constitute a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor are they 
likely to become a threat in the future.
Hybridization With Dogs
    We reviewed hybridization with domestic dogs as a potential 
stressor to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Based on microsatellite 
analyses, Munoz-Fuentes et al. (2010, p. 547) found that at least one 
hybridization event occurred in the mid-1980s on Vancouver Island, 
where wolves were probably extinct at one point in time, but then 
recolonized the island from the mainland. Although hybridization has 
been documented and is more likely to occur when wolf abundance is 
unusually low, most of the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is 
remote and unpopulated by humans, reducing the risk of interactions 
between wolves and domestic dogs. Therefore, we conclude that 
hybridization with dogs does not rise to the level of a threat at the 
population or rangewide level and is not likely to do so in the future.
Overexploitation of Salmon Runs
    As suggested in the petition, we considered overexploitation of 
salmon runs and disease transmission from farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo 
salar) in coastal British Columbia as a potential stressor to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (Atlantic salmon are not farmed in 
southeastern Alaska). The best available information does not indicate 
that the status of salmon runs in coastal British Columbia is having an 
effect on coastal wolves. First, Alexander Archipelago wolf populations 
in coastal British Columbia are stable or slightly increasing, 
suggesting that neither overexploitation of salmon runs nor disease 
transmission from introduced salmon are impacting the wolf populations. 
Second, in coastal British Columbia, only 0 to 16 percent of the

[[Page 452]]

diet of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is salmon (Darimont et al. 2004, 
p. 1871; Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130). Given the opportunistic food 
habits of the coastal wolf, we postulate that reduction or even near 
loss of salmon as a food resource may impact individual wolves in some 
years, but likely would not result in a population- or rangewide-level 
effect. Further, our review of the best available information does not 
suggest that this is happening or will happen, or that coastal wolves 
are acquiring diseases associated with farmed salmon. Therefore, we 
conclude that overexploitation of salmon runs and disease transmission 
from farmed salmon do not constitute a threat to the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf at the population or rangewide level and are not 
likely to do so in the future.
Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence
    We are not aware of any conservation efforts or other voluntary 
actions that may help to reduce effects associated with small and 
isolated populations, hybridation with dogs, overexploitation of salmon 
runs, disease transmission from farmed salmon, or any other natural or 
manmade that may be affecting the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
Summary of Factor E
    We find that other natural or manmade factors are present within 
the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, but that none of these 
factors is having a population or rangewide effect on the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. We acknowledge that some populations of the coastal 
wolf are small and partially isolated, and therefore are susceptible to 
genetic problems, but we found no evidence that inbreeding or 
bottlenecking has resulted in a population or rangewide impact to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf. In addition, even though some populations 
are small in size, many populations of the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
exist and are well distributed on the landscape, greatly reducing 
impacts from any future catastrophic events to the rangewide 
population. We also found that the likelihood of hybridation with dogs 
is low and that any negative impacts associated with the status of 
salmon in coastal British Columbia are unfounded at this time; neither 
of these potential stressors is likely to affect the continued 
persistence of the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the population or 
rangewide level. Therefore, based on the best available information, we 
conclude that other natural or manmade factors do not pose a threat to 
the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor are they likely to become threats 
in the future.

Cumulative Effects From Factors A Through E

    The Alexander Archipelago wolf is faced with numerous stressors 
throughout its range, but none of these individually constitutes a 
threat to the taxon as a whole now or in the future. However, more than 
one stressor may act synergistically or compound with one another to 
impact the Alexander Archipelago wolf at the population or rangewide 
level. Some of the identified stressors described above have potential 
to impact wolves directly (e.g., wolf harvest), while others can affect 
wolves indirectly (e.g., reduction in ungulate prey availability as a 
result of timber harvest); further, not all stressors are present or 
equally present across the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf.
    In this section, we consider cumulative effects of the stressors 
described in Factors A through E. If multiple factors are working 
together to impact the Alexander Archipelago wolf negatively, the 
cumulative effects should be manifested in measurable and consistent 
demographic change at the population or species level. Therefore, for 
most populations such as those in coastal British Columbia and in GMU 
2, we relied on trend information to inform our assessment of 
cumulative effects. For populations lacking trend information (e.g., 
GMUs 1, 3, and 5A), we examined the severity, frequency, and certainty 
of stressors to those populations and relative to the populations for 
which we have trend information to evaluate cumulative effects. We then 
assess the populations collectively to draw conclusions about 
cumulative effects that may be impacting the rangewide population.
    In coastal British Columbia, Alexander Archipelago wolf populations 
are stable or slightly increasing (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above), 
despite multiple stressors facing these populations at levels similar 
to or greater than most populations in southeastern Alaska. The 
stability of the wolf populations in coastal British Columbia over the 
last 15 years suggests that cumulative effects of stressors such as 
timber harvest, road development, and wolf harvest are not negatively 
impacting these populations.
    The GMU 2 population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf apparently 
experienced a gradual decline between 1994 and 2013, and then declined 
substantially between 2013 and 2014, although the overall decline is 
not statistically significant owing to the large variance surrounding 
the point estimates (see ``Abundance and Trend,'' above). Nonetheless, 
we found evidence that timber harvest (Factor A) and wolf harvest 
(Factor B) are impacting this population, and these two stressors 
probably have collectively caused the apparent decline. Given 
reductions in deer habitat capability as a result of extensive and 
intensive timber harvest, we expect the GMU 2 wolf population to be 
somewhat depressed and unable to sustain high rates of wolf harvest. 
However, in our review of the best available information, we found that 
high rates of unreported harvest are resulting in unsustainable total 
harvest of Alexander Archipelago wolves in GMU 2 and that roads 
constructed largely to support the timber industry are facilitating 
unsustainable rates of total wolf harvest. Based on a population model 
specific to GMU 2, Gilbert et al. (2015, p. 43) projected that the wolf 
population will decline by another 8 to 14 percent, on average, over 
the next 30 years, largely owing to compounding and residual effects of 
logging, but also wolf harvest, which results in direct mortality and 
has a more immediate impact on the population. These stressors and 
others such as climate related events (i.e., snowfall) are interacting 
with one another to impact the GMU 2 wolf population and are expected 
to continue to do so in the future provided that circumstances remain 
the same (e.g., high unreported harvest rates).
    In the remainder of southeastern Alaska where the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf occurs (i.e., GMUs 1, 3, and 5A), we lack trend and 
projected population estimates to inform our assessment of cumulative 
effects, and, therefore, we considered the intensity, frequency, and 
certainty of stressors present. We found that generally the stressors 
facing wolf populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A occur in slightly higher 
intensity compared to populations in coastal British Columbia (Regions 
5 and 6), but significantly lower intensity than the GMU 2 population. 
In fact, the percent of logged forest and road densities are among the 
lowest in the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Although wolf 
harvest rates were moderately high in GMUs 1, 3, and 5A, given the 
circumstances of these populations, we found no evidence to suggest 
that they were having a population-level effect. Importantly, our 
review of the best available information did not suggest that 
unreported harvest was occurring at high rates like in GMU 2, and 
hunter

[[Page 453]]

and trapper access was comparatively lower (i.e., road density, ratio 
of shoreline to land area). In addition, the populations in GMUs 1, 3, 
and 5A are most similar biologically to the coastal British Columbian 
populations; all of these wolf populations have access to a variety of 
ungulate prey and are not restricted to deer, and none is as isolated 
geographically as the GMU 2 population. We acknowledge that elements of 
GMU 3 are similar to those in GMU 2 (e.g., island geography), but 
ultimately we found that GMU 3 had more similarities to GMUs 1 and 5A 
and coastal British Columbia.
    Therefore, in considering all of the evidence collectively, we 
presume that Alexander Archipelago wolf populations in GMUs 1, 3, and 
5A likely are stable and are not being impacted by cumulative effects 
of stressors because these populations face similar stressors as the 
populations in coastal British Columbia, which are stable or slightly 
increasing. The weight of the available information led us to make this 
presumption regarding the Alexander Archipelago wolf in GMUs 1, 3, and 
5A, and we found no information to suggest otherwise. We think our 
reasoning is fair and supported by the best available information, 
although we recognize the uncertainties associated with it.
    In summary, we acknowledge that some of the stressors facing 
Alexander Archipelago wolves interact with one another, particularly 
timber harvest and wolf harvest, but we determined that all but one of 
the wolf populations do not exhibit impacts from cumulative effects of 
stressors. We found that about 62 percent of the rangewide population 
of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is stable (all of coastal British 
Columbia), and another 32 percent is presumed to be stable (GMUs 1, 3, 
and 5A), suggesting that approximately 94 percent of the rangewide 
population is not experiencing negative and cumulative effects from 
stressors, despite their presence. Therefore, we conclude that 
cumulative impacts of identified stressors do not rise to the level of 
a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and are unlikely to do so in 
the future.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the Alexander Archipelago wolf is an endangered or threatened 
species throughout all of its range. We examined the best scientific 
and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
wolf experts and other Federal, State, and tribal agencies. We prepared 
a Status Assessment that summarizes all of the best available science 
related to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and had it peer reviewed by 
three experts external to the Service and selected by a third-party 
contractor. We also contracted the University of Alaska Fairbanks to 
revise an existing population model for the GMU 2 wolf population, 
convened a 2-day workshop with experts to review the model inputs and 
structure, and had the final report reviewed by experts (Gilbert et al. 
2015, entire). As part of our review, we brought together researchers 
with experience and expertise in gray wolves and the temperate coastal 
rainforest from across the Service to review and evaluate the best 
available scientific and commercial information.
    We examined a variety of potential threats facing the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and its habitats, including timber harvest, road 
development, oil development, climate change, overexploitation, 
disease, and effects associated with small and isolated populations. To 
determine if these risk factors individually or collectively put the 
taxon in danger of extinction throughout its range, or are likely to do 
so in the foreseeable future, we first considered if the identified 
risk factors were causing a population decline or other demographic 
changes, or were likely to do so in the foreseeable future.
    Throughout most of its range, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is 
stable or slightly increasing or is presumed to be stable based on its 
demonstrated high resiliency to the magnitude of stressors present. In 
coastal British Columbia, which constitutes 67 percent of the range and 
62 percent of the rangewide population, the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
has been stable or slightly increasing over the last 15 years. In 
mainland southeastern Alaska (GMUs 1 and 5A) and in GMU 3, 
approximately 29 percent of the range and 32 percent of the rangewide 
population, we determined that the circumstances of these wolf 
populations were most similar to those in coastal British Columbia, 
and, therefore, based on the best available information, we reasoned 
that the Alexander Archipelago wolf likely is stable in GMUs 1, 3, and 
5A. In GMU 2, which includes only 4 percent of the range and 6 percent 
of the rangewide population, the Alexander Archipelago wolf has been 
declining since 1994, and is expected to continue declining by another 
8 to 14 percent, on average, over the next 30 years. Nonetheless, we 
conclude that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is stable or slightly 
increasing in nearly all of its range (96 percent), representing 94 
percent of the rangewide population of the taxon.
    We then identified and evaluated existing and potential stressors 
to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We aimed to determine if these 
stressors are affecting the taxon as a whole currently or are likely to 
do so in the foreseeable future, are likely to increase or decrease, 
and may rise to the level of a threat to the taxon, rangewide or at the 
population level. Because the Alexander Archipelago wolf is broadly 
distributed across its range and is a habitat and diet generalist, we 
evaluated whether each identified stressor was expected to impact 
wolves directly or indirectly and whether wolves would be resilient to 
any impact.
    We examined several stressors that are not affecting the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf currently and are unlikely to occur at a magnitude and 
frequency in the future that would result in a population- or 
rangewide-level effect. We found that oil and gas development, disease, 
predation, effects associated with small and isolated populations, 
hybridization with domestic dogs, overexploitation of salmon runs, and 
disease transmission from farmed salmon are not threats to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf (see discussions under Factors A, C, and E, 
above). Most of these stressors are undocumented and speculative, 
rarely occur, are spatially limited, or are not known to impact gray 
wolves in areas of overlap. Although disease is known to affect 
populations of gray wolves, we found few reports of disease in the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf, and none resulted in mortality. Therefore, 
based on the best available information, we conclude that none of these 
stressors is having a population- or rangewide-level effect on the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf, or is likely to do so in the foreseeable 
future.
    Within the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, changes in 
climate are occurring and are predicted to continue, likely resulting 
in improved conditions for wolves. Climate models for southeastern 
Alaska and coastal British Columbia project that precipitation as snow 
will decrease substantially in the future, which will improve winter 
conditions for deer, the primary prey species of wolves. Although 
severe winters likely will continue to occur and will affect deer

[[Page 454]]

populations, we expect them to occur less frequently. Therefore, based 
on the best available information, we conclude that the effects of 
climate change are not a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor 
are they likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future.
    We reviewed timber harvest and associated road development as 
stressors to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and found that they are not 
affecting wolves directly, in large part because the wolf is a habitat 
generalist. Although wolves used den sites farther from logged stands 
and roads than unused sites, den site selection was more strongly 
influenced by natural features on the landscape such as slope, 
elevation, and proximity to freshwater. Further, we did not find 
evidence indicating that denning near logged stands and roads resulted 
in lower fitness of wolves. Thus, we conclude that timber harvest and 
associated road development are not affecting wolves at the population 
or rangewide levels by decreasing suitable denning habitat. We did not 
identify any other potential direct impacts to wolves as a result of 
timber harvest or road development, so next we examined potential 
indirect effects, specifically reduction of deer habitat capability.
    Although the Alexander Archipelago wolf is an opportunistic 
predator that feeds on a variety of marine, intertidal, and terrestrial 
species, ungulates compose at least half of the wolf's diet throughout 
its range, and deer is the most widespread and abundant ungulate 
available to wolves. Timber harvest has reduced deer habitat 
capability, which in turn is predicted to reduce deer populations, 
especially in areas that have been logged intensively. However, based 
largely on the stability of wolf populations in coastal British 
Columbia despite intensive timber harvest, we conclude that wolves are 
resilient to changes in deer populations provided that they have other 
ungulate prey species available to them. We found that nearly all of 
the Alexander Archipelago wolves (94 percent of the rangewide 
population) have access to alternate ungulate prey such as mountain 
goat, moose, and elk, and, based on wolf diet, Alexander Archipelago 
wolves are consuming these prey species in areas where they are 
available. We identified only one Alexander Archipelago wolf population 
as an exception.
    In GMU 2, deer is the only ungulate species available to wolves, 
and, therefore, wolves in this population have a more restricted 
ungulate diet and likely are being affected by cascading effects of 
timber harvest. Both deer and wolves are projected to decline in GMU 2 
in the future, largely due to long-term reduction in deer habitat 
capability. However, we find that the GMU 2 population contributes 
little to the rangewide population because it constitutes only 4 
percent of the range and 6 percent of the rangewide population, is 
largely insular and geographically peripheral, and appears to function 
as a sink population. Therefore, while we recognize that timber harvest 
and associated road development has modified a considerable portion of 
the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, and will continue to do 
so, we find that the taxon as a whole is not being affected negatively, 
in large part because the wolf is a habitat and diet generalist. Based 
on the best available information, we conclude that timber harvest and 
associated road development do not rise to the level of a threat to the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf, and are not likely to do so in the future.
    Throughout its range, the Alexander Archipelago wolf is harvested 
for commercial and subsistence purposes, and, therefore, we examined 
overutilization as a stressor at the population and rangewide levels. 
In coastal British Columbia, we presume that wolf harvest is not having 
an effect at the population level given that populations there are 
stable or slightly increasing. This presumption is supported by the 
comparatively low rates of reported wolf harvest in coastal British 
Columbia, although reporting of harvest is required only in Regions 1 
and 2, and, therefore, we considered these rates as minimum values. 
Nonetheless, we found no information suggesting that wolf harvest in 
coastal British Columbia is affecting wolves at the population level, 
as evidenced by the stability of the populations.
    Within southeastern Alaska, where reporting is required, rates of 
reported harvest on average are similar across all populations (17 to 
21 mean percent of population annually). However, in GMU 2, unreported 
harvest can be a substantial component of total harvest (38 to 45 
percent), resulting in high rates of total harvest in some years, which 
likely has contributed to the apparent population decline in GMU 2. 
Although unreported harvest probably occurs in other parts of 
southeastern Alaska, our review of the best available information does 
not indicate that it is occurring at the same high rate as documented 
in GMU 2. Further, access by hunters and trappers is significantly 
greater in GMU 2 compared to elsewhere (see discussion under Factor B, 
above), and, therefore, we find that applying rates of unreported 
harvest from GMU 2 to other wolf populations in southeastern Alaska is 
not appropriate. Thus, based on the best available information, we 
think that wolf harvest in most of southeastern Alaska (i.e., GMUs 1, 
3, and 5A) is not affecting wolves at the population level, but that 
total wolf harvest in GMU 2 likely has occurred, at least recently, at 
unsustainable rates, largely due to high rates of unreported harvest, 
and has contributed to or caused an apparent decline in the population. 
However, for the same reasons described above, we determined that 
negative population impacts in GMU 2 do not affect the rangewide 
population significantly, and, therefore, we conclude that wolf harvest 
is not having a rangewide-level effect. In conclusion, we find that 
overutilization is not a threat to the Alexander Archipelago wolf, nor 
is it likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future.
    In summary, we found that the Alexander Archipelago wolf 
experiences stressors throughout its range, but based on our 
consideration of the best available scientific and commercial 
information, we determined that the identified stressors, individually 
or collectively, do not pose a threat to the taxon at the rangewide 
level now or in the foreseeable future. We determined that many of the 
life-history traits and behaviors of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, 
such as its variable diet, lack of preferential use of habitats, and 
high reproductive potential, increase its ability to persist in highly 
modified habitats with numerous stressors. Only one population of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf has declined and likely will continue to 
decline, but this population contributes little to the taxon as a 
whole, and, therefore, while we acknowledge the vulnerability of this 
population to stressors such as timber harvest and wolf harvest, we 
find that its status does not affect the rangewide status 
significantly. Further, we found that approximately 94 percent of the 
rangewide population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf is stable or 
increasing, or presumed with reasonable confidence to be stable. 
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information pertaining to the five factors, we find that the 
threats are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 
indicate that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is in danger of extinction 
(endangered), or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future (threatened), throughout all of its range.

[[Page 455]]

Significant Portion of the Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the 
phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, 
the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species, 
respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the 
species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is 
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution 
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the 
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general 
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time 
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any 
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is 
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that 
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than 
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
    The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including 
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and 
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether 
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status 
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the 
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its 
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and 
no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither in danger 
of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range, we 
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we 
list the species as an endangered or a threatened species, 
respectively; if it is not, we conclude that listing the species is not 
warranted.
    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of 
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a 
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of 
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and 
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant 
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial 
information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) 
the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely 
to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering 
these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the 
species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of 
its range; rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed 
analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this 
analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly 
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further 
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats apply only to 
portions of the range that clearly do not meet the biologically based 
definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly 
would not be expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of 
the entire species), those portions will not warrant further 
consideration.
    If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and 
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to 
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of 
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other 
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is 
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in the SPR. 
To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout 
an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to 
determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its 
range.
    Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats 
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant'' 
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine 
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.''
    We evaluated the current range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to 
determine if there is any apparent geographic concentration of 
potential threats to the taxon. We examined potential threats from 
timber harvest, oil and gas development, road development, climate 
change, effects of small and isolated populations, hybridization with 
dogs, overexploitation of salmon runs, disease transmission from farmed 
salmon, overutilization, disease, and predation. We found that 
potential threats are concentrated in GMU 2, where they are 
substantially greater than in other portions of its range. We 
considered adjacent parts of the range that are contained in GMUs 1 and 
3, but, based on the best available information, we did not find any 
concentrations of stressors in those parts that were similar in 
magnitude and frequency to the potential threats in GMU 2. Therefore, 
we then considered whether GMU 2 is ``significant'' based on the 
Service's SPR policy, which states that a portion of its range is 
``significant'' if the taxon is not currently endangered or threatened 
throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the 
viability of the taxon is so important that, without the members in 
that portion, the taxon would be in danger of extinction, or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
    We reviewed population and rangewide metrics in relation to GMU 2 
to estimate the numerical contribution of GMU 2 to the viability of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf. We determined that GMU 2 constitutes only 4 
percent of the total range and 9 percent of the range below 1,312 ft 
(400 m) in elevation where these wolves spend most of their time (see 
``Space and Habitat Use,'' above). In addition, based on the most 
current population estimate for GMU 2, which was assessed in 2014, we 
estimated that only 6 percent of the rangewide population occupies GMU 
2. Recognizing the apparent recent decline in the GMU 2 population (see 
``Abundance and Trend,'' above), we then estimated that in 2013, the 
GMU 2 population

[[Page 456]]

composed about 13 percent of the rangewide population. We expect wolf 
abundance to fluctuate annually at the population and rangewide scales, 
but generally in recent years, we find that the GMU 2 population 
composes a somewhat small percentage of the rangewide population. 
Therefore, we conclude that, numerically, the GMU 2 population 
contributes little to the viability of the taxon as a whole given that 
it composes a small percentage of the current rangewide population and 
it occupies a small percentage of the range of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf.
    We then considered the biological contribution of the GMU 2 
population to the viability of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We found 
that given its insularity and peripheral geographic position compared 
to the rest of the range, the GMU 2 population contributes even less 
demographically and genetically than it does numerically. In fact, it 
appears to function as a sink population with gene flow and dispersal 
primarily occurring uni-directionally from other areas to GMU 2 (see 
``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above). Therefore, overall, we found 
that GMU 2 represents a small percentage of the range and rangewide 
population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, it is insular and 
geographically peripheral, and it appears to be functioning as a sink 
population to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We conclude that, 
although potential threats are concentrated in GMU 2, this portion's 
contribution to the viability of the taxon as a whole is not so 
important that, without the members of GMU 2, the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in 
danger of extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered or threatened species under 
the Act is not warranted at this time.

Evaluation of the GMU 2 Population of the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as 
a Distinct Population Segment

    After determining that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not 
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range and is not likely to become so in the foreseeable future, we then 
evaluate whether or not the GMU 2 wolf population meets the definition 
of a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act, as requested in 
the petition.
    To interpret and implement the DPS provisions of the Act and 
Congressional guidance, we, in conjunction with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of 
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS policy) in the Federal 
Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS policy, two 
basic elements are considered in the decision regarding the 
establishment of a population of a vertebrate species as a possible 
DPS. We must first determine whether the population qualifies as a DPS; 
this requires a finding that the population is both: (1) Discrete in 
relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; and (2) 
biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which it 
belongs. If the population meets the first two criteria under the DPS 
policy, we then proceed to the third element in the process, which is 
to evaluate the population segment's conservation status in relation to 
the Act's standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species. 
These three elements are applied similarly for additions to or removals 
from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants.

Discreteness

    In accordance with our DPS policy, we detail our analysis of 
whether a vertebrate population segment under consideration for listing 
may qualify as a DPS. As described above, we first evaluate the 
population segment's discreteness from the remainder of the taxon to 
which it belongs. Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a 
vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one 
of the following conditions:
    (1) It 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.
    (2) It 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.
    We found that the GMU 2 population is markedly separated as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors from other populations of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. It 
occupies a portion of the Alexander Archipelago within the range of 
wolf that is physically separated from adjacent populations due to 
comparatively long and swift water crossings and the fact that few 
crossings are available to dispersing wolves. Although low levels of 
movement between the GMU 2 population segment and other populations 
likely occur (see ``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above), the GMU 2 
wolf population is largely insular and geographically peripheral to the 
rest of the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf; further, the 
Service's DPS policy does not require absolute separation to be 
considered discrete.
    In addition, several studies have demonstrated that, based on 
genetic assignment tests, the GMU 2 wolf population forms a distinct 
genetic cluster when compared to other Alexander Archipelago wolves 
(Weckworth et al. 2005, pp. 923, 926; Breed 2007, p. 21). Further, 
estimates of the fixation index (FST, the relative 
proportion of genetic variation explained by differences among 
populations) are markedly higher between the GMU 2 population and all 
other Alexander Archipelago wolf populations than comparisons between 
other populations (e.g., Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 923; Cronin et al. 
2015, p. 7). Collectively, these findings indicate genetic 
discontinuity between wolves in GMU 2 and those in the rest of the 
range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. We review these studies and 
others in more detail in the Status Assessment (Service 2015, ``Genetic 
analyses'').
    We found that the GMU 2 population of the Alexander Archipelago 
wolf is markedly separated as a consequence of physical (geographic) 
features and due to genetic divergence from other populations of the 
taxon. Therefore, we conclude that it is discrete under the Service's 
DPS policy.

Significance

    If a population is considered discrete under one or more of the 
conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological and 
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while 
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this 
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the 
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. As precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from 
case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of 
information that might

[[Page 457]]

be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a 
discrete population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible 
classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's 
biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. 
As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this consideration of the 
population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, 
the following:
    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of a 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 historical range; or
    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the taxon in its genetic characteristics.
    Given our determination that the GMU 2 wolf population is discrete 
under the Service's DPS policy, we now evaluate the biological and 
ecological significance of the population relative to the taxon as a 
whole. A discrete population segment is considered significant under 
the DPS policy if it meets one of the four elements identified in the 
policy under significance (described above), or otherwise can be 
reasonably justified as being significant. Here, we evaluate the four 
potential factors suggested by our DPS policy in evaluating 
significance of the GMU 2 wolf population.
Persistence of the Discrete Population Segment in an Ecological Setting 
Unusual or Unique to the Taxon
    We find that the GMU 2 population does not persist in an ecological 
setting that is unusual or unique to the Alexander Archipelago wolf. To 
evaluate this element, we considered whether or not the habitats used 
by Alexander Archipelago wolves in GMU 2 include unusual or unique 
features that are not used by or available to the taxon elsewhere in 
its range. We found that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is a habitat 
generalist, using a variety of habitats on the landscape and selecting 
only for those that occur below 1,312 ft (400 m) in elevation (see 
``Space and Habitat Use,'' above). Throughout its range, habitats used 
by and available to the Alexander Archipelago wolf are similar with 
some variation from north to south and on the mainland and islands, but 
we found no unique or unusual features specific to GMU 2 that were not 
represented elsewhere in the range. Although karst is more prevalent in 
GMU 2, we found no evidence indicating that wolves selectively use 
karst; in addition, karst is present at low and high elevations in GMUs 
1 and 3 (Carstensen 2007, p. 24).
    The GMU 2 wolf population has a more restricted ungulate diet, 
comprised only of deer, than other populations of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf (see ``Food Habits,'' above). However, given that the 
coastal wolf is an opportunistic predator, feeding on intertidal, 
marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species, we find that differences 
in ungulate prey base are not ecologically unique or unusual. In 
addition, Alexander Archipelago wolves feed on deer throughout their 
range in equal or even higher proportions than wolves in GMU 2 (e.g., 
Szepanski et al. 1999, p. 331; Darimont et al. 2009, p. 130), 
demonstrating that a diet based largely on deer is not unusual or 
unique. Thus, compared to elsewhere in the range, we found nothing 
unique or unusual about the diet or ecological setting of wolves in GMU 
2. Further, we did not identify any morphological, physiological, or 
behavioral characteristics of the GMU 2 wolf population that differ 
from those of other Alexander Archipelago wolf populations, which may 
have suggested a biological response to an unusual or unique ecological 
setting. Therefore, we conclude that the GMU 2 wolf population does not 
meet the definition of significance under this element, as outlined in 
the Service's DPS policy.
Evidence That Loss of the Discrete Population Segment Would Result in a 
Significant Gap in the Range of a Taxon
    We find that loss of the GMU 2 population of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf, when considered in relation to the taxon as a whole, 
would not result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon. It 
constitutes only 6 percent of the current rangewide population, only 4 
percent of the range, and only 9 percent of the range below 1,312 (400 
m) in elevation where the Alexander Archipelago wolf selectively 
occurs. In addition, the GMU 2 population is largely insular and 
geographically peripheral to other populations, and appears to function 
as a sink population (see ``Abundance and Trend'' and ``Dispersal and 
Connectivity,'' above). For these reasons, we found that the 
demographic and genetic contributions of the GMU 2 wolf population to 
the rangewide population are low and that loss of this population would 
have a minor effect on the rangewide population of the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf. Also, although rates of immigration to GMU 2 likely 
are low (see ``Dispersal and Connectivity,'' above), recolonization of 
GMU 2 certainly is possible, especially given the condition of the 
remainder of the rangewide population. Therefore, we conclude that the 
GMU 2 wolf population does not meet the definition of significance 
under this element, as outlined in the Service's DPS policy.
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 Historical Range
    The GMU 2 population does not represent the only surviving natural 
occurrence of the Alexander Archipelago wolf throughout the range of 
the taxon. Therefore, we conclude that the discrete population of the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf in GMU 2 does not meet the significance 
criterion of the DPS policy under this factor.
Evidence That the Discrete Population Segment Differs Markedly From 
Other Populations of the Taxon in Its Genetic Characteristics
    We find that the GMU 2 population does not differ markedly from 
other Alexander Archipelago wolves in its genetic characteristics. As 
noted above in Discreteness, the GMU 2 population exhibits genetic 
discontinuities from other Alexander Archipelago wolves due to 
differences in allele and haplotype frequencies. However, those 
discontinuities are not indicative of rare or unique genetic 
characterisics within the GMU 2 population that are significant to the 
taxon. Rather, several studies indicate that the genetic diversity 
within the GMU 2 population is a subset of the genetic diversity found 
in other Alexander Archipelago wolves. For example, the GMU 2 
population does not harbor unique haplotypes; only one haplotype was 
found in the GMU 2 population, and it was found in other Alexander 
Archipelago wolves including those from coastal British Columbia 
(Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 367; Weckworth et al. 2011, p. 2). In 
addition, the number and frequency of private alleles in the GMU 2 
population is low compared to other Alexander Archipelago wolves (e.g., 
Breed 2007, p. 18). The lack of unique haplotypes and the low numbers 
of private alleles both indicate that the GMU 2 population has not been 
completely isolated historically from other Alexander Archipelago 
wolves. Finally, these genetic studies demonstrate that wolves in GMU 2 
exhibit low genetic diversity

[[Page 458]]

(as measured through allelic richness, heterozygosity, and haplotype 
diversity) compared to other Alexander Archipelago wolves (Weckworth et 
al. 2005, p. 919; Breed 2007, p. 17; Weckworth et al. 2010, p. 366; 
Weckworth et al. 2011, p. 2).
    Collectively, results of these studies suggest that the genetic 
discontinuities observed in the GMU 2 population likely are the outcome 
of restricted gene flow and a loss of genetic diversity through genetic 
drift or founder effects. Therefore, although the GMU 2 population is 
considered discrete under the Service's DPS policy based on the 
available genetic data, it does not harbor genetic characteristics that 
are rare or unique to the Alexander Archipelago wolf and its genetic 
contribution to the taxon as a whole likely is minor. Moreover, while 
we found no genetic studies that have assessed adaptive genetic 
variation of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, the best available genetic 
data do not indicate that the GMU 2 population harbors significant 
adaptive variation, which is supported further by the fact that the GMU 
2 population is not persisting in an unusual or unique ecological 
setting. Therefore, we conclude that the GMU 2 population does not meet 
the definition of significance under this element, as outlined in the 
Service's DPS policy.
Summary of Significance
    We determine, based on a review of the best available information, 
that the GMU 2 population is not significant in relation to the 
remainder of the taxon. Therefore, this population does not qualify as 
a DPS under our 1996 DPS policy and is not a listable entity under the 
Act. Because we found that the population did not meet the significance 
element and, therefore, does not qualify as a DPS under the Service's 
DPS policy, we will not proceed with an evaluation of the status of the 
population under the Act.

Determination of Distinct Population Segment

    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
as described above, we find that, under the Service's DPS policy, the 
GMU 2 population is discrete, but is not significant to the taxon to 
which it belongs. Because the GMU 2 population is not both discrete and 
significant, it does not qualify as a DPS under the Act.

Conclusion of 12-Month Finding

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the Alexander Archipelago wolf is not in 
danger of extinction (endangered) nor likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we find that listing the 
Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered or threatened species under 
the Act is not warranted at this time.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, the Alexander Archipelago wolf to our 
Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES) whenever it 
becomes available. New information will help us monitor the Alexander 
Archipelago wolf and encourage its conservation. If an emergency 
situation develops for the Alexander Archipelago wolf, we will act to 
provide immediate protection.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Anchorage Fish and 
Wildlife Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: December 15, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-32473 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P