Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15123 

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (d). 

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

■ 4. Amend § 17.95(a) by removing the 

critical habitat entry for ‘‘Gray Wolf 

(Canis lupus).’’ 

Dated: March 10, 2009. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5981 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–0008; 92220–1113– 

0000; ABC Code: C6] 

RIN 1018–AW37 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule To Identify the 

Northern Rocky Mountain Population 

of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population 

Segment and To Revise the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), identify a 

distinct population segment (DPS) of the 

gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains (NRM) of the United 

States and revise the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife by removing 

gray wolves within NRM DPS 

boundaries, except in Wyoming. The 

NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the 

eastern one-third of Washington and 

Oregon, a small part of north-central 

Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming. Our current estimate for 2008 

indicates the NRM DPS contains 

approximately 1,639 wolves (491 in 

Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in 

Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in 

Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). 

These numbers are about 5 times higher 

than the minimum population recovery 

goal and 3 times higher than the 

minimum breeding pair recovery goal. 

The end of 2008 will mark the ninth 

consecutive year the population has 

exceeded our numeric and 

distributional recovery goals. 

The States of Montana and Idaho have 

adopted State laws, management plans, 

and regulations that meet the 

requirements of the Act and will 

conserve a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future. In our 

proposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8, 

2007), we noted that removing the Act’s 

protections in Wyoming was dependant 

upon the State’s wolf law (W.S. 11–6– 

302 et seq. and 23–1–101, et seq. in 

House Bill 0213) and wolf management 

plan adequately conserving Wyoming’s 

portion of a recovered NRM wolf 

population. In light of the July 18, 2008, 

U.S. District Court order, we 

reexamined Wyoming law, its 

management plans and implementing 

regulations, and now determine they are 

not adequate regulatory mechanisms for 

the purposes of the Act. 

We determine that the best scientific 

and commercial data available 

demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is 

not threatened or endangered 

throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range (i.e., not 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming 

portion of the range represents a 

significant portion of range where the 

species remains in danger of extinction 

because of inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms. Thus, this final rule 

removes the Act’s protections 

throughout the NRM DPS except for 

Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will 

continue to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population per 

50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n). 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

May 4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments and 

materials received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparation of 

this final rule, are available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at our Montana 

office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, 

Montana 59601. Call (406) 449–5225, 

extension 204 to make arrangements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at our Helena office 

(see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449– 

5225, extension 204. Individuals who 

are hearing-impaired or speechimpaired may call the Federal Relay 

Service at 1–800–877–8337 for TTY 

assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largest 

wild members of the dog family 

(Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 

18–80 kilograms (kg) (40–175 pounds 

(lb)) depending upon sex and region 

(Mech 1974, p. 1). In the NRM, adult 

male gray wolves average over 45 kg 

(100 lb), but may weigh up to 60 kg (130 

lb). Females weigh slightly less than 

males. Wolves’ fur color is frequently a 

grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure 

white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, 

p. 821). 

Gray wolves have a circumpolar range 

including North America, Europe, and 

Asia. As Europeans began settling the 

United States, they poisoned, trapped, 

and shot wolves, causing this once 

widespread species to be eradicated 

from most of its range in the 48 

conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 

31–34; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf 

populations were eliminated from 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well 

as adjacent southwestern Canada by the 

1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 

414). 

Wolves primarily prey on medium 

and large mammals. Wolves normally 

live in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the 

NRM, pack sizes average about 10 

wolves in protected areas, but a few 

complex packs have been substantially 

bigger in some areas of Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006, 

p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3). 

Packs typically occupy large distinct 

territories from 518 to 1,295 square 

kilometers (km2) (200 to 500 square 

miles (mi2)) and defend these areas from 

other wolves or packs. Once a given area 

is occupied by resident wolf packs, it 

becomes saturated and wolf numbers 

become regulated by the amount of 

available prey, intra-species conflict, 

other forms of mortality, and dispersal. 

Dispersing wolves may cover large areas 

(See Defining the Boundaries of the 

NRM DPS) as they try to join other 

packs or attempt to form their own pack 

in unoccupied habitat (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, pp. 11–17). 

Typically, only the top-ranking 

(‘‘alpha’’) male and female in each pack 

breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, 

p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 243–4; 

Service et al. 2008, Tables 1–3). Females 

and males typically begin breeding as 2- 

year olds and may annually produce 

young until they are over 10 years old. 

Litters are typically born in April and 

range from 1 to 11 pups, but average 

around 5 pups (Service et al. 1989– 

2007, Tables 1–3). Most years, four of 

these five pups survive until winter 

(Service et al. 1989–2008, Tables 1–3). 

Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al. 

2005, p. 446), but the average lifespan 

in the NRM is less than 4 years (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 

survival can increase when wolf density 

is lower and food availability per wolf 

increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). 

Pack social structure is very adaptable 

and resilient. Breeding members can be 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

quickly replaced either from within or 

outside the pack and pups can be reared 

by another pack member should their 

parents die (Packard 2003, p. 38; 

Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p. 

1482). Consequently, wolf populations 

can rapidly recover from severe 

disruptions, such as very high levels of 

human-caused mortality or disease. 

After severe declines, wolf populations 

can more than double in just 2 years if 

mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 

100 percent per year have been 

documented in low-density suitable 

habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181–183; 

Service et al. 2008, Table 4). 

For detailed information on the 

biology of this species see the ‘‘Biology 

and Ecology of Gray Wolves’’ section of 

the April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassify 

and remove the gray wolf from the list 

of endangered and threatened wildlife 

in portions of the conterminous U.S. 

(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 

15804). 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1974, we listed two subspecies of 

gray wolf as endangered: The NRM gray 

wolf (C. l. irremotus) and the eastern 

timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the Great 

Lakes region (39 FR 1171, January 4, 

1974). We listed a third gray wolf 

subspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l. 

baileyi) as endangered on April 28, 

1976, (41 FR 17740) in Mexico and the 

southwestern U.S. On June 14, 1976 (41 

FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolf 

subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) as 

endangered in Texas and Mexico. 

In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 

9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the gray 

wolf as endangered at the species level 

(C. lupus) throughout the conterminous 

48 States and Mexico, except for 

Minnesota, where the gray wolf was 

reclassified to threatened. At that time, 

we designated critical habitat in 

Minnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. In 

the NRM, we completed a recovery plan 

in 1980 and revised in 1987. In the 

Great Lakes Region, we completed a 

recovery plan in 1978 and revised in 

1992. In the Southwest, we completed a 

recovery plan in 1982. 

On November 22, 1994, we designated 

portions of Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming as two nonessential 

experimental population areas for the 

gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act, 

including the Yellowstone Experimental 

Population Area (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994) and the Central 

Idaho Experimental Population Area (59 

FR 60266, November 22, 1994). These 

designations assisted us in initiating 

gray wolf reintroduction projects in 

central Idaho and in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and 

2008, we revised these regulations to 

provide increased management 

flexibility for this recovered wolf 

population in States with Serviceapproved post-delisting wolf 

management plans (70 FR 1286, January 

6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 

50 CFR 17.84(n)). 

The NRM wolf population achieved 

its numerical and distributional 

recovery goals at the end of 2000 

(Service et al. 2008, Table 4). The 

temporal portion of the recovery goal 

was achieved in 2002 when the 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goals were exceeded for the 3rd 

successive year (Service et al. 2008, 

Table 4). To meet the Act’s requirements 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming needed 

to develop post-delisting wolf 

management plans to ensure that 

adequate regulatory mechanisms would 

exist should the Act’s protections be 

removed. In 2004, we determined that 

Montana’s and Idaho’s laws and wolf 

management plans were adequate to 

assure that their shares of the NRM wolf 

population would be maintained above 

recovery levels. However, we found the 

2003 Wyoming legislation and plan 

inadequate to conserve Wyoming’s 

share of a recovered NRM gray wolf 

population (Williams 2004). Wyoming 

challenged this determination but the 

Federal district court in Wyoming 

dismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd 

1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyoming 

appealed that decision and on April 3, 

2006, the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals upheld the district court ruling 

(442 F. 3rd 1262). 

On July 19, 2005, we received a 

petition from the Office of the Governor, 

State of Wyoming and the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission (WGFC) to 

revise the listing status for the gray wolf 

by recognizing a NRM DPS and to 

remove it from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

(Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006, 

we announced a 12-month finding that 

the petitioned action (delisting in all of 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not 

warranted because the 2003 Wyoming 

State law and wolf management plan 

did not provide the necessary regulatory 

mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming’s 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population would 

be conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyoming 

challenged this finding in Federal 

District Court. On February 27, 2008, 

Federal District Judge issued an order 

dismissing the case (Wyoming U.S. 

District Court Case Number 2:06–CV– 

00245). 

On February 8, 2007, we proposed to 

identify the NRM DPS of the gray wolf 

and to delist all or most portions of the 

NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, we 

proposed to delist wolves in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah. The 

proposal noted that the Act’s 

protections would be retained in 

significant portions of the range in 

Wyoming in the final rule if adequate 

regulatory mechanisms were not 

developed to conserve Wyoming’s 

portion of a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future. Under this 

scenario, wolves in portions of 

Wyoming would continue to be 

regulated under the Act as a nonessential, experimental population per 

50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n). 

On July 6, 2007, the Service extended 

the comment period in order to consider 

a 2007 revised Wyoming wolf 

management plan and State law that we 

believed, if implemented, could allow 

the wolves in all of Wyoming to be 

removed from the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939). 

On November 16, 2007, the WGFC 

unanimously approved the 2007 

Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1). 

We then determined this plan provided 

adequate regulatory protections to 

conserve Wyoming’s portion of a 

recovered wolf population into the 

foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 2). On 

February 27, 2008, we issued a final rule 

recognizing the NRM DPS and removing 

all of this DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(73 FR 10514). This rule determined 

that Wyoming’s regulatory mechanisms 

were adequate. 

On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed a 

lawsuit challenging the identification 

and delisting of the NRM DPS. The 

plaintiffs also moved to preliminarily 

enjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008, 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Montana granted the plaintiffs’ motion 

for a preliminary injunction and 

enjoined the Service’s implementation 

of the final delisting rule for the NRM 

DPS of the gray wolf. The court stated 

that we acted arbitrarily in delisting a 

wolf population that lacked evidence of 

genetic exchange between 

subpopulations. The court also stated 

that we acted arbitrarily and 

capriciously when we approved 

Wyoming’s 2007 statute and wolf 

management plan because the State 

failed to commit to managing for at least 

15 breeding pairs and Wyoming’s 2007 

statute allowed the WGFC to diminish 

the trophy game area if it ‘‘determines 

the diminution does not impede the 

delisting of gray wolves and will 

facilitate Wyoming’s management of 

wolves.’’ The court’s preliminary 

injunction order concluded that the 

Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15125 

merits of their claims. In light of the 

district court order, on September 22, 

2008, we asked the court to vacate the 

final rule and remand it to us. On 

October 14, 2008, the court vacated the 

final delisting rule and remanded it 

back to the Service for further 

consideration. 

Similarly, on February 8, 2007, we 

recognized a Western Great Lakes 

(WGL) DPS and removed it from the list 

of the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052). 

Several groups challenged this rule in 

court, arguing that the Service may not 

identify a DPS within a broader preexisting listed entity for the purpose of 

delisting the DPS (Humane Society of 

the United States v. Kempthorne, Civil 

Action No. 07–0677 (PLF) (D.D.C.)). On 

September 29, 2008, the court vacated 

the WGL DPS final rule and remanded 

it to the Service. The court found that 

the Service had made that decision 

based on its interpretation that the plain 

meaning of the Act authorizes the 

Service to create and delist a DPS 

within an already-listed entity. The 

court disagreed, and concluded that the 

Act is ambiguous as to whether the 

Service has this authority. The court 

accordingly remanded the final rule so 

that the Service can provide a reasoned 

explanation of how its interpretation is 

consistent with the text, structure, 

legislative history, judicial 

interpretations, and policy objectives of 

the Act. 

Given the above court rulings, on 

October 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926), we 

reopened the comment period on our 

February 8, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 

6106). Specifically, we sought 

information, data, and comments from 

the public regarding the 2007 proposal 

with an emphasis on new information 

relevant to this action, the issues raised 

by the Montana District Court, and the 

issues raised by the September 29, 2008, 

ruling of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia with respect to the 

WGL gray wolf DPS. The notice also 

asked for public comment on what 

portions of Wyoming need to be 

managed as a trophy game area and 

what portions of Wyoming constitute a 

significant portion of the NRM DPS’s 

range. After further analysis, we 

determined that Wyoming’s regulatory 

framework did not meet the 

requirements of the Act. On January 15, 

2009 Wyoming’s Governor was notified 

that Wyoming no longer had a Serviceapproved wolf management plan (Gould 

2009). Wolf management in all of 

Wyoming (except the Wind River Tribal 

Lands because the tribe had a Serviceapproved plan) again became 

immediately under the less flexible 

provisions of the 1994 experimental 

population rules [17.84 (i)]. 

We are required to rely upon the best 

scientific information currently 

available. Therefore, this final rule 

reflects new data and information 

primarily concerning wolf population 

numbers, livestock depredations and 

wolf control, and genetic exchange that 

were received after the 2008 public 

comment period. This new data and 

information are consistent with and did 

not change our conclusions stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule and in 

the notice for the reopened comment 

period. 

For detailed information on previous 

Federal actions also see the 2003 

Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804, 

April 1, 2003), the Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR 

6634, February 8, 2006), the 12-month 

finding on Wyoming’s petition to delist 

(71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), and the 

February 8, 2007, proposed rule to 

designate the NRM population of gray 

wolf as a DPS and remove this DPS from 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife (72 FR 6106). 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the Act, we consider if 

information is sufficient to indicate that 

listing, reclassifying, or delisting any 

species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, 

any DPS of these taxa may be warranted. 

To interpret and implement the DPS 

provision of the Act and congressional 

guidance, the Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service published a 

policy regarding the recognition of 

distinct vertebrate population segments 

under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996). Under this policy, the Service 

considers two factors to determine 

whether the population segment is a 

valid DPS—(1) discreteness of the 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon, and (2) the 

significance of the population segment 

to the taxon to which it belongs. If a 

population meets both tests, it is a DPS, 

and the Service then evaluates the 

population segment’s conservation 

status according to the standards in 

section 4 of the Act for listing, delisting, 

or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS 

endangered or threatened). 

Defining the Boundaries of the NRM 

DPS 

We defined the geographic boundaries 

for the area to be evaluated for DPS 

status based on discreteness and 

significance as defined by our DPS 

policy. The DPS policy allows an 

artificial (e.g., State line) or manmade 

(e.g., road or highway) boundary to be 

used as a boundary of convenience for 

clearly identifying the geographic area 

for a DPS. The NRM DPS includes all 

of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the 

eastern third of Washington and Oregon, 

and a small part of north central Utah. 

Specifically, the DPS includes that 

portion of Washington east of Highway 

97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and 

that portion of Washington east of 

Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes 

that portion of Oregon east of Highway 

395 and Highway 78 north of Burns 

Junction and that portion of Oregon east 

of Highway 95 south of Burns Junction. 

Finally, the DPS includes that portion of 

Utah east of Highway 84 and north of 

Highway 80. The centers of these roads 

are deemed the boundary of the DPS 

(See Figure 1). 

This DPS is consistent with over 30 

years of recovery efforts in the NRMs in 

that: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S. 

historic range of the NRM gray wolf 

subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 

1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) which 

was the originally listed entity in 1974 

(39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the 

DPS boundaries are inclusive of the 

areas focused on by both NRM recovery 

plans (Service 1980, pp. 7–8; Service 

1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental 

impact statement (EIS) (Service 1994, 

Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusive 

of the entire Central-Idaho and 

Yellowstone Non-essential 

Experimental Population areas (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84 (i) & (n)). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15126 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

One factor we considered in defining 

the boundaries of the NRM DPS was the 

current distribution of known wolf 

packs in 2007 (Service et al. 2008, 

Figure 1) (except four packs in 

northwestern Wyoming that did not 

persist). We also examined the annual 

distribution of wolf packs from 2002 

(the first year the population exceeded 

the recovery goal) through 2008 (Service 

et al. 2003–2009, Figure 1; Bangs et al. 

in press). Because outer distribution 

changed little in these years, we used 

the 2004 data because it had already 

been analyzed in the February 8, 2006 

ANPR (71 FR 6634). 

Dispersal distances also played a key 

role in determining the boundaries for 

the DPS. We examined the known 

dispersal distances of over 200 marked 

dispersing wolves from the NRM from 

1993 through 2005 (Boyd et al. 2007; 

Jimenez et al. 2008d). These data 

indicate that the average dispersal 

distance of wolves from the NRM was 

about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al. 

2007; Thiessen 2007, p. 33; Jimenez et 

al. 2008d). We determined that 290 km 

(180 mi), three times the average 

dispersal distance, was a breakpoint in 

our data for unusually long-distance 

dispersal out from existing wolf pack 

territories (Jimenez et al. 2008, Figures 

2 and 3). Only 11 wolves (none of which 

subsequently bred) have dispersed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER02AP09.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15127 

farther outside the core population areas 

and remained in the U.S. None of these 

wolves returned to the core population 

in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only 

dispersal from the NRM packs to areas 

within the U.S. was considered in these 

calculations because we were trying to 

determine the appropriate DPS 

boundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to 

Canada were not considered in our 

calculation of average dispersal 

difference because the distribution of 

suitable habitat and level of human 

persecution in Canada is significantly 

different than in the U.S., potentially 

affecting wolf dispersal patterns. We 

plotted average dispersal distance and 

three times the average dispersal 

distance from existing wolf pack 

territories in the NRM. The resulting 

map indicated a wide area where wolf 

dispersal was common enough to 

support intermittent additional pack 

establishment from the core wolf 

population given the availability of 

patches of nearby suitable habitat. Our 

specific data on wolf dispersal in the 

NRM may not be applicable to other 

areas of North America (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, pp. 13–16). 

We also examined suitable wolf 

habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, pp. 555– 

558) and throughout the western U.S. 

(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al. 

2006, pp. 27–30) by comparing the 

biological and physical characteristics 

of areas currently occupied by wolf 

packs with the characteristics of 

adjacent areas that remain unoccupied 

by wolf packs. The basic findings and 

predictions of those models (Oakleaf et 

al. 2005, p. 559; Carroll et al. 2003, p. 

541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) were 

similar in many respects. Suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 

characterized by public land, 

mountainous forested habitat, abundant 

year-round wild ungulate populations, 

lower road density, lower numbers of 

domestic livestock that were only 

present seasonally, few domestic sheep 

(Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low 

human populations (see Factor A). The 

models indicate that a large block of 

suitable wolf habitat exists in central 

Idaho and the GYA, and to a smaller 

extent in northwestern Montana. These 

findings support the recommendations 

of the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 

1987) that identified those three areas as 

the most likely locations to support a 

recovered wolf population and are 

consistent with the actual distribution 

of all wolf breeding pairs in the NRM 

since 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1; 

Service et al. 1999–2009, Figures 1–4, 

Tables 1–3). The models indicate little 

habitat is suitable for pack persistence 

within the portion of the NRM DPS in 

eastern Montana, southern Idaho, 

eastern Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, 

or northcentral Utah although 

dispersing wolves may utilize these 

areas (See Factor A). 

Unsuitable habitat also was important 

in determining the boundaries of our 

DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. 

(2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. (2003, 

pp. 540–541; 2006, p. 27) and our 

observations during the past 20 years 

(Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 

2008, Figures 1–4, Table 4) indicate that 

non-forested rangeland and croplands 

associated with intensive agricultural 

use (prairie and high desert) preclude 

wolf pack establishment and 

persistence. This unsuitability is due to 

high rates of wolf mortality, high 

densities of livestock compared to wild 

ungulates, chronic conflict with 

livestock and pets, local cultural 

intolerance of large predators, and wolf 

behavioral characteristics that make 

them vulnerable to human-caused 

mortality in open landscapes (See 

Factor A). We looked at the distribution 

of large expanses of unsuitable habitat 

that would form a broad boundary 

separating the NRM population from 

both the southwestern and Midwestern 

wolf populations and from the core of 

any other possible wolf population that 

might develop in the foreseeable future 

in the western U.S. 

We included the eastern parts of 

Washington and Oregon and a small 

portion of north central Utah within the 

NRM DPS, because—(1) these areas are 

within 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) from 

the core wolf population where 

dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing 

wolves have been documented in these 

areas more than once in recent times 

(Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d); 

(3) these areas contain some suitable 

habitat (see Factor A); (4) the potential 

for connectivity exists between the 

relatively small and fragmented patches 

of suitable habitat in these areas with 

larger blocks of suitable habitat in the 

NRM DPS; and (5) most of the area lies 

within the historic range of the NRM 

gray wolf subspecies (C. l. irremotus) 

(Service 1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) 

originally listed under the Act in 1974 

(39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974). If wolf 

breeding pairs establish in these areas, 

habitat suitability models indicate these 

nearby areas would likely be more 

connected to the core populations in 

central Idaho and northwestern 

Wyoming than to any future wolf 

populations that might become 

established in other large blocks of 

potentially suitable habitat farther 

beyond the NRM DPS boundary. As 

noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable 

habitat would isolate any wolf breeding 

pairs within the DPS from other large 

patches of suitable habitat to the west or 

south (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541). 

Although we have received reports of 

individual and wolf packs in the North 

Cascades of Washington (Almack and 

Fitkin 1998, pp. 7–13), agency efforts to 

confirm them have been unsuccessful 

and to date no individual wolves or 

packs have been confirmed there (Boyd 

and Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd et al. 

2007). However, a wolf pack (2 adults 

and 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp, 

Washington (just east of the North 

Cascades), in July 2008. Their territory 

is west of the NRM DPS boundary. 

Genetic analysis indicated the two 

adults did not come from the wolf 

population in the NRM DPS. Instead, 

they likely originated from southcentral 

British Columbia (Allen 2008). This 

confirms the appropriateness of our 

western DPS boundary and our 

conclusion that intervening unsuitable 

habitat makes it unlikely that wolves 

have or will disperse between the North 

Cascades and the NRM population. 

However, if additional wolves disperse 

into the North Cascades, they will 

remain protected by the Act as 

endangered because it is outside of the 

NRM DPS. 

We include all of Wyoming, Montana, 

and Idaho in the NRM DPS because (1) 

their State regulatory frameworks apply 

Statewide; and (2) expanding the DPS 

beyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likely 

dispersal distances to include extreme 

eastern Montana and Wyoming adds 

only areas unsuitable habitat for pack 

persistence and does not effect the 

distinctness of the NRM DPS. DPS 

boundaries that include all of Wyoming, 

Montana, and Idaho are also consistent 

with the 1994 designations of the 

Central-Idaho and Yellowstone Nonessential Experimental Population areas 

(59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 

FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84 (i) & (n)). Although including all 

of Wyoming in the NRM DPS results in 

including portions of the Sierra Madre, 

the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we 

do not consider these areas to be 

suitable wolf habitat for pack 

persistence because of their size, shape, 

and distance from a strong source of 

dispersing wolves. Oakleaf et al. (2006, 

pp. 558–559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not to 

analyze these areas of southeast 

Wyoming because they are fairly 

intensively used by livestock and are 

surrounded with, and interspersed by, 

private land, making pack establishment 

and persistence unlikely. While Carroll 

et al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) 

optimistically predicted these areas 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15128 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

were suitable habitat, the model 

predicted that under current conditions 

these areas were largely sink habitat 

(i.e., a habitat in which the species’ 

mortality exceeds reproductive success) 

and that by 2025 (within the foreseeable 

future) they were likely to be ranked as 

low occupancy because of human 

population growth and road 

development. 

We chose not to extend the NRM DPS 

boundary east beyond Montana and 

Wyoming, because those adjacent 

portions of North Dakota, South Dakota, 

and Nebraska are far outside the 

predicted routine dispersal range of 

NRM wolves. Given the available 

information on potentially suitable 

habitat, expansion of the DPS to include 

Colorado or larger portions of Utah to 

the south and west would have 

included large areas of potentially 

suitable but unoccupied habitat in those 

States (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541). Given 

the current distribution of the NRM wolf 

population to suitable habitat, we 

concluded that a smaller DPS 

containing occupied suitable habitat, 

the adjacent areas of largely unsuitable 

habitat where routine wolf dispersal 

could be expected, and that was distinct 

from other large contiguous blocks of 

potentially suitable habitat to the west 

and south was more biologically 

appropriate. This DPS is also reflective 

of areas of recovery focus over the last 

30 years (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 

Service 1980; Service 1987; Service 

1994; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 

59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 

CFR 17.84 (i) & (n)). 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under our Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments, a population 

segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions—(1) is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated from Other 

Populations of the Taxon—The eastern 

edge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about 

644 km (400 mi) from the western edge 

of the area currently occupied by the 

WGL wolf population (eastern 

Minnesota) and is separated from it by 

hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat 

(see Factor A). The southern edge of the 

NRM DPS boundary is about 724 km 

(450 mi) from the nonessential 

experimental populations of wolves in 

the southwestern U.S. with vast 

amounts of unoccupied marginal or 

unsuitable habitat separating them. 

While one dispersing wolf was 

confirmed east and two south of the 

DPS boundary, no wolf packs have ever 

been found there. No wolves from other 

U.S. wolf populations are known to 

have dispersed as far as the NRM DPS. 

Until recently, no wild wolves had 

been confirmed west of the DPS 

boundary (although we occasionally got 

unconfirmed reports and 2 wolves were 

killed close to that boundary). Then, in 

July 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6 

pups) was discovered near Twisp, 

Washington (just east of the North 

Cascades and west of the DPS 

boundaries). These wolves did not 

originate from the NRM DPS; instead 

they likely originated from southcentral 

British Columbia (Allen 2008). The 

pack’s territory is outside the NRM DPS 

and remains discrete from the NRM gray 

wolf population. The pack is being 

monitored via radio telemetry by 

Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Should this pack persist and 

other wolves follow, they would remain 

separated from the NRM DPS by 

unsuitable wolf habitat. 

Although wolves can disperse over 

1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual travel 

distances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000 

mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166–167; Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 

1–2; Ream et al. 1991, pp. 351–352; 

Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd 

et al. 2007; Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 

1631), the average dispersal of NRM 

wolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd 

and Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Boyd et al. 

2007; Jimenez 2008d; Thiessen 2007, p. 

72). Only 11 of over 200 confirmed 

NRM wolf dispersal events from 1992 

through 2005 have been over 300 km 

(190 mi) and outside the core 

population (Boyd and Pletscher. 1999, 

p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007). Undoubtedly 

many other dispersal events have 

occurred but not been detected because 

only 30 percent of the NRM wolf 

population has been radio-collared. All 

but three of these known U.S. longdistance dispersers remained within the 

proposed DPS. None of them found 

mates or survived long enough to form 

packs or breed in the U.S. (Boyd et al. 

2007; Jimenez 2008d). 

The first wolf confirmed to have 

dispersed (within the U.S.) beyond the 

boundary of the NRM DPS was killed by 

a vehicle collision along Interstate 70 in 

north-central Colorado in spring 2004. 

Although not confirmed, in early 2006, 

video footage of a black wolf-like canid 

was taken near Walden in northern 

Colorado, suggesting another dispersing 

wolf had traveled into Colorado. The 

subsequent status or location of that 

animal is unknown. On March 7, 2009, 

a dispersing wolf from the Yellowstone 

area was located by GPS radio-telemetry 

near Vail, Colorado. Finally, in spring 

2006, the carcass of a male black wolf 

was found along Interstate 90 in western 

South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed 

it was a wolf that had dispersed from 

the Yellowstone area. 

No other unusual wolf dispersal 

events were documented in the NRM 

DPS in 2008. A radio-collared wolf from 

central Idaho continues to live in the 

GYA. It formed a new pack and bred in 

2009. A report of a pack of wolves in 

northeastern Utah east of Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir (outside the NRM DPS) was 

investigated in spring 2008. The 

existence of this pack was not 

confirmed. A report of a wolf pack with 

pups in northeastern Oregon (inside the 

NRM DPS) was investigated in August 

2008. The existence of this pack was not 

confirmed. A photograph of a black 

wolf-like canid taken in late 2008 in the 

central Cascade Range in Oregon 

(outside the NRM DPS) but its origin 

and fate remain unknown. 

We expect that occasional lone 

wolves will continue to disperse 

between and beyond the currently 

occupied wolf habitat areas in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into 

States adjacent to the NRM DPS. 

However, pack development and 

persistence outside the NRM DPS is 

unlikely because wolves disperse as 

individuals that typically have low 

survival (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) 

and suitable habitat is limited and 

distant (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) from 

the NRM wolf population. 

No connectivity currently exists 

between the NRM wolf population and 

any other U.S. wolf packs or 

populations. While it is theoretically 

possible that a lone wolf might travel 

between the NRM wolf population and 

other U.S. packs or populations, such 

movement has never been documented 

and is likely to be rare because of both 

the distance and the intervening areas of 

unsuitable habitat. 

Furthermore, the DPS policy does not 

require complete separation of one DPS 

from other U.S. packs or populations, 

but instead requires ‘‘marked 

separation.’’ Thus, if occasional 

individual wolves or packs disperse 

among populations, the NRM DPS could 

still display the required discreteness. 

Based on the information presented 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15129 

above, we have determined that NRM 

gray wolves are markedly separated 

from all other gray wolf populations in 

the U.S. 

Differences Among U.S. and 

Canadian Wolf Populations—The DPS 

policy allows us to use international 

borders to delineate the boundaries of a 

DPS if there are differences in control of 

exploitation, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms between the 

countries. Significant differences exist 

in management between U.S. and 

Canadian wolf populations. About 

52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur in 

Canada, where suitable habitat is 

abundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322). 

Because of this abundance, wolves in 

Canada are not protected by Federal 

laws and are only minimally protected 

in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher 

et al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlike 

Canada, Federal protection and 

intensive management has been 

necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn 

1983). If delisted, States in the NRM 

would carefully monitor and manage to 

retain populations at or above the 

recovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore, 

we will continue to use the U.S.-Canada 

border to mark the northern boundary of 

the DPS due to the difference in control 

of exploitation, conservation status, and 

regulatory mechanisms between the two 

countries. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine a population segment 

is discrete, we next consider available 

scientific evidence of its significance to 

the taxon to which it belongs. Our DPS 

policy states that this consideration may 

include, but is not limited to, the 

following factors: (1) Persistence of the 

discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; (3) evidence that the 

discrete population segment represents 

the only surviving natural occurrence of 

a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population 

outside its historic range; and/or (4) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. Below we address 

factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not 

apply to the NRM DPS and thus are not 

included in our analysis for 

significance. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological 

Setting—Within the range of holarctic 

species, the NRM has amongst the 

highest diversity of large predators and 

native ungulate prey species, resulting 

in complex ecological interaction 

between the ungulate prey, predator and 

scavenger groups, and vegetation (Smith 

et al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS, 

gray wolves share habitats with black 

bears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears 

(U. arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis 

concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), 

wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canis 

latrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), 

fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten 

(Martes americana). The unique and 

diverse assemblage of native prey 

include elk (Cervus canadensis), mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 

moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou 

(Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnos 

americanus), pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison 

bison) (only in the GYA), and beaver 

(Castor canadensis). This complexity 

leads to dramatic and unique ecological 

cascades in pristine areas, such as in 

YNP. While these effects likely still 

occur at varying degrees elsewhere they 

are increasingly modified and subtle the 

more an area is affected by humans 

(Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334–338; Robbins 

2004, pp. 80–81; Campbell et al. 2006, 

pp. 747–753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p. 

2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245). For 

example, wolves appear to be changing 

elk behavior and elk relationships and 

competition with other native ungulates 

in YNP. These complex interactions 

may increase streamside willow 

production and survival (Ripple and 

Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn can 

affect beaver and nesting by riparian 

birds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). This 

suspected pattern of wolf-caused 

changes also may be occurring with 

scavengers, whereby wolf predation is 

providing a year-round source of food 

for a diverse variety of carrion feeders 

(Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmers 

and Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolf 

population in the NRM has extended 

the southern range of the contiguous 

gray wolf population in western North 

America nearly 400 miles (640 km) into 

a much more diverse, ecologically 

complex, and unique assemblage of 

species than is found elsewhere within 

occupied wolf habitat in most of the 

northern hemisphere. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—Wolves once lived throughout 

most of North America. Wolves have 

been extirpated from most of the 

southern portions of their historic North 

American range. The loss of the NRM 

wolf population would represent a 

significant gap in the species’ holarctic 

range in that this loss would create a 15- 

degree latitudinal or over 1,600 km 

(1,000 mi) gap across the Rocky 

Mountains between the Mexican wolf 

and wolves in Canada. If this potential 

gap were realized, substantial cascading 

ecological impacts would occur in the 

NRM, most noticeably in the most 

pristine and wildest areas (Smith et al. 

2003, pp. 334–338; Robbins 2004, pp. 

80–81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747– 

753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press, 

pp. 1–6). 

Given the wolf’s historic occupancy of 

the conterminous U.S. and the portion 

of the historic range the conterminous 

U.S. represents, recovery in portions of 

the lower 48 States has long been 

viewed as important to the taxon (39 FR 

1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, 

March 9, 1978). The NRM DPS is 

significant in achieving this objective, as 

it is 1 of only 3 populations of wolves 

in the lower 48 States and currently 

constitutes nearly 25 percent of all 

wolves in the lower 48 States. 

We conclude, based on our analysis of 

the best available scientific information, 

that the NRM DPS is significant to the 

taxon in that NRM wolves exist in a 

unique ecological setting and their loss 

would represent a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon. Therefore, the NRM 

DPS meets the criterion of significance 

under our DPS policy. Because the NRM 

gray wolf population is both discrete 

and significant, it is a valid DPS. 

Agency’s Past Practice and History of 

Using DPSs 

Of the over 370 native vertebrate 

‘‘species’’ listed under the Act, 77 are 

listed as less than an entire taxonomic 

species or subspecies (henceforth 

referred to as populations) under one of 

several authorities including the DPS 

language in the definition of ‘‘species’’. 

Of these 77 listed populations 32 

predate the 1996 DPS policy (61 FR 

4722); therefore, the final listing 

determinations for these populations 

did not include formal DPS analyses per 

the 1996 DPS policy. Specifically, the 

77 populations encompass 51 different 

species or subspecies. During the 

history of the Act, the Service and 

NMFS have taken actions with respect 

to populations in 98 listing, 

reclassification, and delisting actions. 

The majority of those actions identified 

a classification other than a 

taxonomically recognized species or 

subspecies at the time of listing. In 

several instances, however, the agencies 

have identified a DPS and, as 

appropriate, revised the list of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in 

a single action. For example, we (1) 

established a DPS of the grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area and surrounding area, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15130 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

within the existing listing of the grizzly 

bear in the lower 48 States, and 

removed this DPS from the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

(March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2) 

established two DPSs of the Columbian 

white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus leucurus): The Douglas 

County DPS and the Columbia River 

DPS; and removed the Douglas County 

DPS from the List of Threatened and 

Endangered Wildlife (July 24, 2003; 68 

FR 43647); (3) removed the brown 

pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) in the 

Southeastern United States from the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and continued to identify the brown 

pelican as endangered throughout the 

remainder of its range (February 4, 1985; 

50 FR 4938); (4) identified the American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Florida 

as a DPS within the existing endangered 

listing of the American crocodile in the 

United States and reclassified the 

Florida DPS from endangered to 

threatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR 

13027); and (5) amended the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants by revising the entry for the 

gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) to 

remove the eastern North Pacific 

population from the List while retaining 

the western North Pacific population as 

endangered (June 16, 1994; 59 FR 

31094)). We also proposed in 2000 to 

identify four DPSs within the existing 

listing of the gray wolf in the lower 48 

States and to reclassify three of the DPSs 

from endangered to threatened (July 13, 

2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above 

under ‘‘Previous Federal Action,’’ the 

final rule we issued in 2003 identified 

three gray wolf DPSs and reclassified 

two of the DPSs from endangered to 

threatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804). 

Although courts subsequently 

invalidated these DPSs, they did not 

question the Service’s authority to 

identify and reclassify DPSs within a 

larger pre-existing listing. Identifying 

and delisting the Western Great Lakes 

DPS of gray wolves is consistent with 

the Service’s past practice and does not 

represent a change in agency position. 

Recovery 

Recovery Planning and the Selection 

of Recovery Criteria—Shortly after 

listing we formed the interagency wolf 

recovery team to complete a recovery 

plan for the NRM population (Service 

1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). The 

NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recovery 

plan) was approved in 1980 (Service 

1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 

1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not 

regulatory documents and are instead 

intended to provide guidance to the 

Service, States, and other partners on 

methods of minimizing threats to listed 

species and on criteria that may be used 

to determine when recovery is achieved. 

There are many paths to accomplishing 

recovery of a species and recovery may 

be achieved without all criteria being 

fully met. For example, one or more 

criteria may have been exceeded while 

other criteria may not have been 

accomplished. In that instance, the 

Service may judge that the threats have 

been minimized sufficiently, and the 

species is robust enough to reclassify 

from endangered to threatened or to 

delist. In other cases, recovery 

opportunities may have been recognized 

that were not known at the time the 

recovery plan was finalized. These 

opportunities may be used instead of 

methods identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, information on the species 

may be learned that was not known at 

the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Recovery of a species is a 

dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management that may, or may not, fully 

follow the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan. 

The 1980 recovery plan’s objective 

was to re-establish and maintain viable 

populations of the NRM wolf (C. l. 

irremotus) in its former range where 

feasible (Service 1980, p. iii) but there 

were no recovery goals. The 1980 plan 

covered an area similar to the NRM 

DPS, as it was once believed to be the 

range of the NRM wolf subspecies. It 

recommended that recovery actions be 

focused on the large areas of public land 

in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, 

and the GYA. The revised recovery plan 

(Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that the 

subspecies designations may no longer 

be valid and simply referred to gray 

wolves in the NRMs. Consistent with 

the 1980 plan it also recommended 

focusing recovery actions on the large 

blocks on public land in the NRM. The 

1987 plan specified a recovery criterion 

of a minimum of 10 breeding pairs of 

wolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite 

sex and adequate age, capable of 

producing offspring) for a minimum of 

3 successive years in each of 3 distinct 

recovery areas including: (1) 

Northwestern Montana (Glacier 

National Park; the Great Bear, Bob 

Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat 

Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 

and private lands); (2) central Idaho 

(Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank 

Church River of No Return, and 

Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and 

adjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3) 

the YNP area (including the AbsarokaBeartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, 

and Teton Wilderness Areas; and 

adjacent public and private lands). That 

plan recommended that wolf 

establishment not be promoted outside 

these distinct recovery areas, but that 

connectivity between them be somehow 

encouraged. However, no attempts were 

made to prevent wolf pack 

establishment outside of the recovery 

areas unless chronic conflict required 

resolution (Service 1994, p. 1–15, 16; 

Service 1999, p. 2). 

The 1994 EIS on wolf reintroduction 

reviewed wolf recovery in the NRM and 

the adequacy of the recovery goals 

because we were concerned that the 

1987 goals might be insufficient (Service 

1994, pp. 6:68–78). We were 

particularly concerned about the 1987 

definition of a breeding pair, since any 

male and female wolf are ‘capable’ of 

producing offspring and lone wolves 

may not have territories. We also 

believed the relatively small ‘hard’ 

recovery areas greatly reduced the 

amount of area that could be used by 

wolves and would almost certainly 

eliminate the opportunity for 

meaningful natural demographic and 

genetic connectivity. The Service 

conducted a thorough literature review 

of wolf population viability analysis and 

minimum viable populations, reviewed 

the recovery goals for other wolf 

populations, surveyed the opinions of 

the top 43 wolf experts in North 

America, of which 25 responded, and 

incorporated our own expertise into a 

review of the NRM wolf recovery goal. 

We published our analysis in the 

Service’s EIS and in a peer-reviewed 

paper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9; 

Fritts and Carbyn 1995, pp. 26–38). Our 

analysis concluded that the 1987 

recovery goal was, at best, a minimum 

recovery goal, and that modifications 

were warranted on the basis of more 

recent information about wolf 

distribution, connectivity, and numbers. 

We also concluded ‘‘Data on survival of 

actual wolf populations suggest greater 

resiliency than indicated by theory’’ and 

theoretical treatments of population 

viability ‘‘have created unnecessary 

dilemmas for wolf recovery programs by 

overstating the required population 

size’’ (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26). 

Based on our analysis, we redefined a 

breeding pair as an adult male and an 

adult female wolf that have produced at 

least 2 pups that survived until 

December 31 of the year of their birth, 

during the previous breeding season. 

We also concluded that ‘‘Thirty or more 

breeding pair comprising some 300+ 

wolves in a metapopulation (a 

population that exists as partially 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15131 

isolated sets of subpopulations) with 

genetic exchange between 

subpopulations should have a high 

probability of long-term persistence’’ 

because it would contain enough 

individuals in successfully reproducing 

packs that were distributed over distinct 

but somewhat connected large areas, to 

be viable for the long-term (Service 

1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated the 

required genetic exchange could occur 

by natural means or by human-assisted 

migration management and that 

dispersal of wolves between recovery 

areas was evidence of that genetic 

exchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix 

8, 9). In defining a ‘‘Recovered Wolf 

Population’’ we found ‘‘in the northern 

Rockies a recovered wolf population is 

10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of 

3 areas for 3 successive years with some 

level of movement between areas’’ 

(Service 1994, p. 6–7). We further 

determined that a metapopulation of 

this size and distribution among the 

three areas of core suitable habitat in the 

NRM DPS would result in a wolf 

population that would fully achieve our 

recovery objectives. 

Since 1994, we have believed 

movement of individuals between the 

metapopulation segements could occur 

either naturally or by human-assisted 

migration management (Service 1994, p. 

7–67). Specifically, we stated ‘‘The 

importance of movement of individuals 

between sub-populations cannot be 

overemphasized. The dispersal ability of 

wolves makes such movement likely, 

unless wolves were heavily exploited 

between recovery areas, as could 

happen in the more developed corridor 

between central Idaho and YNP. 

Intensive migration management might 

become necessary if 1 of the 3 subpopulations should develop genetic or 

demographic problems. (We saw) no 

reason why migration management 

should be viewed negatively. It will be 

a necessity in other wolf recovery 

programs. Some, however, may view 

such management intervention as 

‘unnatural’ ’’ (Service 1994, p. 7–67). 

Furthermore, we found ‘‘that the 1987 

wolf recovery plan’s population goal of 

10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3 

separate recovery areas for 3 

consecutive years (was) reasonably 

sound and would maintain a viable wolf 

population into the foreseeable future. 

The goal is somewhat conservative, 

however, and should be considered 

minimal. The addition of a few extra 

pairs would add security to the 

population and should be considered in 

the post-EIS management planning. 

That could always be done as a periodic 

infusion if deemed necessary’’ (Service 

1994, p. 6–75). 

We conducted another review of what 

constitutes a recovered wolf population 

in late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluate 

and update our 1994 analysis and 

conclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9). 

We attempted to survey the same 43 

experts we had contacted in 1994 as 

well as 43 other biologists from North 

America and Europe who were 

recognized experts about wolves and/or 

conservation biology. In total 53 people 

provided their expert opinion regarding 

a wide range of issues related to the 

NRM recovery goal. We also reviewed a 

wide range of literature, including wolf 

population viability analysis from other 

areas (Bangs 2002, pp. 1–9). Despite 

varied professional opinions and a great 

diversity of suggestions, experts 

overwhelmingly thought the recovery 

goal derived in our 1994 analysis was 

more biologically appropriate than the 

1987 recovery plan’s criteria for 

recovery and represented a viable and 

recovered wolf population. Reviewers 

also thought genetic exchange, either 

natural or human-facilitated, was 

important to maintaining the 

metapopulation configuration and wolf 

population viability. Reviewers also 

thought the proven ability of a breeding 

pair to show successful reproduction 

was a necessary component of a 

biologically meaningful breeding pair 

definition. Reviewers recommended 

other concepts/numbers for recovery 

goals, but most were slight 

modifications to those we recommended 

in our 1994 analysis. While experts 

strongly (78 percent) supported that our 

1994 conclusions represented a viable 

wolf population, they also tended to 

believe that wolf population viability 

was enhanced by higher rather than 

lower population levels and longer than 

shorter demonstrated time frames. Five 

hundred wolves and five years were 

common minority recommendations. A 

slight majority indicated that even the 

1987 recovery goal of only 10 breeding 

pairs (defined as a male and female 

capable of breeding) in each of three 

distinct recovery areas may be viable, 

given the persistent of other small wolf 

populations in other parts of the world. 

The results of previous population 

viability analysis for other wolf 

populations varied widely, and as we 

had concluded in our 1994 analysis, 

reviewers in 2002 concluded theoretical 

results were strongly dependent on the 

variables and assumptions used in such 

models and conclusions often predicted 

different outcomes than actual empirical 

data had conclusively demonstrated. 

Based on that review, we reaffirmed our 

more relevant and stringent 1994 

definition of wolf breeding pairs, 

population viability, and recovery 

(Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, p. 

1–9). 

The 2002 reevaluation of the 1994 

wolf recovery goal by a broader 

spectrum of experts in wolf 

conservation also repeatedly recognized 

connectivity among the core recovery 

areas as critical, but this connectivity 

could be achieved through naturally 

dispersing wolves and/or by humanassisted migration management. 

Specifically, we stated ‘‘Connectivity 

was the single issue brought up most 

often by reviewers. Many commented 

that wolves are unusually good 

dispersers and movement between core 

recovery areas was probably not going to 

be a significant wolf conservation issue 

in the NRM. Several believed that 

wolves would soon colonize 

neighboring states. Nearly everyone 

commented that the interchange of 

individuals between the sections of the 

metapopulation and more importantly 

maintenance of connection to the 

Canadian population. Several comments 

emphasized the importance of 

maintaining some minimum number of 

wolves in northwestern Montana to 

maintain the connection to the 

Canadian population. Other reviewers 

noted that such connectivity could be 

easily maintained by management 

actions (such as translocation) rather 

than natural dispersal. Movement into 

the GYA was mentioned as a specific 

concern by some because that was the 

only recovery area where wolf 

movement from other recovery areas 

appeared it could be a concern, and it 

was the southern-most tip of a much 

larger connected North American wolf 

population. A majority believed the 

Service’s proposal defined a viable wolf 

population but others believed it needed 

to be improved by providing a 

measurable definition of connectivity. 

Others believed that documenting 

successful reproduction was an 

important measure of population 

viability and liked the concept used in 

the 1994 EIS definition. The importance 

of future wolf management (state or 

tribal management), primarily in 

maintaining human-caused mortality 

below a level that would cause 

extirpation and management that would 

foster some connectivity (either natural 

or man-induced) were the most critical 

components of determining long-term 

population viability * * * The true test 

of wolf population viability will be 

determined by subsequent management 

practices. Past management practices— 

such as (1) reintroduction of wolves 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15132 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

from two Canadian sources (Alberta and 

British Columbia) and from numerous 

packs in each area, (2) subsequent 

management relocations between all 

three recovery areas, (3) the natural 

dispersal capabilities of wolves and 

proximity of core recovery areas to one 

another, (4) documented routine 

interchange with Canadian wolf 

populations and between Idaho and 

northwestern Montana, (5) a young 

population age structure with successful 

pup production and survival, and (6) 

the establishment of wolf populations in 

and around core refugia (central Idaho 

Wilderness, YNP, Glacier National Park 

and associated public lands to these 

areas) have produced a robust and 

viable wolf population that currently 

has very high genetic and demographic 

diversity that occupies core refugia in 

the highest quality wolf habitat in the 

NRM of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

Maintenance of those conditions in the 

wolf population will depend solely on 

long-term future management to (1) 

regulate human-caused mortality and (2) 

maintain genetic connectivity among 

population segments, including Canada, 

either through deliberate relocation of 

wolves and/or encouraging sufficient 

natural dispersal’’ (Bangs 2002, pp. 3–4, 

8–9). 

Development of the Service’s recovery 

goal clearly recognized that the key to 

wolf recovery was establishing a viable 

demographically and genetically diverse 

wolf population in the core recovery 

areas of the NRM. We would ensure its 

future connectivity by promoting 

natural dispersal and genetic 

connectivity between the core recovery 

segments and/or by human-assist 

migration management in the unlikely 

event it was ever required (Fritts and 

Carbyn 1995; Groen et al. 2008). 

We measure the wolf recovery goal by 

the number of breeding pairs as well as 

by the number of wolves because wolf 

populations are maintained by packs 

that successfully raise pups. We use 

‘breeding pairs’ (packs that have at least 

an adult male and an adult female and 

that raised at least 2 pups until 

December 31) to describe successfully 

reproducing packs (Service 1994, p. 

6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 7–8; Mitchell et al. 

2008). The breeding pair metric 

includes most of the important 

biological concepts in wolf 

conservation. Specifically, we thought it 

was important for breeding pairs to 

have: Both male and female member 

together going into the February 

breeding season; successful occupation 

of a distinct territory (generally 500– 

1,300 km2 (200–500 mi2) and almost 

always in suitable habitat); enough pups 

to replace two adults; off-spring that 

become yearling dispersers; at least 4 

wolves following the point in the year 

with the highest mortality rates 

(summer and fall); all social structures 

and age classes represented within a 

wolf population; and adults that can 

raise and mentor younger wolves. 

Often we do not know if a specific 

pack actually contains an adult male, 

adult female, and two pups in winter; 

however, group size has proven to have 

a strong correlation with breeding pair 

status (Mitchell et al. 2008). Research 

indicates a pack size of around 9 

equates to one breeding pair (large packs 

have complex age classes—pups, 

yearlings and older adults). In the 

future, the States may be able to use 

pack size in winter as a surrogate to 

help reliably identify each pack’s 

contribution toward meeting our 

breeding pair recovery criteria and to 

better predict the effect of managing for 

certain pack sizes on wolf population 

recovery. 

We also have determined that an 

essential part of achieving recovery is an 

equitable distribution of wolf breeding 

pairs and individual wolves among the 

three States and the three recovery 

zones. Like peer reviewers in 1994 and 

2002, we concluded that NRM wolf 

recovery and long-term wolf population 

viability is dependent on its distribution 

as well as maintaining the minimum 

numbers of breeding pairs and wolves. 

While uniform distribution is not 

necessary, a well-distributed population 

with no one State/recovery area 

maintaining a disproportionately low 

number of packs or number of 

individual wolves is needed to maintain 

wolf distribution in and adjacent to core 

recovery areas and other suitable habitat 

throughout the NRM and to facilitate 

natural connectivity. 

Following the 2002 review of our 

recovery criteria, we began to use States, 

in addition to recovery areas, to measure 

progress toward recovery goals (Service 

et al. 2003–2009, Table 4). Because 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each 

contain the vast majority of one of the 

original three core recovery areas, we 

determined the metapopulation 

structure would be best conserved by 

equally dividing the overall recovery 

goal between the three States. This 

approach made each State’s 

responsibility for wolf conservation fair, 

consistent, and clear. It avoided any 

possible confusion that one State might 

assume the responsibility for 

maintaining the required number of 

wolves and wolf breeding pairs in a 

shared recovery area that was the 

responsibility of the adjacent State. 

State regulatory authorities and 

traditional management of resident 

game populations occur on a State-byState basis. Management by State would 

still maintain a robust wolf population 

in each core recovery area because they 

each contain manmade or natural 

refugia from human-caused mortality 

(e.g., National Parks, wilderness areas, 

and remote Federal lands) that 

guarantee those areas remain the 

stronghold for wolf breeding pairs and 

source of dispersing wolves in each 

State. Recovery targets by State promote 

connectivity and genetic exchange 

between the metapopulation segments 

by avoiding management that focuses 

solely on wolf breeding pairs in 

relatively distinct core recovery areas 

and promote a minimum level of 

potential natural dispersal to and from 

each population segment. This approach 

also will increase the numbers of 

potential wolf breeding pairs in the 

GYA because it is shared by all three 

States. A large and well-distributed 

population within the GYA is especially 

important because it is the most isolated 

recovery segment within the NRM DPS 

(Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et 

al. 2007, p. 19). 

The numerical component of the 

recovery goal represents the minimum 

number of breeding pairs and individual 

wolves needed to achieve and maintain 

recovery. To ensure that the NRM wolf 

population always exceeds the recovery 

goal of 30 breeding pairs and 300 

wolves, wolves in each State shall be 

managed for at least 15 breeding pairs 

and at least 150 wolves in mid-winter. 

This and other steps, including humanassisted migration management if 

required (discussed below), will 

maintain the NRM DPS’s current 

metapopulation structure. Further 

buffering our minimum recovery goal is 

the fact that Service data since 1986 

indicate that, within the NRM DPS, each 

breeding pair has corresponded to 14 

wolves in the overall NRM wolf 

population in mid-winter (including 

many wolves that travel outside these 

recognized breeding pairs) (Service et 

al. 2008, Table 4). Thus, managing for 

15 breeding pairs per State will result in 

substantially more than 150 wolves in 

each State (>600 in the NRM). 

Additionally, because the recovery goal 

components are measured in mid-winter 

when the wolf population is near its 

annual low point, the average annual 

wolf population will be much higher 

than these minimal goals. 

We further improved, provided 

additional safety margins, and assured 

that the minimum recovery criteria 

would always be exceeded in our 2009 

post-delisting monitoring plan. Three 

scenarios could lead us to initiate a 

status review and analysis of threats to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15133 

determine if relisting is warranted 

including: (1) If the wolf population for 

any one State falls below the minimum 

NRM wolf population recovery level of 

10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100 

wolves in either Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming at the end of the year; (2) if 

the portion of the wolf population in 

Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls 

below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolves 

at the end of the year in any one of those 

States for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if 

a change in State law or management 

objectives would significantly increase 

the threat to the wolf population. 

Overall, we believe the NRM wolf 

population will be managed for over 

1,000 wolves including over 300 wolves 

and 30 breeding pairs in the GYA (in 

2008 there were 35 breeding pairs and 

449 wolves in the GYA). This far 

exceeds post-delisting management 

targets of at least 45 breeding pairs and 

more than 450 wolves in the NRM. The 

NRM wolf population: (1) Has at least 

this number of reproductively 

successful packs and this number of 

individual wolves each winter (near the 

low point in the annual cycle of a wolf 

population); (2) is equitably distributed 

within the 250,000 km2 (100,000 mi2) 

area containing 3 areas of large core 

refugia (National Parks, wilderness 

areas, large blocks of remote secure 

public land) and at least 170,228 km2

(65,725 mi2) of suitable wolf habitat; 

and (3) is genetically diverse and has 

demonstrated successful genetic 

exchange through natural dispersal and 

human-assisted migration management 

between all three core refugia. It 

therefore no longer needs the 

protections of the Act and is a viable 

and fully recovered wolf population. 

Our recovery and post-delisting 

management goals were designed to 

provide the NRM gray wolf population 

with sufficient representation, 

resilience, and redundancy for their 

long-term conservation. We have 

expended considerable effort to 

develop, repeatedly reevaluate, and 

when necessary modify, the recovery 

goals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, 

Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 

1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 

10514, February 27, 2008; and this final 

rule). After evaluating all available 

information, we conclude the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available continues to support the 

ability of these recovery goals to ensure 

the population does not again become in 

danger of extinction. 

Genetic Diversity Relative to our 

Recovery Criteria—Currently, genetic 

diversity throughout the NRM is very 

high (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084; 

Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt 

et al. 2007, p. 19). Wolves in 

northwestern Montana and both the 

reintroduced populations are as 

genetically diverse as their source 

populations in Canada; thus, inadequate 

genetic diversity is not a wolf 

conservation issue in the NRM at this 

time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1089; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). Genetic 

connectivity resulting from natural 

dispersal alone, even in the GYA, 

appears adequate to prevent genetic 

drift and inbreeding depression that 

could threaten the wolf population. As 

a result, there is currently no need for 

management activities designed to 

further increase genetic diversity 

anywhere in the NRM DPS. However, 

should genetic problems ever 

materialize, an outcome we view as 

extremely unlikely, the States will 

utilize agency assisted genetic 

management to address the issue. 

Because genetic changes happen very 

slowly, the States would have many 

years, perhaps decades, to design and 

implement appropriate remedial 

actions. In short, the NRM wolf 

population is not now and will not ever 

be threatened by genetic diversity 

issues. This issue is discussed further in 

our response to comments and in Factor 

E below. 

Recovery and Genetics issues raised 

by the July 18, 2008 federal court 

injunction—The July 18, 2008, U.S. 

District Court for the District of Montana 

preliminary injunction order heavily 

cited vonHoldt et al. (2007). This study 

concluded ‘‘if the YNP wolf population 

remains relatively constant at 170 

individuals (estimated to be YNP’s 

carrying capacity), the population will 

demonstrate substantial inbreeding 

effects within 60 years,’’ resulting in an 

‘‘increase in juvenile mortality from an 

average of 23 to 40%, an effect 

equivalent to losing an additional pup 

in each litter.’’ The court also cited 

previous Service statements that call for 

‘‘genetic exchange’’ among recovery 

areas. The court further stated that 

dispersal of wolves between the GYA 

and the northwestern Montana and 

central Idaho core recovery areas was ‘‘a 

precondition to genetic exchange.’’ The 

preliminary injunction order cited our 

1994 EIS (Service 1994) and vonHoldt et 

al. (2007) to support its conclusion that 

a metapopulation had not been 

demonstrated in the NRM. 

The vonHoldt et al. (2007) paper did 

an excellent job of analyzing the 

empirical data regarding the pedigree 

for YNP wolves. That data proved the 

‘‘almost complete’’ natural selection for 

outbreeding by wolves and the high 

genetic diversity of wolves in YNP. We 

appreciate their recognition of our 

deliberate efforts to conserve genetic 

diversity. Specifically vonHoldt et al. 

(2007) stated that ‘‘Overall, our findings 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

reintroduction in preserving genetic 

diversity over the first decade of wolf 

recovery in Yellowstone’’ (vonHoldt et 

al. 2007, p. 19). Furthermore, we agree 

that any totally isolated wildlife 

population that is never higher than 170 

individuals which randomly breeds will 

lose genetic diversity over time. It is 

also true that high levels of inbreeding 

can sometimes, but not always, result in 

demographic issues such as reduced 

survival or reduced fertility. Such 

outcomes sometimes, but not always, 

result in demographic problems that 

threaten population viability. 

However, we question many of the 

assumptions that underpin the 

predictive modeling portion of 

vonHoldt et al. (2007) study’s 

conclusions. First, while the study 

found no evidence of genetic exchange 

into YNP (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2)), the 

Park is only a small portion of the GYA 

(63,700 km2 (24,600 mi2)). Further 

limiting the study’s ability to detect 

genetic exchange among subpopulations 

is the fact that most wolves that disperse 

to the GYA tend to avoid areas with 

existing resident packs or areas with 

high wolf densities, such as YNP. 

Moreover, even among the YNP wolves 

the study was limited to a subsample of 

Park wolves from 1995–2004 (i.e., the 

radio collared wolves). Thus, not 

surprisingly, subsequent analysis of 

additional wolves across the GYA has 

demonstrated gene flow among the GYA 

and the other recovery areas (vonHoldt 

et al. 2008; Wayne 2009, pers. comm.). 

It is also important to consider that 

our ability to detect genetic exchange 

within the NRM population is further 

limited by the genetic similarity of the 

NRM subpopulations. Specifically, 

because both the central Idaho and GYA 

subpopulations originate from a 

common source, only first and possible 

second generation offspring of a 

dispersing wolf can be detected. 

Additional genetic analysis of wolves 

from throughout the NRM population, 

including a larger portion of the GYA 

than just YNP, is ongoing. 

Second, the vonHoldt et al. (2007) 

prediction of eventual inbreeding in 

YNP relies upon several unrealistic 

assumptions. One such assumption 

limited the wolf population analysis to 

YNP’s (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2)) carrying 

capacity of 170 wolves, instead of the 

more than 300 wolves likely to be 

managed for in the entire GYA (63,700 

km2 (24,600 mi2)) by Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming. The vonHoldt et al., 

(2007) predictive model also capped the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

population at the YNP population’s 

winter low point, rather than at higher 

springtime levels when pups are born. 

Springtime levels are sometimes double 

the winter low. Most importantly, the 

vonHoldt et al. (2007) assumed no gene 

flow into the area; an assumption now 

proven incorrect. This issue is fully 

explained in Factor E below. 

Conclusion of a reanalysis of the wolf 

recovery goals for the NRM DPS—In its 

July 18, 2008 preliminary injunction 

order, the District Court concluded that 

the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on 

their claim that the NRM had not 

achieved its recovery goal because 

genetic exchange was ‘promised’ by the 

recovery criteria but had not occurred 

between wolves in the GYA area and the 

other recovery areas. The court cited a 

recent genetic study of wolves in YNP 

(vonHoldt et al. 2007). The court also 

suggested that higher rates of mortality 

associated with State management 

would further reduce the future 

opportunity for genetic exchange and 

ultimately threatened the wolf 

population. As a result of the court 

ruling we have reevaluated our wolf 

recovery goal for the NRM DPS and 

determined it is still scientifically valid, 

represents the minimum wolf 

population that would not be threatened 

or endangered in the foreseeable future, 

and all the biological conditions 

associated with the recovery goal have 

been completely achieved. Our 

reasoning is detailed below and in our 

discussion of Factor E. 

The wolf recovery goal for the NRM 

has been repeatedly reevaluated and 

improved as new scientific information 

warranted. Modifications of the 1987 

recovery plan goals based on recent 

information, further analysis, and new 

scientific thinking were made in 1994 

(Service 1994), 1999 (Service 1999), 

2002 (Bangs 2002), 2008 (73 FR 10514, 

February 27, 2008), and in this rule. As 

a result of the court ruling, we have 

carefully reevaluated our recovery goal 

again and reaffirmed that ‘‘Thirty or 

more breeding pairs comprising some 

300+ wolves in a metapopulation (a 

population that exists as partially 

isolated sets of subpopulations) with 

genetic exchange between 

subpopulations should have a high 

probability of long-term persistence’’ 

because it would contain enough 

individuals in successfully reproducing 

packs that were distributed over distinct 

but somewhat connected large areas of 

suitable habitat, to be viable for the 

long-term (Service 1994, p. 6:75). The 

vast majority of wolf experts throughout 

the world who were contacted believed 

the NRM wolf recovery goal represented 

the minimum criteria to describe a 

viable and recovered wolf population 

(Service 1994, p. 6–75; Bangs 2002). 

Genetic studies in the NRM are 

continuing. While that work 

demonstrates that both human-assisted 

and natural genetic exchange has 

occurred in the GYA, the rate at which 

this exchange has naturally occurred in 

the GYA is being determined. However, 

vonHoldt et al. (2008) reported that 

‘‘Based on migrant detection and 

assignment test our results suggest that 

adequate genetic connectivity exists 

between central Idaho and northwestern 

Montana populations, there is limited 

effective dispersal between central 

Idaho or northwestern Montana to GYA 

(although 15 unknown GYA individuals 

need to be resolved) and there have 

been no migrants genetically detected 

that have (naturally) dispersed into the 

YNP portion of the GYA.’’ They went on 

to state ‘‘Since this analysis only 

includes samples up to 2004, and due 

to sample size limitations in some areas 

(GYA outside of YNP), adding more 

samples and including samples up to 

2008 may alter interpretation. 

Specifically, genetic connectivity may 

be higher between GYA and other 

recovery areas than currently believed.’’ 

We concurred with that determination. 

Indeed subsequent analysis confirmed 

offspring from some wolves that 

naturally dispersed into the GYA, as 

well as the wolf pups that were 

relocated into YNP in 1997, have been 

detected as additional samples were 

analyzed (Wayne 2009, pers. comm.). 

We will continue to collect and analyze 

genetic samples to monitor the genetic 

health of the NRM wolf population 

(Groen et al. 2008). 

Regardless of the outcome of those 

ongoing genetic studies— 

(1) Ongoing or confirmed genetic 

exchange was never required by our 

recovery goal, although it has now been 

documented. The recovery goal 

assumed that the presence of dispersing 

wolves from other recovery areas alone 

was enough evidence of the likelihood 

of ‘genetic’ exchange among recovery 

areas (the reason wolves disperse is to 

find mates and breeding opportunities). 

Sixty-eight percent of relocated (humanassisted dispersal) wolves in the NRM 

became breeders (Bradley et al. 2005). 

The presence of individual natural 

dispersing wolves in every recovery 

segment, including the GYA, indicates 

that the NRM has a metapopulation 

structure and that no segment is 

completely isolated from the others. 

(2) Because GYA and central Idaho 

wolves share a recent common genetic 

history (siblings released in each area), 

it is very difficult to detect anything 

beyond first or second generation 

offspring from long range dispersing 

wolves. Significant changes in genetic 

health generally take place over many 

generations and decades not years. 

(3) A metapopulation is one where no 

segment is totally isolated from the 

others. A metapopulation does not 

require a certain level of natural or 

human-assisted migration management 

during a specified time period to meet 

the definition of a metapopulation. We 

have proven human-assisted migration 

management is easy to do with wolves. 

However, at least for decades, there 

should be no genetic or demographic 

reasons to move more wolves or their 

genes between the subpopulations and/ 

or Canada. However, it is also common 

sense that a wolf population in three 

equal subpopulations managed near the 

minimum levels of 500 wolves would be 

far more likely to require future humanassisted migration management than a 

wolf population managed at over 1,000 

wolves in mid-winter. 

(4) The assertion that successful 

recovery can only depend on solely 

natural processes is not accurate. If that 

were the case management of any wolf 

population, including the ongoing red 

wolf and Mexican wolf programs, as 

well as in any other potential wolf 

recovery programs in the U.S. (or in 

many parts of the world) could never 

lead to recovery. In addition, nearly all 

recovery programs under the Act and 

the subsequent management of those 

populations after delisting will require 

human intervention such as captive 

breeding, relocations, population 

augmentations, control of exotics or 

predators, maintenance or preservation 

of important habitat through prescribed 

fire, control of fire, flooding, and etc. In 

addition, most routine State and federal 

management programs for common 

wildlife species still require continued 

human management intervention by: 

Human control by agencies or by public 

hunts to raise management funding, 

limit property damage, and foster public 

tolerance; reintroductions, 

augmentation and captive breeding/ 

rearing; habitat manipulation (fire and 

firefighting, logging, crops, water 

control structures, etc.); control of 

exotics, invasive species, or pests; and 

many other common wildlife 

management tools. 

(5) The Service’s recovery goal never 

required that offspring from long 

distance dispersing wolves and resident 

wolves be proven for the recovery goal 

to be met. Relocations or mere presence 

of dispersing wolves was believed to be 

adequate proof of connectivity. 

‘‘Recovered Wolf Population—In the 

northern Rockies a recovered wolf 

population is 10 breeding pairs of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15135 

wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 

successive years with some level of wolf 

movement between areas’’ (Service 

1994, pp. 6–7). However, regardless of 

the 1994 definition, natural dispersal 

and human-assisted migration 

management has resulted in 

documented genetic exchange between 

dispersing and resident wolves among 

all three recovery areas, including the 

GYA. 

(6) The level of natural dispersal that 

has been documented to date makes it 

highly unlikely that further humanassisted migration management would 

ever be required—even in the GYA, by 

far the most isolated recovery area in the 

NRM, especially if populations are 

managed at higher (>1,000 wolves) 

rather than lower (<500 wolves) 

numbers. 

(7) There are currently absolutely no 

genetic or demographic problems in any 

of the core recovery segments, including 

the GYA. The proximity of the three 

NRM recovery segments and the natural 

dispersal abilities of wolves represent a 

classic wolf metapopulation structure 

that will be maintained into the 

foreseeable future. The States, except 

Wyoming, committed to initiate 

migration management, should it ever 

needed, and their commitment 

completely resolves a highly unlikely 

theoretical future genetic inbreeding 

problem (that would still not threaten or 

endanger the NRM wolf population) by 

a guaranteed proven solution to genetic 

inbreeding; namely human-assisted 

migration management (Groen et al. 

2008). 

(8) The States (except Wyoming, 

which declined to sign the 2008 

Genetics Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) (Groen et al. 

2008) and Service have committed to 

maintain that natural metapopulation 

structure of the NRM wolf population to 

the extent possible by encouraging 

natural dispersal and effective migrants 

and have implemented management 

practices that should foster both 

(maintaining the wolf population at 

higher rather than minimum levels, 

greater rather than more restricted pack 

distribution throughout suitable habitat, 

and reducing human-caused wolf 

mortality during key dispersing and 

reproductive time periods, and maintain 

the integrity of the core recovery areas/ 

refugia (largely National Parks and 

wilderness areas)). In addition the States 

and Service and other federal agencies 

and have committed to monitor wolf 

genetics over time and should data 

suggest it is appropriate, conduct 

human-assisted migration management, 

which we believe is extremely unlikely 

to be necessary (Groen et al. 2008). 

Monitoring and Managing Recovery— 

In 1989, we formed an Interagency Wolf 

Working Group (Working Group) 

composed of Federal, State, and Tribal 

agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; 

Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; Service et al. 

1989–2009, p. 1). The Working Group 

conducted four basic recovery tasks 

(Service et al. 1989–2009, pp. 1–2), in 

addition to the standard enforcement 

functions associated with the take of a 

listed species. These tasks were: (1) 

Monitor wolf distribution and numbers; 

(2) control wolves that attacked 

livestock by moving them, conducting 

other non-lethal measures, or by killing 

them (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 7); (3) 

conduct research and publish scientific 

publications on wolf relationships to 

ungulate prey, other carnivores and 

scavengers, livestock, and people; and 

(4) provide accurate science-based 

information to the public and mass 

media so that people could develop 

their opinions about wolves and wolf 

management from an informed 

perspective. 

The size and distribution of the wolf 

population is estimated by the Working 

Group each year and, along with other 

information, is published in an 

interagency annual report (Service et al. 

1989–2009, Table 4, Figure 1). Since the 

early 1980s, the Service and our 

cooperating partners have radio-collared 

and monitored over 1,100 wolves in the 

NRM to assess population status, 

conduct research, and to reduce/resolve 

conflict with livestock. The Working 

Group’s annual population estimates 

represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

year-end NRM gray wolf population size 

and trends, as well as distributional and 

other information. 

Recovery by State—At the end of 

2000, the NRM population first met its 

overall numerical and distributional 

recovery goal of a minimum of 30 

breeding pairs and over 300 wolves 

well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 

2003; Service et al. 2001, Table 4). 

Because the recovery goal must be 

achieved for 3 consecutive years, the 

temporal element of recovery was not 

achieved until the end of 2002 when 

663 wolves and 49 breeding pairs were 

present (Service et al. 2003, Table 4). By 

the end of 2008, the NRM wolf 

population will have achieved its 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goal for 9 consecutive years (Service et 

al. 2001–2009, Table 4; Service 2008; 68 

FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, 

February 8, 2006). 

By the end of 2008, the NRM gray 

wolf population included 

approximately 1,639 NRM wolves (491 

in Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 in 

Wyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 in 

Montana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming). 

The wolf population estimate for 2008 

is slightly higher than that for 2007, 

indicating a declining rate of increase as 

suitable habitat becomes increasingly 

saturated with resident wolf packs. 

From 1995 to 2008, the NRM wolf 

population increased an average of 

about 22 percent annually with 

increases ranging from 8 to 50 percent 

(Service et al. 2009, Table 4). In 2008 

the overall population increased at the 

slowest rate since 1995. Figure 2 

illustrates wolf population trends by 

State from 1979 to 2007. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

As discussed previously, after the 

2002 peer review of the wolf recovery 

efforts, we began using States, in 

addition to recovery areas, to measure 

progress toward recovery goals (Service 

et al. 2003–2009, Table 4). However, 

because the original recovery plan 

included goals for core recovery areas 

we have included the following 

discussion on the history of the recovery 

efforts and status of these core recovery 

areas, including how the wolf 

population’s distribution and 

metapopulation structure is important 

to maintaining its viability and how the 

biological characteristics of each core 

recovery area differ (Service et al. 2009, 

Table 4). 

Recovery in the Northwestern 

Montana Recovery Area—The 

Northwestern Montana Recovery Area’s 

84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2) includes 

Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, 

Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat 

Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 

and private lands in northern Montana 

and the northern Idaho panhandle. 

Wolves in this recovery area were listed 

and managed an endangered species. 

Wolves naturally recolonized this area 

from Canada. Reproduction first 

occurred in northwestern Montana in 

1986 (Ream et al. 1989). The natural 

ability of wolves to find and quickly 

recolonize empty habitat (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, p. 17–19), the interim 

control plan (Service 1988, 1999), and 

the interagency recovery program 

combined to effectively promote an 

increase in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991, 

p. 7–13). By 1996, the number of wolves 

had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 

known breeding pairs. However, since 

1997, the estimated number of breeding 

pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partly 

due to actual population size and partly 

due to monitoring effort. It varied from 

4 to 23 breeding pairs and from 49 to 

276 wolves (Service et al. 2009, Table 

4), but generally increased. By the end 

of 2008, we estimated 276 wolves in 18 

breeding pairs in the northwestern 

Montana recovery area (Service et al. 

2009, Table 4). 

The Northwestern Montana Recovery 

Area has sustained fewer wolves than 

the other recovery areas because there is 

less suitable habitat and it is more 

fragmented (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 560; 

Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). Some of the 

variation in our wolf population 

estimates for northwestern Montana is 

due to the difficulty of counting wolves 

in the area’s thick forests. Wolves in 

northwestern Montana also prey mainly 

on white-tailed deer, resulting in 

smaller packs and territories, which 

lowers the chances of a pack being 

detected (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). 

Increased monitoring efforts in 

northwestern Montana by Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) since 

2005 were likely responsible for some of 

the higher population estimates. Wolf 

numbers in 2003 and 2004 also likely 

exceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves, but were not documented 

simply due to less intensive monitoring 

those years (Service et al. 2009, Table 4). 

By the end of 2009, this recovery area 

will contain over 10 breeding pair and 

100 wolves for the fourth consecutive 

year (2005–2008), and probably has 

done so for the last seven years (2002– 

2008) (Service et al. 2009, Table 4). 

Routine dispersal of wolves has been 

documented among northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho and adjacent 

Canadian populations demonstrating 

that northwestern Montana’s wolves are 

demographically and genetically linked 

to both the wolf population in Canada 

and in central Idaho (Pletscher et al. 

1991, pp. 547–8; Boyd and Pletscher 

1999, pp. 1105–1106; Sime 2007, p. 4; 

Jimenez et al. 2008d). Because of fairly 

contiguous, but fractured suitable 

habitat wolves dispersing into 

northwestern Montana from both 

directions will continue to join or form 

new packs and supplement this segment 

of the overall wolf population (Boyd et 

al. 2007; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082; 

Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd et 

al. 1995, p. 140; vonHoldt et al. 2007, 

p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2008; Thiessen 

2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez et 

al. 2008d). 

Unlike YNP or the central Idaho 

Wilderness complex, northwestern 

Montana lacks a large core refugium that 

contains large numbers of overwintering 

wild ungulates and few livestock. 

Therefore, wolf numbers may not ever 

be as high in northwestern Montana as 

they are in central Idaho or the GYA. 

However, that population segment has 

persisted for nearly 20 years, is robust 

today, and habitat there is capable of 

supporting over 200 wolves (Service et 

al. 2008, Table 4). State management, 

pursuant to the Montana State wolf 

management plan (2003), will ensure 

this population segment continues to 

thrive (see Factor D). 

Recovery in the Central Idaho 

Recovery Area—The Central Idaho 

Recovery Area’s 53,600 km2 (20,700 

mi2) includes the Selway Bitterroot, 

Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of 

No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness 

Areas; adjacent, mostly Federal lands, in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER02AP09.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15137 

central Idaho; and adjacent parts of 

southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. 

iv). In January 1995, 15 young adult 

wolves from Alberta, Canada were 

released in central Idaho (Bangs and 

Fritts 1996, p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 

7). In January 1996, an additional 20 

wolves from British Columbia were 

released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). 

Central Idaho contains the greatest 

amount of highly suitable wolf habitat 

compared to either northwestern 

Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. 

2005, p. 559). Consequently, the central 

Idaho area population has grown 

substantially and expanded its range 

since reintroduction. As in the 

Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, 

some of the Central Idaho Recovery 

Area’s increase in its wolf population 

estimate was due to an increased 

monitoring effort by Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game (IDFG). At the end of 

2008, we estimated 914 wolves in 42 

breeding pairs in the central Idaho 

recovery area (Service et al. 2009, Table 

4). By the end of 2008, this recovery 

area will have contained at least 10 

breeding pair and 100 wolves for 11 

consecutive years (1998–2008) (Service 

et al. 2009; Service 2008). 

Recovery in the GYA—The GYA 

recovery area (63,700 km2 [24,600 mi2]) 

includes YNP; the Absaroka Beartooth, 

North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton 

Wilderness Areas (the National Park/ 

Wilderness units); adjacent public and 

private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent 

parts of Idaho and Montana (Service 

1994, p. iv). The wilderness portions of 

the GYA are primarily used seasonally 

by wolves due to high elevation, deep 

snow, and low productivity in terms of 

sustaining year-round wild ungulate 

populations (Service et al. 2008, Figure 

3). In 1995, 14 wolves representing 3 

family groups from Alberta were 

released in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, 

p. 409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips 

and Smith 1996, pp. 33–43). In 1996, 

this procedure was repeated with 17 

wolves representing 4 family groups 

from British Columbia. Finally, 10 5- 

month old pups removed from 

northwestern Montana in a wolf control 

action were released in YNP in the 

spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 

787). Only 2 of these 10 pups survived 

past 9 months of their release, but both 

became breeding adults and their 

genetic signature is common both in 

YNP and the GYA (VonHoldt 2008). By 

the end of 2008, we estimated 449 

wolves in 35 breeding pairs in the GYA 

(Service et al. 2008). By the end of 2008, 

this recovery area had at least 10 

breeding pair and 100 wolves for 9 

consecutive years (2000–2008) (Service 

et al. 2009; Service 2008). 

Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable 

in 2005, but known breeding pairs 

dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs 

(Service et al. 2006, Table 4). The 

population recovered in 2006, primarily 

because numbers outside YNP in 

Wyoming grew to about 174 wolves in 

15 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2008). 

Most of this decline occurred in YNP 

which declined from 171 wolves in 16 

known breeding pairs in 2004 to 118 

wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 

(Service et al. 2005, 2006, Tables 1–4). 

This decline likely occurred because: (1) 

Highly suitable habitat in YNP was 

saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict 

among packs appeared to limit 

population density; (3) fewer elk occur 

in YNP than when reintroduction took 

place (White and Garrott 2006, p. 942; 

Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) a 

suspected 2005 outbreak of disease 

(canine parvovirus (CPV) or canine 

distemper (CD)) reduced that years’ pup 

survival to 20 percent (Service et al. 

2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 2006, p. 244; 

Smith and Almberg 2007, pp. 17–20). 

By the end of 2007, the YNP wolf 

population had rebounded and was 

estimated to contain 171 wolves in 10 

breeding pairs (Service et al. 2008). In 

2008, we saw a relatively high number 

of wolves killing other wolves and a 

high mortality rate among pups (this 

may be due to a disease outbreak, but 

the NPS will not be sure until winter 

when park biologists capture wolves 

and test their blood for antibodies). At 

the current time the YNP wolf 

population may be 124 wolves in 12 

packs and only 6 breeding pairs (Service 

et al. 2009). Additional significant 

growth in the National Park/Wilderness 

portions of the Wyoming wolf 

population above 200 wolves is very 

unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is 

saturated with resident wolf packs. 

Maintaining wolf populations safely 

above recovery levels and promoting 

demographic and genetic exchange in 

the GYA segment of the NRM area will 

depend on wolf packs living outside the 

National Park/Wilderness portions of 

northwestern Wyoming and 

southwestern Montana. 

For further information on the history 

of NRM wolf recovery, recovery 

planning (including defining 

appropriate recovery criteria), 

population monitoring (through the end 

of 2008), and cooperation and 

coordination with our partners in 

achieving recovery, see the ‘‘Recovery’’ 

section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month 

status review (71 FR 43410), Service 

weekly wolf reports (1995–2008), and 

the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

Interagency Annual Reports (Service et 

al. 1989–2009) at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov. 

Summary of the demographic 

characteristics of the NRM wolf 

population—In late 2008, the NRM wolf 

population was estimated to contain 

about 1,639 wolves in nearly 200 packs 

(two or more wolves with a territory); 95 

of these packs also classified as breeding 

pairs (packs with an adult male, adult 

female, and at least 2 pups on December 

31). After delisting it will be managed 

by the States, National Park Service, and 

Service to average over 1,100 wolves, 

fluctuating around 400 wolves in 

Montana, 500 in Idaho, and 200 to 300 

in Wyoming. The NRM wolf population 

is a three part metapopulation, 

composed of core areas of suitable 

habitat and refugia in northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho and the GYA. 

The most isolated subpopulation in the 

NRM is the GYA. The territories of 

persistent breeding pairs in GYA and 

central Idaho are 160 km (100 mi) apart, 

but packs and occasionally breeding 

pairs are often within 100 km (60 mi) of 

each other. The GYA had 449 wolves as 

of Dec 31, 2008, but will likely be 

managed above 300 wolves in portions 

of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming in the 

long term. Central Idaho and northwest 

Montana are connected by routine 

dispersal events to the contiguous 

western Canadian wolf population that 

contains 12,000 wolves in British 

Columbia and Alberta. Collectively, the 

NRM is distinct in the lower 48 United 

States because it is surrounded by large 

expanses of unsuitable habitat in 

Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, 

Colorado, and the Dakotas. 

Average dispersal distance by wolves 

in the NRM is 100 km (60 mi) and drops 

off sharply past 300 km (190 mi). 

Several individuals have gone >600km 

(>400 mi), but none of these long distant 

dispersers in the United States are 

known to have survived long enough to 

breed. Comparing a model of theoretical 

suitable wolf habitat in the NRM 

(Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559) with the 

distribution of wolf packs since 2002 

indicates most suitable habitat is filled 

with resident packs (Service et al. 2003– 

2009, Figure 1). The outer boundary of 

the entire NRM wolf population has not 

changed much (a minimum convex 

polygon of 280,000 km2 (∼110,000 mi2) 

since 2002 (Figure 1)). Nearly all wolf 

population growth has occurred within 

the suitable habitat area within the past 

6 years. Suitable habitat is typically 

forested, public land, seasonally grazed 

by livestock (mainly cattle), and has 

abundant wild ungulates (primarily elk, 

deer, and moose). Wolf packs have not 

persisted in unsuitable habitat (open 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

prairie and high desert, more human 

activity & access, abundant livestock 

throughout the year, fewer wild 

ungulates) even under the Act’s most 

protective designation as ‘‘endangered’’. 

The two major causes of mortality are 

agency control of problem wolves and 

illegal killing—each one causing on 

average about a 10% mortality rate 

annually (3% unintentional humancaused and 3% natural). Average radiocollared wolf (n = ∼940 wolves) annual 

survival was 74 percent, and varied 

from 80 percent in national parks and 

remote wildness areas down to 60 

percent in areas more developed by 

humans (Murray et al. 2008; Smith et al. 

2008). There is an average of just over 

five pups per pack, but that decreased 

to an average of about 4 pups by winter. 

Periodically there are as few as 2 

surviving pups in packs in a few 

localized areas (YNP) due to outbreaks 

of canine diseases (largely canine 

distemper). Only about 60% of all wolf 

packs classified as breeding pairs each 

year and adult and pup survival, rather 

than reproduction, was the key 

determinate on a pack’s final status. 

Those packs that did not qualify either 

were not surveyed intensively enough to 

document final status, did not raise at 

least 2 pups, were not confirmed to 

contain both an adult male and female 

on Dec 31, or contact with them was lost 

(missing, killed, radio-collar loss, etc) 

before winter. Therefore, the breeding 

pair estimate represents a minimum and 

conservative measure of the number of 

wolf packs that actually meet the 

breeding pair metric. 

The NRM population grew at an 

average annual rate of 22 percent per 

year from 1995–2008 (Service et al. 

2009, Table 4). The NRM population in 

2008 grew slowly, indicating it could be 

approaching the carrying capacity of 

suitable habitat. Wolf populations 

regulate their distribution by their social 

territoriality. Packs defend exclusive 

areas of 200 to 500 square miles and 

defend those areas from other lone 

wolves and packs. Wolves regulate their 

density depending on food availability. 

If food is limited pack territories are 

larger meaning fewer can fit into a 

limited space. If prey is abundant packs 

can fulfill their needs in a smaller area 

and therefore more packs can fit into a 

smaller area. In the NRM, with its 

limited suitable habitat and relatively 

fixed prey base, the wolf population has 

grown by having wolves in more places 

within suitable habitat not by having 

more wolves in the same space or packs 

beginning to occupy unsuitable habitat. 

We believe that scientific evidence such 

as the well documented self regulation 

of wolf populations by prey density and 

social strife (Fuller et al. 2003); stagnant 

overall distribution of packs since 2002 

(Figure 1); limited amount of suitable 

habitat in the NRM (Oakleaf et al. 2006); 

high mortality of wolves in unsuitable 

habitat due to chronic conflicts with 

people (Smith et al. 2008); increase 

livestock depredations and more control 

(in many areas); and slowly of wolf 

population growth rates in recent years 

(Service et al. 2009); all indicate that the 

NRM wolf population maybe 

approaching its carrying capacity in 

suitable habitat. Maintaining wolf 

numbers above 1,500 maybe difficult as 

the rate of conflicts per wolf would 

increase greatly if packs tried to occupy 

unsuitable habitat. Movement and 

breeding by dispersing wolves between 

northwestern Montana, central Idaho 

and southwest Canada appears 

common. GYA is the most distinct area, 

but between radio telemetry data (1995– 

2008) and genetic analysis (1995–2004) 

it appears that there is about one natural 

dispersing wolf entering the GYA per 

year and a little more than one effective 

migrant per generation (a ‘new’ wolf 

that breeds every four years) in the GYA 

system. Contemporary statistics for 

genetic diversity from 2002–2004 for 

central Idaho, northwestern Montana, 

and the GYA, respectively are; n = 85, 

104, 210; allelic diversity = 9.5, 9.1, 

10.3; observed heterozygosity = 0.723, 

0.650, 0.708; expected heterozygosity = 

0.767, 0.728, 0.738. (vonHoldt et al. 

2008). These levels have not diminished 

since 1995. The small differences 

between expected and observed 

heterozygosity around 0.70 on a scale of 

zero (no diversity) to 1 (maximum 

possible diversity, which is very 

unlikely to be encountered in a wild 

population) and high allelic (alleles are 

the different forms of a gene) diversity 

averaging over 9 alleles per locus 

(location of a gene on a chromosome) 

demonstrate all subpopulations within 

the NRM wolf populations have high 

standing levels of genetic variability. By 

all measures the NRM wolf population 

is extremely demographically and 

genetically diverse, will remain so, and 

is completely biologically recovered. 

Public Comments Solicited 

In our proposed rule, we requested 

that all interested parties submit 

information, data, comments or 

suggestions (72 FR 6106, February 8, 

2007). The comment period was open 

from February 8, 2007 through May 9, 

2007 (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 72 

FR 14760, March 29, 2007), from July 6, 

2007 through August 6, 2007 (72 FR 

36939, July 6, 2007), and from October 

28, 2008 through November 28, 2008 (73 

FR 63926, October 28, 2008). We also 

held eight public hearings and eight 

open houses on the proposal (72 FR 

6106, February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, 

March 29, 2007; 73 FR 36939, July 6, 

2007). During the 150-day comment 

period, we received over 520,000 

comments including approximately 

240,000 comments during our most 

recent comment period. Comments were 

submitted by a wide array of parties, 

including the general public, 

environmental organizations, sportsman 

and outfitter groups, agricultural 

agencies and organizations, and Tribal, 

Federal, State, and local governments. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Interagency 

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered 

Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270, 

July 1, 1994) and the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review, we solicited independent 

review of the science in the proposed 

delisting rule from eight well-published 

North American scientists with 

extensive expertise in wolf biology. All 

eight peer reviewers submitted 

comments on the proposed delisting 

rule during the initial 90-day comment 

period (72 FR 6106, February 8, 2007; 

72 FR 14760, March 29, 2007). Five of 

those experts reviewed the proposal 

again after we reopened the comment 

period (73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007) to 

allow consideration of Wyoming’s 

revised wolf management plan and its 

impact upon our proposal. Finally, on 

October 29, 2008, we provided these 

eight experts and nine others the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

our February 8, 2007 (72 FR 6106) 

delisting proposal and our October 28, 

2008 (73 FR 63926) notice reopening the 

comment period. None offered any 

additional comments on the rule 

making, although several offered 

comments on our draft genetics MOU 

(Groen et al. 2008). 

Generally, the reviewers agreed with 

our conclusion that the wolf population 

in the NRM DPS is biologically 

recovered and is no longer threatened as 

long as the States adequately regulate 

human-caused mortality. The reviewers 

provided many valuable thoughts, 

questions, and suggestions for 

improving the document. Issues 

identified by a majority of reviewers 

included suggestions to expand the 

discussion related to: The recovery 

criteria (connectivity, foreseeable future, 

metapopulation, and breeding pairs); 

the adequacy of State wolf management 

plans and their future commitments; 

how the DPS boundary and criteria for 

suitable habitat were developed; options 

to retain the Act’s protections in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15139 

portions of Wyoming; and the effect of 

human-caused mortality on the wolf 

population. 

Summary of Public Comments 

We reviewed and considered all 

comments in this final decision. 

Substantive comments received during 

the comment periods and all new 

information have been addressed below 

or incorporated directly into this final 

rule. Comments of a similar nature are 

grouped together under subject headings 

in a series of ‘‘Issues’’ and ‘‘Responses.’’ 

Technical and Editorial Comments 

Issue 1: Numerous technical and 

editorial comments and corrections 

were provided by respondents on nearly 

every part of the proposal. Several peer 

reviewers and others suggested or 

provided additional literature to 

consider in the final rule. 

Response 1: We corrected and 

updated this final rule wherever 

appropriate and possible. We edited the 

rule to make its purpose and rationale 

clearer. We shortened and condensed 

several sections by not repeating 

information that was already contained 

in the references cited. Several other 

sections were expanded to better 

explain our position. 

The literature used and recommended 

by the peer reviewers and others has 

been considered and incorporated, as 

appropriate, in this final rule. We also 

reviewed and added literature in 

development and in press to our 

reference list when it represents the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The list of literature cited in 

this rule will be posted on our Web site 

(http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/). 

Compliance With Laws, Regulations 

and Policy 

Issue 2: Numerous parties suggested 

that delisting the NRM DPS does not 

comply with our legal, regulatory, and 

policy responsibilities. 

Response 2: We have carefully 

reviewed the legal requirements of the 

Act, its implementing regulations, and 

relevant case law, all relevant Executive, 

Secretarial, and Director Orders, 

Departmental and Service policy, and 

other Federal policies and procedures. 

We believe this rule and the process by 

which it was developed fully satisfies 

all of our legal, regulatory, and policy 

responsibilities. Issues relating to 

specific concerns such as identifying a 

DPS, using State boundaries as part of 

the DPS boundary, retaining the Act’s 

protections in significant portions of the 

NRM DPS, legal criteria for judging 

adequate regulatory mechanisms, 

adequacy of the public comment 

process, clarity of our proposal, and 

several other legal requirements are 

each specifically addressed elsewhere in 

this rule. Furthermore, on December 12, 

2008 a formal opinion was issued by the 

Solicitor of the Department of the 

Interior, ‘‘U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the 

Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Species 

to ‘Reflect Recent Determinations’ ’’ 

(U.S. DOI 2008). The Service fully 

agrees with the analysis and 

conclusions set out in the Solicitor’s 

opinion. This action is consistent with 

the opinion. The complete text of the 

Solicitor’s opinion can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/. 

Issue 3: Some commenters suggested 

that a new NEPA analysis on the 1995 

reintroduction was needed because 

wolves have exceeded levels analyzed 

in the 1994 Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Others suggested NEPA 

compliance on the delisting was needed 

for other reasons. 

Response 3: The 1994 EIS was limited 

to the NRM wolf reintroduction efforts 

and is not applicable to the delisting 

process. As noted in the proposed rule, 

NEPA compliance documents, such as 

environmental assessments or 

environmental impact statements, need 

not be prepared in connection with 

actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a) 

of the Act (listings, delistings, and 

reclassifications). A notice outlining the 

Service’s reasons for this determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Issue 4: Some commenters suggested 

that we did not adequately consult with 

Native American Tribes, as required by 

Secretarial Order 3206 and our Native 

American Policy. 

Response 4: During the development 

of the proposal and this final rule, we 

endeavored to consult with Native 

American Tribes and Native American 

organizations to provide them 

information concerning the proposal 

and gain an understanding of their 

perspectives. We made additional 

efforts to contact and inform Tribes 

during the comment period, including 

providing the opportunity for 

informational meetings with Tribal 

representatives before the open houses 

and hearings on the delisting proposal. 

As we have become aware of Native 

American concerns, we have tried to 

address those concerns to the extent 

allowed by the Act, the Administrative 

Procedures Act, and other Federal 

statutes. Specifically, we worked closely 

with and fund the Nez Perce Tribe’s 

wolf management program, assisted the 

Wind River Tribes in developing a 

Tribal Wolf Management Plan (Wind 

River Tribes 2007) that we approved in 

June 2007, and coordinated with the 

Salish and Kootenai and Blackfeet 

Tribes regarding wolf management on 

their Tribal lands. 

Recovery Goals, Recovery Criteria, and 

Delisting 

Issue 5: Some commenters suggested 

that we should not use numerical quotas 

in reclassification or delisting decisions 

for the gray wolf. Commenters offered a 

multitude of reasons why delisting is 

warranted/not warranted or premature/ 

overdue. 

Response 5: The Act specifies that 

objective and measurable criteria be 

developed for recovering listed species. 

For a detailed discussion of the NRM 

wolf recovery criteria see the Recovery 

section. This final delisting 

determination is based upon the 

species’ status relative to the Act’s 

definition of threatened or endangered 

and considers potential threats to the 

species as outlined in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act. Population numbers and status 

provide useful information for assessing 

the species’ vulnerability to these 

factors. As described in detail in this 

rule, the species no longer meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

in all of its range, thus, delisting across 

most of the NRM DPS is warranted. 

Issue 6: Some commenters requested 

that we further explain the recovery 

criteria. These commenters expressed 

confusion over the current recovery goal 

because recent modifications have not 

been accomplished through the recovery 

planning process. 

Response 6: The Service’s current 

recovery goal for the NRM gray wolf 

population is: Thirty or more breeding 

pairs (an adult male and an adult female 

that raise at least 2 pups until December 

31) comprising 300+ wolves in a 

metapopulation (a population that exists 

as partially isolated sets of 

subpopulations) with genetic exchange 

between subpopulations (Service 1994; 

Fritts and Carbyn 1995). Step-down 

recovery targets require Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming to each maintain at least 

10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves by 

managing for a safety margin of at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in mid-winter. Genetic exchange 

can be natural or, if necessary, agency 

managed. The rule now provides a fuller 

explanation of the recovery goals and 

their evolution over time (see the 

Reclassification and Recovery Goals 

section). 

Issue 7: Several commenters used the 

higher numbers of wolves required for 

recovery of wolves in the WGL DPS as 

evidence that the NRM wolf population 

is too low to delist. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response 7: The recovery goals for the 

WGL DPS and the NRM DPS differ 

because the biological circumstances 

(such as prey type and density, wolf 

density, habitat suitability, terrain, other 

ecological conditions, the history of 

recovery and planning efforts, and 

potential for human conflict) in each 

area differ. The WGL can support more 

and higher densities of wolves because 

of high white-tailed deer density, 

homogenous and more contiguous 

suitable habitat, different patterns of 

livestock density, distribution, and 

management, and different patterns of 

human access. However, the standards 

for achieving recovery have the same 

biological foundation. Each set of 

recovery goals required a 

metapopulation structure, numerical 

and distribution delisting criteria to be 

exceeded for several years, State plans 

that would adequately regulate wolf 

mortality, and sufficient elimination or 

reduction of threats to the population. 

The standards for achieving recovery in 

the WGL DPS and NRM DPS are both 

scientifically valid and realistically 

reflect the biological similarities and 

differences between each area. 

Within the NRM DPS, most of the 

170,227 km2 (65,725 mi2) of suitable 

habitat for pack persistence is occupied 

and likely at or above long-term carrying 

capacity. The occupied portions of the 

NRM DPS have remained constant since 

2002. Given limitations in available 

suitable habitat for pack persistence, 

significant expansion of the wolf 

population into new areas of the NRM 

DPS is unlikely. We believe maintaining 

the NRM gray wolf population at or 

above 1,500 wolves in currently 

occupied areas would slowly reduce 

wild prey abundance in suitable wolf 

habitat. This would result in a gradual 

decline in the number of wolves that 

could be supported in suitable habitat. 

Higher rates of livestock depredation in 

these and surrounding areas would 

follow. This too would reduce the wolf 

population because problem wolves are 

typically controlled. 

The Great Lakes wolf population also 

grew until it saturated suitable habitat. 

Wolves in the Minnesota portion of the 

Great Lakes regions have not increased 

their distribution and numbers in the 

past ten years. In both the Great Lakes 

region and the NRM DPS, we set 

recovery targets at approximately onethird of carrying capacity, while the 

States plan to manage at about twothirds of carrying capacity. We believe 

the biological carrying capacity of 

suitable habitat is set by wild prey 

distribution and density, ability of packs 

to persist, raise young and provide 

dispersers back into the population, 

level of conflict with people, overall rate 

of reproduction and morality, and a 

density and distribution of wolves and 

wolf packs necessary to maintain a 

viable metapopulation. 

Issue 8: Some commenters felt that 

the 1994 recovery goal was inadequate 

to ensure the continued viability of the 

NRM DPS. Specifically, they stated that 

the 1994 EIS could not properly 

evaluate the recovery goals because 

predicting the number of wolves the two 

then-unoccupied recovery zones might 

support was not possible. Some thought 

that the wolf recovery goals should be 

reevaluated given historic or current 

wolf numbers and distribution. Others 

thought that additional protection of the 

ecosystem, such as reduced livestock 

grazing, eliminating roads, and 

increasing restrictions on human 

development, on which the NRM 

wolves depend would be necessary to 

accomplish successful recovery in areas 

of historic occupancy. Some 

commenters stated that 2,000 to 6,000 or 

more wolves were necessary to maintain 

a viable and recovered wolf population. 

Others indicated that the wolf 

population was growing out of control 

and should be reduced to the minimum 

recovery goal of 300 wolves in 30 

breeding pairs. 

Response 8: We do not dispute the 

fact that the NRM can support a wolf 

population that is several times higher 

than the minimum numerical recovery 

goal necessary to meet the Act’s 

requirements. However, under the Act, 

species recovery is considered to be the 

return of a species to the point where it 

is no longer threatened or endangered. 

Recovery under the Act does not require 

restoring a species to historic levels or 

even maximizing possible density, 

distribution, or genetic diversity. The 

Service has reviewed the NRM wolf 

recovery goal to ensure it is adequate 

and that it has been fully achieved (see 

discussion in Recovery section). We 

have modified it when scientific 

evidence warranted. We determined 

that a 3-State wolf metapopulation that 

requires maintenance of at least 10 

breeding pairs and at least 100 wolves 

in mid-winter per State by managing for 

a safety margin of at least 15 breeding 

pairs and at least 150 wolves in midwinter per State is biologically 

recovered. Montana and Idaho have 

committed to maintain the NRM wolf 

population well above their minimum 

numerical and distributional share of 

the NRM wolf population. In Wyoming, 

the continuation of National Park 

Service and Service wolf management 

will assure that Wyoming’s share of the 

NRM wolf population is maintained 

well above recovery levels. Collectively, 

these commitments indicate that the 

entire NRM wolf population is likely to 

consist of 973 to 1,302 wolves in 77 to 

104 breeding pairs (See Recovery 

Planning and Factor D). 

Commenters provided no convincing 

scientific evidence that at least 2,000 to 

6,000 wolves are required in a wolf 

population for it to be recovered to meet 

the Act’s purposes. Wolf populations in 

many parts of the world have remained 

viable at much lower levels unless they 

were deliberately extirpated by people. 

Furthermore, not only is the current 

population of 1,639 wolves far above 

minimum recovery levels, we have 

concluded that there is not enough 

suitable habitat in the NRM DPS to 

support 2,000 to 6,000 wolves over the 

long term without tolerating rates of 

livestock depredation and impacts to big 

game populations many times higher 

than has occurred in the past twenty 

years. Additional habitat protections in 

suitable habitat will not meaningfully 

increase carrying capacity of the NRM 

DPS. Restoration into areas currently 

considered unsuitable for pack 

persistence would require massive 

Federal and State programs to reduce or 

eliminate livestock on Federal, State, 

Tribal and, mostly, private property. 

Such an approach is unnecessary and 

unwarranted to remove the threat of 

extinction to the NRM DPS for the 

foreseeable future. Specifically, we do 

not believe there is a need for additional 

habitat protections in the NRMs as the 

DPS contains sufficient quality and 

quantity of habitat to maintain a healthy 

and viable wolf population in the longterm (as discussed in Factor A below). 

To the extant that a larger population is 

desired by some to sustain biological 

viability, the NRM wolf population 

represents a 650 km (400 mi) southern 

range extension of a vast contiguous 

wolf population that numbers over 

12,000 wolves in western Canada and 

about 65,000 wolves across all of 

Canada and Alaska. 

While some commenters felt that the 

NRM wolf population should be 

reduced to minimum recovery levels, 

the Act does not require or authorize the 

Service to manage a listed species to 

keep it from surpassing minimum 

recovery goals. States are also unlikely 

to accommodate this request as they 

have agreed to manage for a wolf 

population at least 50 percent above 

minimum recovery levels and will 

likely manage for a population of over 

1,000 wolves, well above even this 

minimum level. Due to smaller safety 

margins to account for stochastic events, 

it would require much more intensive 

and costly monitoring and management 

to assure the future conservation of a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15141 

recovered wolf population that was 

composed of less than 500 wolves than 

it would for the greater than 1,000 

wolves that will be maintained in the 

NRM by the States and Service after 

delisting. 

Issue 9: Some commenters questioned 

the objectivity of the peer review 

process for the recovery goals. 

Response 9: We used an extensive 

unbiased scientific peer review and 

public review process and our own 

expertise to help investigate, and 

modify as necessary, the recovery goals. 

We purposely invited reviews from 

experts with widely divergent 

philosophies to increase the range of 

opinions and perspectives. While the 

comments of some former litigants 

selected quotes from one end of the bell 

curve of all the diversity of opinion that 

was offered on wolf recovery goals to 

support their perspective (Fallon 2008), 

a review of the peer review comments 

in their entirety reveal the wide 

diversity of opinion (Bangs 2002). We 

continue to conclude, as did over threefourths of the experts contacted, that the 

recovery goal is adequate to ensure 

wolves in the NRM do not again become 

threatened or endangered. Additionally, 

peer reviews of the State wolf 

management plans and the rulemaking 

process also confirmed the adequacy of 

the recovery goals to maintain a 

recovered wolf population in the NRM 

DPS. See the discussion in the recovery 

section for more details. 

Issue 10: We received numerous 

comments related to the recovery 

objective of having genetic exchange 

between subpopulations, the isolation of 

the GYA recovery area, and a perceived 

failure to meet the recovery goal because 

of the lack of successful migrants into 

the GYA. Many commenters expressed 

opinions on available options to achieve 

the genetic exchange mentioned in the 

recovery goal. Some commenters stated 

that only natural connectivity and gene 

flow constituted recovery. Some of these 

individuals believed the July 18, 2008, 

District Court preliminary injunction 

order mandated natural connectivity. 

Numerous commenters opined that 

agency-managed genetic exchange 

(moving individual wolves or their 

genes into the affected population 

segment) was ‘‘a government dating 

program’’ and did not constitute ‘‘true 

recovery’’ under the Act. Other 

commenters believed that it was 

biologically immaterial to wolf 

population status and genetic vigor 

whether such exchange occurred solely 

by natural dispersal or by humanassisted migration management. Others 

stated that while natural connectivity 

was desirable to reduce the need for 

management intervention and cost, 

human-assisted migration management 

was an important safeguard, if ever 

needed. Still other commenters 

concluded that even if the GYA was 

totally isolated, biological problems are 

unlikely to materialize at a meaningful 

level. These commenters pointed to 

wolf biology, strong recovery standards 

for the ecosystem, and actual real world 

cases of isolated wolf populations to 

support their position. Opinions and 

theoretical predictions varied on what 

level of gene flow was required and if 

State management practices would 

increase or decrease those 

opportunities. Finally, commenters 

provided thoughts on our draft 

memorandum of understanding 

regarding the protection of genetic 

diversity of NRM gray wolves. Some 

commenters stated there was no need 

for the MOU as State wolf management 

plans already committed potential 

signees to manage the issue. Other 

commenters stated that a promise of 

future action by the States was not 

legally sufficient to resolve future 

genetic concerns and allow delisting. 

Some said the MOU guaranteed genetic 

connectivity would never threaten the 

NRM wolf population. 

Response 10: Currently, genetic 

diversity throughout the NRM DPS is 

very high (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 

1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; vonHoldt et 

al. 2008). Wolves in northwestern 

Montana and both the reintroduced 

populations are as genetically diverse as 

their vast, secure, healthy, contiguous, 

and connected source populations in 

Canada; thus, inadequate genetic 

diversity is not a wolf conservation 

issue in the NRM at this time (Forbes 

and Boyd 1997, p. 1089; vonHoldt et al. 

2007, p. 19). This genetic health is the 

result of deliberate management actions 

by the Service and its cooperators since 

1995. It is misleading to compare the 

large, connected, and genetically robust 

NRM wolf population to very small, 

very inbred and very isolated wolf 

populations in order to forecast 

theoretical problems the NRM 

population may have with genetic 

diversity, let alone to an extent that 

could threaten the viability of the NRM 

wolf population. Dr. L.D. Mech, the 

world’s foremost authority on wolves, 

responded to our inquiry about ways we 

might guarantee to ensure the future 

genetic health of the NRM wolf 

population (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 189– 

190; Groen et al. 2008) as ‘‘I consider 

this a nonissue.’’ Genetic issues are 

discussed further in Factor E below. 

We agree that a portion of the 

Service’s recovery goal calls for ‘‘genetic 

exchange between subpopulations’’ (see 

the Recovery section above). Genetic 

exchange was also a major focus of the 

July 18, 2008, District Court preliminary 

injunction order. The Recovery section 

of this rule now clarifies the Service’s 

recovery goal, including the genetic 

exchange portion of it, to correct any 

misunderstandings or alternative 

interpretations of what constitutes 

biological wolf recovery in the NRM. 

This section provides wording from past 

documents to demonstrate that the 

Service recovery goal was never 

dependent on natural connectivity or 

proven multi-generation genetic 

exchange within any recovery segment. 

Instead, the primary purpose of this 

portion of the recovery goal was to 

ensure that no recovery area was totally 

isolated. The 1994 EIS (Service 1994, p. 

6–7) defined a ‘‘Recovered wolf 

population’’ as ‘‘10 breeding pairs of 

wolves in each of 3 areas for 3 

successive years with some level of 

movement between areas.’’ Natural 

dispersal and successful reproduction of 

radio-collared wolves has been 

documented between all three 

subpopulation. 

Some commenters provided scientific 

papers that dealt with potential wildlife 

conservation problems resulting from 

low genetic diversity and inbreeding, or 

that such problems were unlikely to be 

resolved by only one immigrant. We 

appreciate those papers and 

perspectives and recognize low genetic 

diversity can have costs to population 

health. However, the problems resulting 

from low genetic diversity and 

inbreeding cited were in wildlife 

populations that started from very few 

founders and remained at low levels for 

long periods of time, remained isolated, 

existed in small fragmented habitats, 

and no management was taken to 

resolve problems. But even those 

populations grew very rapidly in 

suitable habitat after human-caused 

mortality was regulated. These 

examples have virtually no relevance to 

the NRM wolf population. The NRM 

wolf population is large. It started from 

many diverse founders, grew rapidly, 

has very high genetic diversity, is not 

isolated, and it is attached to a Canadian 

population composed of 12,000 wolves. 

Wolves in the NRM live in 3 genetically 

and demographically connected areas of 

secure suitable habitat covering an area 

of nearly 240,000 km2 (100,000 mi2) and 

management actions have been and will 

continue to be used to resolve any 

actual genetic problems that might 

develop in the future. In addition, the 

purpose of the Act is not to maximize 

genetic diversity or to quibble about 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

genetic theory or the results of 

theoretical models and their 

assumptions. The Act is intended to 

prevent species from becoming extinct 

and clearly the NRM wolf population 

will never be threatened by low genetic 

diversity, genetic drift, or inbreeding. 

See Factor E for a detailed discussion of 

this issue. 

Implementation of the recently 

finalized Genetics MOU (Groen et al. 

2008), which was improved by public 

and peer review comment, makes it 

even more unlikely that agencymanaged genetic exchange would be 

necessary in the foreseeable future. This 

MOU recognizes that genetic diversity is 

currently very high throughout the NRM 

DPS and commits to establish and 

maintain a monitoring protocol to 

ensure that necessary levels of gene flow 

occur so that the population retains high 

levels of genetic and demographic 

diversity (Groen et al. 2008). The 

number of effective migrants needed to 

maintain genetic diversity in any one 

recovery area is a function of its overall 

population size, the number of 

dispersers that successfully breed, and 

the demographic parameters of that 

population segment. As noted above, we 

believe current levels of natural 

connectivity are sufficient to address 

any theoretical genetic issues. However, 

we recognize work on this issue is 

ongoing. The MOU ensures this issue 

will be appropriately managed into the 

foreseeable future by the NRM DPS’s 

State and Federal partners as new 

information comes to light (Groen et al. 

2008). Should genetic or demographic 

issues ever materialize that could 

threaten the NRM wolf population, an 

outcome we believe is extremely 

unlikely, the MOU ensures States will 

implement techniques to facilitate 

agency-managed genetic exchange 

(moving individual wolves or their 

genes into the affected population 

segment) (Groen et al. 2008). 

We believe Wyoming must institute 

additional protections to facilitate 

natural genetic exchange. Specifically, 

the State’s regulatory framework should 

minimize take of non-problem wolves in 

all suitable habitat and across all of 

Wyoming’s potential migration routes 

among NRM subpopulations. Statewide 

trophy game status will assist in this 

regard as migrating wolves use the 

current predator area. This measure is 

particularly important during peak 

dispersal, breeding, and pup rearing 

periods. In addition to requiring that 

Wyoming manage for at least 15 

breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves 

in mid-winter in their State, Wyoming 

must also manage for at least 7 breeding 

pairs and at least 70 wolves in Wyoming 

outside the National Parks. Such 

requirements are necessary to provide 

adequate buffers to prevent the 

population from falling below recovery 

levels. This secondary goal will provide 

dispersing wolves more social openings 

and protection from excessive humancaused mortality. This will also 

maintain a sufficiently large number of 

wolves in the GYA; larger population 

size is a proven remedy to genetic 

inbreeding. Until Wyoming develops 

adequate regulatory mechanisms, 

continued Federal management of the 

Wyoming wolf population will 

maximize potential for genetic 

exchange. 

Future Wolf Numbers 

Issue 11: Many commenters pointed 

out that the States will manage for fewer 

wolves than currently exist. Some 

commenters thought that fewer wolves 

would reduce the number of dispersing 

wolves and limit natural connectivity 

among the subpopulations. Others 

recommended that we recognize and 

take into account the fact that wolf 

numbers can fluctuate dramatically. 

Response 11: The delisted NRM DPS 

wolf population is likely to be reduced 

from its current levels of around 1,639 

wolves by State management. Below 

carrying capacity (the current carrying 

capacity of suitable habitat in the NRM 

may be around 1,500 wolves), the 

population is likely to continue to 

reproduce at high rates. However, 

attempts to maintain the population 

above 1,500 wolves may be difficult 

because suitable habitat will be fully 

occupied and packs attempting to 

colonize unsuitable habitat would cause 

chronic conflict with livestock. 

Regardless, wolf populations in the 

three States containing most of the 

occupied and most of the suitable 

habitat in the NRM DPS will be 

managed for at least 15 breeding pairs 

and at least 150 wolves so that the 

population never goes below recovery 

levels. The entire NRM wolf population 

is likely to consist of 973 to 1,302 

wolves in 77 to 104 breeding pairs. 

Specifically, State projections indicate 

the NRM wolf population in Montana 

and Idaho will likely be managed for 

around 673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 79 

breeding pairs (See Recovery Planning 

and Factor D). In Wyoming, the Act’s 

protections will remain in place, thus, 

Wyoming is likely to maintain a wolf 

population of about 300 wolves in 22 

breeding pairs. We believe maintenance 

well above the minimum recovery goal 

is more than sufficient to maintain wolf 

recovery in the NRM. 

We recognize that the planned 

reduction in overall population 

numbers could reduce dispersal and 

connectivity among subpopulations. If 

the population is managed for over a 

thousand wolves, as expected, we 

believe the impact on dispersal and 

connectivity will be negligible. If the 

population is managed to the minimum 

recovery target of 150 wolves per State, 

dispersal would be noticeably impacted, 

which could require costly and 

intensive management to mitigate. 

However, even when wolf populations 

were low in number and throughout the 

period when mortality averaged 23 

percent of the population annually, 

some dispersal events occurred between 

all three recovery areas. We expect some 

dispersal will continue regardless of the 

number managed for. State and Tribal 

management in Montana and Idaho, in 

combination with continued Federal 

management of Wyoming, will continue 

to focus on this issue, especially in 

regards to the GYA. We believe these 

efforts will ensure sufficient levels of 

connectivity among the subpopulations. 

Should genetic issues that could 

threaten the population ever 

materialize, an outcome we believe is 

extremely unlikely, agency-managed 

genetic exchange will be used to correct 

the issue. 

We and our State partners recognize 

that all wildlife populations, including 

wolves, can fluctuate widely over a 

relatively short period of time. By 

managing for at least 50 percent above 

the minimal recovery levels, and likely 

for over one thousand wolves, State and 

Federal management provide an 

adequate safety margin. This margin, 

combined with the State’s commitment 

to adaptively manage the species as 

needed, adequately addressed concerns 

about population fluctuations. 

Additional Recovery Efforts 

Issue 12: Several commenters thought 

that the Service should have modified 

our recovery planning and 

implementation efforts after revising the 

listing to a single lower 48-State listing 

in 1978. Commenters requested we 

develop a single recovery plan for the 

lower 48-State listed entity before 

delisting any portion of it. Other 

commenters thought that the Service 

should use subspecies to identify DPSs 

across the gray wolf’s historical range, 

and these DPSs should replace or 

supplement the current recovery zones. 

Still others expressed their opinion that 

additional recovery efforts across the 

entire lower 48-States were unwise and 

unnecessary. The adjacent States of 

California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, 

Oregon, and Washington were 

mentioned most frequently for 

additional recovery programs. Other 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15143 

commenters recommended wolves be 

reintroduced into places such as Central 

Park in New York City or the National 

Mall in Washington, DC. 

Response 12: We believe possible 

future wolf recovery efforts are beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking as such 

actions are not necessary to ensure that 

the NRM DPS remains unlikely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Nevertheless, let us clarify our 

position on this issue. As noted in the 

1978 reclassification rule, we replaced 

the previous subspecies listings with a 

single conterminous 48-State entity in 

order to ‘‘most conveniently’’ handle the 

gray wolf listing. Our 1978 

reclassification rule provided 

assurances that we would continue to 

recognize valid biological subspecies for 

purposes of our research and 

conservation programs (39 FR 1171, 

January 4, 1974). The NRM DPS 

approximates the U.S. historic range of 

the purported NRM gray wolf 

subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 

1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2; 39 FR 

1171, January 4, 1974). We never 

intended, nor do we think it is realistic, 

to recover the species across the entire 

lower 48-States. 

Finally, we believe we have satisfied 

our statutory responsibilities for 

recovery planning. Section 4(f)(1) of the 

Act instructs us to develop plans for the 

conservation and survival of threatened 

and endangered species. The Act further 

states that priority be given to species 

that are most likely to benefit from such 

plans. To this end, we have prioritized 

gray wolf recovery planning efforts to 

focus on the NRM, the Great Lakes 

Region, and the Southwest. We 

completed a recovery plan for the NRM 

in 1980 and revised it in 1987. In the 

Great Lakes Region, we completed a 

recovery plan in 1978 and revised it in 

1992. In the Southwest, a recovery plan 

was completed in 1982. Any additional 

planning is discretionary. At this time 

the Service’s resources will be focused 

on delisting the recovered wolf 

populations in the Midwest and NRM, 

and recovering gray wolves in the 

southwest and red wolves (Canis rufus) 

in the southeast. 

Issue 13: Several commenters thought 

that wolf recovery should require 

recolonization of all historical range or, 

at least, the portions of the historical 

range that could be made suitable. Some 

recommended that wolves remain listed 

to promote wolf restoration within 

unoccupied portions of the species’ 

historic range, both in and beyond the 

NRM DPS. Others indicated that the 

concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation need to be addressed 

over a much broader area. Some 

believed that our interpretation of 

recovery led us to focus on occupied 

habitat and controlling excessive rates 

of human-caused mortality rather than 

‘‘true recovery.’’ It was stated that ‘‘true 

recovery’’ requires natural connectivity 

or linkage, protection and enhancement 

of existing population levels, 

widespread habitat protection and 

restoration, and protective regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Response 13: We believe these 

recommendations would expand the 

purpose of the Act. The Act defines 

conservation as the use of all methods 

and procedures necessary to bring any 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point where the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. According to our 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

424.11), when a species no longer meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act, it is 

recovered, and we are to delist it. 

Restoration of historically occupied 

areas can play a role in achieving the 

goal of recovery. In this case, occupancy 

has been restored and will be 

maintained across the vast majority of 

the suitable habitat with the NRM DPS. 

Maintained occupancy across most 

suitable habitat in Montana and Idaho 

ensures that the NRM DPS remains 

unlikely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. Continued Federal protections in 

Wyoming ensure this significant portion 

of the NRM DPS will be maintained. 

Occupancy across large portions of the 

historical range, unless required to 

preclude the NRM DPS from again 

becoming threatened or endangered, are 

beyond the requirements of the Act. 

Reintroducing wolves to areas of 

highly unsuitable habitat outside the 

NRM was not considered relevant to 

this rule. Furthermore, most historic 

wolf habitat in the contiguous United 

States has been so modified by people 

that it is currently unsuitable for 

wolves. 

Resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (described in detail in 

the Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

section below) are important factors in 

the long-term conservation status of any 

species (Shaffer and Stein 2000). Within 

the NRM DPS, each of the States and 

each of the recovery areas meaningfully 

contributes to its resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation. Across 

the lower 48-States, the three wolf 

populations in the lower 48-States 

(WGL DPS, NRM DPS, and Mexican 

wolf) provide the necessary resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation. These 

three populations also represent all the 

genetic diversity remaining in wolves 

south of Canada after their widespread 

extirpation during European 

colonization (Leonard et al. 2005, p. 9). 

Additionally, the species remains 

abundant in many areas of the northern 

hemisphere. Collectively, this 

information shows that these principles 

of conservation biology are satisfied. 

We dispute the assertion that we have 

inappropriately focused our recovery 

efforts on occupied habitat and 

mortality control. In fact, we have 

focused recovery efforts on wolf 

population levels, distribution, habitat, 

connectivity, all forms of mortality, 

wolf/human conflicts, diseases and 

parasites, predation, human attitudes, 

genetics, and dispersal (Service et al. 

2002–8). We have worked to maintain 

public tolerance of wolves by limiting 

damage to private property. These 

recovery efforts led to significant 

increases in wolf numbers and range, 

allowing wolves to reoccupy habitats 

they were absent from since the 1930s. 

Our efforts also provided demographic, 

genetic, and habitat security. Wolf packs 

now occupy most of the large blocks of 

suitable habitat within the DPS. This 

comprehensive approach to recovery 

will be continued under State 

management in Montana and Idaho in 

the future. Additional recovery actions 

necessary to achieve a more widely 

distributed and numerically abundant 

population are not necessary to meet the 

definition of recovered under the Act. 

Issue 14: Many commenters thought 

that we failed to recognize the 

ecological importance of trophic 

cascades (the ripple effect in predator, 

herbivore, plant, and scavenger 

communities caused by restoring a 

keystone species like wolves) and 

ecological effects emanating from wolf 

restoration in the NRM. Some 

commenters stated that the Act 

mandates that a species be ‘‘ecologically 

effective.’’ Still other commenters 

thought we should use an ‘‘ecosystem 

approach’’ when implementing 

recovery. Finally, some commenters 

suggested delisting does not fulfill parts 

of the Service mission which includes, 

‘‘working with others, to conserve, 

protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and 

plants and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit to the American 

people.’’ 

Response 14: We recognize that wolf 

recovery appears to have caused trophic 

cascades and ecological effects that 

affect numerous other animal and plant 

communities, and their relationships 

with each other. These effects have been 

most pronounced in pristine areas, such 

as in YNP. While these effects likely 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15144 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

still occur at varying degrees elsewhere, 

they are increasingly modified and 

subtle the more an area is affected by 

humans (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334–338; 

Robbins 2004, pp. 80–81; Campbell et 

al. 2006, pp. 747–753; Hebblewhite et 

al. 2005, p. 2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 

1245). While some believe we should 

stall delisting until these cascading 

ecological effects are restored 

throughout the DPS or beyond, this 

approach is not a requirement of the 

Act. Instead, when a species no longer 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act, it is 

recovered, and we are to delist it. 

Similarly, the Act does not require that 

we achieve or maintain ‘‘ecological 

effectiveness’’ (i.e., occupancy with 

densities that maintain critical 

ecosystem interactions and help ensure 

against ecosystem degradation) (Soule et 

al. 2003, p. 1239). 

Service policy intends that we apply 

an ecosystem approach in carrying out 

our programs for fish and wildlife 

conservation (National Policy Issuances 

95–03 and 96–10; 59 FR 34274, July 1, 

1994). The goal of such an approach is 

to strive to contribute to the effective 

conservation of natural biological 

diversity through perpetuation of 

dynamic, healthy ecosystems when 

carrying our various mandates and 

functions. Preserving and recovering 

endangered and threatened species is 

one of the more basic aspects of an 

ecosystem approach to conservation. 

Successful recovery of a rare species 

requires that the necessary components 

of its habitat and ecosystem be 

conserved, and that diverse partnerships 

be developed to ensure the long-term 

protection of those components. Thus, 

the recovery success demonstrated for 

gray wolves, a keystone or ‘‘highly 

interactive species’’ (as defined by Soule 

et al. 2003), also is a demonstration of 

the ecosystem approach. 

Finally, we believe delisting portrays 

successful adherence to our mission 

statement. Gray wolf recovery programs 

involve many partners in the private 

and public sector, at all levels of 

government, and include numerous 

other State and Federal agencies. The 

wolf recovery successes described in 

this rule resulted from working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance 

gray wolf populations in the NRM. That 

success has now reached a point where 

the NRM wolf population, except 

Wyoming, no longer qualifies for 

protection under the Act, so we are 

delisting most of the NRM DPS. Longterm maintenance of a recovered gray 

wolf population will provide a 

continuing benefit to the American 

people. 

Issue 15: Some commenters suggested 

that we should delist gray wolves in 

areas outside of the proposed DPS 

because: Wolves are common elsewhere 

(in other areas of the lower 48 States or 

in Alaska and Canada); wolves have 

recovered (in that area or elsewhere); 

wolves are extirpated in many areas and 

could be delisted on the basis of 

extinction in those areas; keeping 

wolves listed where there is little or no 

suitable habitat results in irresolvable 

conflicts; and a State can manage a 

resident species better than the Federal 

government. 

Response 15: The Federal status of 

wolves under the Act outside of the 

NRM DPS is beyond the scope of this 

action. An evaluation of these areas for 

either delisting or additional recovery 

efforts will be forthcoming in a separate 

effort. 

Identifying the NRM Distinct 

Population Segment 

Issue 16: Some commenters suggested 

that we improperly recognized the NRM 

DPS. Some asserted that the Service 

may not identify a DPS within a broader 

pre-existing listed entity for the purpose 

of delisting the DPS. Other held the 

opposite view, that a DPS-level delisting 

was allowed. These commenters also 

noted that the NRM population met the 

DPS policy’s criteria for discreteness 

and significance, thus, should be 

recognized as DPS. They suggested that 

precluding delisting until entire lower 

48-State entity was recovered would 

punish the States that had recovered the 

species. Some opined that a DPS could 

not be created and delisted in the same 

listing action. 

Response 16: As described above, we 

have determined the NRM DPS is 

biologically based, appropriate, and was 

developed in accordance with the Act 

and the Distinct Vertebrate Population 

Segment Policy. Our ability to identify 

a DPS within a broader pre-existing 

listed entity was the subject of a recent 

decision of the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia (Humane 

Society of the United States v. 

Kempthorne, Civil Action No. 07–0677 

(PLF) (D.D.C., Sept. 29, 2008)). This 

order remanded and vacated our 

February 7, 2008, final rule that 

identified the WGL DPS of gray wolves 

and determined that these wolves 

should be delisted (72 FR 6052). The 

court found that the Service had made 

that decision based on its interpretation 

that the plain meaning of the Act 

authorizes the Service to create and 

delist a DPS within an already-listed 

entity. The court disagreed, and 

concluded that the Act is ambiguous as 

to whether the Service has this 

authority. The court accordingly 

remanded the final rule so that the 

Service could provide a reasoned 

explanation of how its interpretation is 

consistent with the text, structure, 

legislative history, judicial 

interpretations, and policy objectives of 

the Act. 

While the Service acknowledges that 

the ESA is arguably ambiguous on the 

‘‘precise question’’ posed by the court, 

it notes that the court’s question does 

not accurately describe what we did in 

the Final Rule. What we actually did, 

under the precise language of the Act, 

was to determine, pursuant to section 

4(a)(1), that gray wolves in the Western 

Great Lakes area constituted a DPS and 

that the DPS was neither endangered 

nor threatened, and then revised the list 

of endangered and threatened species, 

pursuant to section 4(c)(1), to reflect 

those determinations. Our conclusion is 

that we had clear authority to make the 

determinations and the revisions. We 

did not delist a previously unlisted 

species; rather, we revised the existing 

listing of a species (the gray wolf in the 

lower 48 States) to reflect a 

determination that a sub-part of that 

species (the Western Great Lakes DPS) 

was healthy enough that it no longer 

needed the ESA’s protections and such 

action is the same as the action we are 

taking today regarding the NRM DPS 

when we determine that wolves in most 

of the NRM DPS no longer need ESA 

protections and that the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

should be revised to reflect the current 

status of these wolves. Our authority to 

make these determinations and to revise 

the list accordingly is found in the 

precise language of the ESA. Moreover, 

even if that authority was not clear, our 

interpretation of this authority to make 

determinations under section 4(a)(1) 

and to revise the endangered and 

threatened species list to reflect those 

determinations under section 4(c)(1) is 

reasonable and fully consistent with the 

ESA’s text structure, legislative history, 

relevant judicial interpretations, and 

policy objectives. 

As stated previously, on December 12, 

2008, a formal opinion was issued by 

the Solicitor, ‘‘U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) 

of the Endangered Species Act to Revise 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Species to ‘Reflect Recent 

Determinations’ ’’ (U.S. DOI 2008). This 

opinion represents the views of the 

Service and fully supports the Service’s 

position that it is authorized in a single 

action to identify a DPS within a larger 

listed entity, determine that the DPS is 

neither endangered nor threatened, and 

then revise the List of Endangered and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15145 

Threatened Wildlife to reflect those 

determinations. The opinion also notes 

that, although the term ‘‘delist’’ is not 

used in the Act, it is used extensively 

in the regulations implementing the 

section 4 listing provisions of the Act, 

such as 50 CFR 424.11(d). As explained 

in footnote 8 to the Solicitor’s opinion, 

‘‘As used by FWS, ‘‘delisting’’ applies 

broadly to any action that revises the 

lists either to remove an already-listed 

entity from the appropriate list in its 

entirety, or to reduce the geographic or 

taxonomic scope of a listing to exclude 

a group of organisms previously 

included as part of an already-listed 

entity (as was the case with the Western 

Great Lakes DPS of gray wolves).’’ The 

Service fully agrees with the analysis 

and conclusions set out in the 

Solicitor’s opinion and this action is 

consistent with the opinion. The 

complete text of the Solicitor’s opinion 

can be found at http://www.fws.gov/ 

midwest/wolf/. 

In regard to the NRM wolves, such an 

approach is further supported by the 

fact that the DPS is consistent with over 

30 years of recovery efforts in the NRMs 

in that: (1) The DPS approximates the 

U.S. historic range of the NRM gray wolf 

subspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service 

1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) which 

was the originally listed entity in 1974 

(39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) the 

DPS boundaries are inclusive of the 

areas focused on by both NRM recovery 

plans (Service 1980, pp. 7–8; Service 

1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmental 

impact statement (EIS) (Service 1994, 

Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusive 

of the entire Central-Idaho and 

Yellowstone Non-essential 

Experimental Population areas (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84 (i) & (n)). 

Issue 17: Some commenters suggested 

that the NRM gray wolf population is 

not a DPS because all populations in the 

lower 48 States were once connected. 

Thus, the population should not be 

considered discrete. 

Response 17: A comprehensive 

evaluation of the NRM gray wolf 

population’s discreteness is included in 

the ‘‘Analysis for Discreteness’’ section 

of the rule above. Historical distribution 

has no bearing on the NRM population’s 

current discreteness. The boundaries of 

the NRM DPS consider likely dispersal 

distances and surrounding unsuitable 

habitat. We believe a continuous 

uninterrupted population throughout 

the lower 48-States, as existed 

historically, is not achievable. The best 

scientific and commercial information 

available indicates the NRM population 

will remain markedly separated from 

other gray wolf populations in the lower 

48-States. Occupancy in the intervening 

areas is unsustainable because the areas 

have been too modified by people for 

wolves to survive. 

Issue 18: Several people stated that 

the DPS policy is to be used only in 

listing decisions and that using it in a 

delisting decision violates 

Congressional intent and the legislative 

and statutory structure of the Act. 

Response 18: The Act, its 

implementing regulations, and our DPS 

policy provide no support for this 

interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act 

directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

determine whether ‘‘any species’’ is 

endangered or threatened. Numerous 

sections of the Act refer to adding and 

removing ‘‘species’’ from the list of 

threatened or endangered plants and 

animals. Section 3(15) defines ‘‘species’’ 

to include any subspecies ‘‘* * * and 

any DPS of any species of vertebrate fish 

or wildlife * * *’’ The Act directs us to 

list, reclassify, and delist species, 

subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate 

species. It contains no provisions 

requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be 

treated in a different manner than 

species or subspecies when carrying out 

the listing, recovery, and delisting 

functions mandated by section 4. 

Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that 

the policy is intended for ‘‘the purposes 

of listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

species under the Act’’ (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides 

the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 

population segments for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

under the Act’’ (61 FR 4725, February 7, 

1996). 

These comments also overlook the 

untenable situation that would arise if 

DPSs could be listed, but could never be 

delisted, after they have been 

successfully recovered. Clearly Congress 

did not envision such an outcome when 

amending the definition of species to 

include vertebrate DPSs. 

Issue 19: Some commenters pointed 

out that the recognition of the NRM DPS 

created a remnant population. Some 

commenters suggested this violates the 

Act as the Act allows us to ‘‘consider 

listing only an entire species, 

subspecies, or DPS’’ (Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 

1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, we cannot 

declare part of a listed species a DPS 

without also identifying the remaining 

listed species as DPS(s). 

Response 19: While in some 

situations it may be appropriate to 

recognize multiple DPSs 

simultaneously, the Act does not require 

it. This flexibility allows the Service to 

subsequently list or delist additional 

DPSs when additional information 

becomes available or as the conservation 

status of the taxon changes. Importantly, 

a court stated that the Act allows this 

flexibility. In National Wildlife 

Federation v. Norton (385 F. Supp. 2d 

553, 565 (D. Vt. 2005), the court found 

that ‘‘Nowhere in the Act is the 

Secretary prevented from creating a 

‘non-DPS remnant,’ especially when the 

remnant area was already listed * * *’’ 

Our current identification of a NRM 

DPS, while retaining the remaining 

other wolves listed as endangered or 

nonessential experimental, is consistent 

with this aspect of the District Court’s 

ruling. 

Furthermore, just as the NRM DPS is 

discrete from the remaining populations 

in the lower 48 States, the remaining 

populations are discrete from the NRM 

DPS. The amended lower 48 State 

listing is discrete from Canadian 

populations of gray wolf as delineated 

by the United States/Canadian 

international boundary, with significant 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, and regulatory mechanisms. The 

amended lower 48 State listing is 

significant in that its loss would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon (C. lupus). Therefore, the 

amended lower 48 State listing is 

discrete and significant. 

Issue 20: Some commenters felt that a 

wolf dispersing outside of the DPS 

boundaries (e.g., into Colorado) may 

create confusion among State, Federal, 

and Tribal agencies regarding the status 

of that wolf. To address this confusion, 

some believed that any wolf originating 

from the NRM DPS should be 

considered part of that DPS, regardless 

of where it is geographically. 

Response 20: Consistent with Section 

4(c) of the Act, the status of individual 

members of a species, subspecies, or 

DPS is dependent on their geographic 

location. We used easily identifiable 

boundaries, such as the center line of 

major highways or State borders, to 

minimize management confusion. Once 

this rule goes into effect, if a wolf goes 

beyond the NRM DPS boundary, it 

attains the listing status of the area it 

has entered (i.e., endangered in much of 

the lower 48 States, except where listed 

as nonessential experimental or 

delisted). Similarly, if a wolf enters the 

NRM DPS, except Wyoming, it would 

not be listed and would be managed 

according to the relevant State 

management plan. If a wolf enters 

Wyoming, it will be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population per 

50 CFR 17.84 (i) and (n). State and 

Federal agencies across the region are 

aware of and understand the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15146 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

management implications of this action. 

While we believe that future dispersal 

and conflicts outside the DPS will be 

rare, we will continue to work with any 

affected States or Tribes to resolve them. 

Issue 21: Numerous commenters 

suggested the boundary of the DPS was 

improperly developed. Some 

commenters suggested the DPS should 

have been larger, while others thought 

it should have been smaller. Some 

opined that the size of the NRM DPS 

prevents wolf dispersal outside the DPS 

to other areas of suitable habitat, thus 

the unsuitable habitat at the edges of the 

DPS became a barrier to dispersal. Some 

believe that because the boundaries 

were mainly highways or State borders, 

they were arbitrary and not based on 

sound biological principles or natural 

features like rivers. Montana 

recommended a DPS of only Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming based on the 

presence of a wolf population and State 

regulations guiding post-delisting wolf 

management. The adjacent States 

requested that the NRM DPS boundary 

be changed to include most of Utah, 

Nevada, and Oregon, western North and 

South Dakota, and none of Washington. 

Response 21: The boundary of the 

NRM DPS was determined by analyzing 

the distribution of potentially suitable 

and unsuitable habitat for wolves in the 

NRM and the documented dispersal 

distances of radio-collared wolves. 

These factors are the most likely to 

influence a split between the NRM DPS 

and other potential areas of occupancy. 

A smaller DPS might split the biological 

entity. A larger DPS might split a 

neighboring biological entity, should 

one ever be established. 

The boundary of the DPS was 

determined by the dispersal distances of 

wolves. The Service does not 

proactively prevent wolf dispersal in 

Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Likewise, 

Washington and Oregon State laws are, 

in general, as protective of wolves as the 

Act’s experimental population 

regulations so the potential dispersal of 

wolves in those states is unaffected by 

delisting. Utah law also protects 

dispersing wolves, but such a small part 

of Utah will be delisted that it is 

unlikely to significantly affect dispersal 

into the endangered parts of Utah. 

Delisting simply means the federal legal 

framework for wolf conservation 

transitions to State law and regulation, 

not that wolves become unprotected. 

We conclude that the DPS boundary is 

unlikely to significantly affect the 

overall rate or survival of long distance 

dispersers. However, it will still remain 

unlikely that enough wolves will 

disperse outside the NRM DPS to start 

new populations because of the 

distances involved and the large amount 

of contiguous unsuitable habitat that is 

between NRM wolf breeding pairs and 

the closest theoretical suitable habitat 

capable of supporting wolf breeding 

pairs outside the NRM DPS. 

According to our DPS policy, an 

artificial or manmade boundary (such as 

Interstate, Federal, and State highways, 

State borders) may be used as a 

boundary of convenience in order to 

clearly identify the geographic area 

included within the DPS. We believe 

such use of easily understood 

boundaries will promote public 

understanding of the listing and ease in 

future management. In this case, the 

NRM DPS boundaries were defined 

along easily identifiable boundaries that 

represent the most appropriate DPS for 

this population (see DPS discussion in 

this rule for our rationale). While some 

suggested ‘‘more biological’’ boundaries 

like rivers or geological features, we do 

not believe such boundaries are of any 

greater biological meaning to wolves 

given their ability to cross such 

geographic features. In our view, the 

biological factors considered are likely 

to have the greatest influence on 

separation among populations. 

Defining Suitable Habitat 

Issue 22: Some thought we should 

explain why some historically occupied 

lands were excluded from our definition 

of suitable habitat. Many commenters 

questioned our finding that peripheral 

portions of the DPS were insignificant. 

These commenters felt that this 

approach prevents further recovery by 

prematurely delisting unoccupied areas. 

These commenters requested that 

delisting in unoccupied areas should be 

precluded until threats are resolved in 

these areas and occupancy is secured. 

These commenters also contended that 

delisting such areas severed critical 

dispersal corridors. Some commenters 

cited wolf establishment in 

‘‘unsuitable’’ portions of Oregon as 

evidence our position was in error. 

Response 22: Our identification of 

suitable habitat was based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding pack persistence. 

Many areas of historic wolf habitat are 

no longer capable of supporting packs. 

Most of these areas have been so 

modified by human activities as to be 

unsuitable for wolves. This issue is 

discussed in more detail in Factor A 

below. 

We based our predictions of suitable 

and unsuitable habitat on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

as of the time of this rule. Oakleaf et 

al.’s (2006, p. 558) depiction of suitable 

habitat has been remarkably accurate 

when compared to wolf pack 

distribution over the past 6 years 

(Service et al. 2008, Figure 1). Carroll’s 

et al. 2006) model was similar to 

Oakleaf’s and it predicted some suitable 

habitat in northeast Oregon. We expect 

that someday a wolf pack will be 

confirmed in that area. 

A hundred years ago, people decided 

that wolves cannot live near livestock or 

people and so they exterminated all the 

wolves. Today, some people use the 

belief that wolves cannot live near 

livestock as a justification for removing 

all the livestock. It is true that wolves 

are such resilient animals that 

unsuitable habitat (e.g., mainly private 

prairie used for livestock grazing or 

human developments) could be 

transformed to suitable habitat by 

removing livestock, people, and human 

developments. However, this scenario is 

not realistic or necessary because far 

more than enough suitable habitat (e.g., 

mainly federal parks or forests 

containing abundant wild ungulates) 

exists to support many times over the 

minimum requirements of a recovered 

and viable wolf population. Such 

extreme measures are not reasonable 

and are not warranted or necessary to 

achieve wolf recovery in the NRM. 

Issue 23: Some commenters felt that 

we improperly considered more than 

biological criteria in defining suitable 

habitat by allowing the definition of 

suitable to consider human tolerance. 

Others stated that we misinterpreted the 

habitat suitability models because they 

only present probabilities of successful 

occupation by wolves under current 

conditions. 

Response 23: Suitable habitat for pack 

persistence considered a variety of 

factors, including, but not limited to, 

mortality. Suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM is generally characterized as 

public land with mountainous, forested 

habitat that contains abundant yearround wild ungulate populations, low 

road density, low numbers of domestic 

livestock that are only present 

seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 

agricultural use, and few people. 

Unsuitable wolf habitat is not capable of 

supporting persistent packs. In the 

NRM, unsuitable habitat is generally 

considered to have the characteristics: 

Private land, flat open prairie or desert, 

low or seasonal wild ungulate 

populations, high road density, high 

numbers of year-round domestic 

livestock including many domestic 

sheep, high levels of agricultural use, 

and many people. When wolves occur 

in places with high levels of human 

activity, they experience an increased 

mortality risk. The level of impact from 

such mortality is directly related to the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15147 

location and numbers of humans and 

their activities. We recognize that areas 

unsuitable for pack persistence may still 

be occasionally traversed by wolves. 

Thus, some minimal level of protection 

is necessary in these areas. 

In terms of suitable habitat models, 

we recognize that none of the available 

models are exact indicators of what is 

‘‘suitable.’’ Each model only identifies 

areas with a 50 percent or greater 

chance of being suitable. Thus, we made 

our determination based upon a number 

of factors including, but not limited to, 

these models. 

Foreseeable Future 

Issue 24: Some folks believed that 

limiting foreseeable future to 30 years 

was inappropriate. 

Response 24: We revised our 

definition of foreseeable future to take 

into account the variability of what is 

foreseeable for each threat factor. For 

some threat factors, a time horizon of 

more than 30 years may be appropriate. 

For example, for our consideration of 

genetics (discussed under Factor E 

below), we reviewed a paper that looked 

100 years into the future (vonHoldt et al. 

2007). 

Potential Threats to the NRM DPS 

Issue 25: A number of commenters 

disputed our analysis of the five listing 

factors, suggesting alternative scenarios 

where the NRM wolf population would 

be threatened in the future. 

Response 25: We updated and 

augmented the final rule’s five-factor 

analysis to address specific issues 

raised. Our analysis of all of meaningful 

potential threat factors revealed that: (1) 

The NRM DPS is not threatened or 

endangered throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range 

(i.e., not threatened or endangered 

throughout all of the DPS); but (2) the 

Wyoming portion of the range 

represents a significant portion of range 

where the species remains in danger of 

extinction because of inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms. Thus, this final 

rule removes the Act’s protections 

throughout the NRM DPS except for 

Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will 

continue to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population. 

Issue 26: Some commenters felt that 

we did not fully evaluate or 

acknowledge the potential impacts from 

oil and gas development or other human 

development on the wolf population. 

Other habitat issues in the NRM that 

required additional consideration 

included rapid human population 

growth and the resulting increase in 

houses, roads, recreation, and wolf/ 

human conflicts. 

Response 26: These issues are now 

considered under Factor A below. 

Issue 27: Some commenters thought 

that the Service should reduce the 

future threat to wolves by requiring that 

livestock be reduced or eliminated on 

public lands. 

Response 27: Wolves and livestock, 

primarily cattle and horses, can live 

near one another for extended periods of 

time without significant conflict if 

agency control prevents the behavior of 

chronic livestock depredation from 

becoming widespread in the wolf 

population. Through active 

management, most wolves learn that 

livestock can not be successfully 

attacked and do not view them as prey. 

However, when wolves and livestock 

mix, some livestock and some wolves 

will be killed. Furthermore, when 

wolves learn to attack livestock, the 

behavior is quickly learned by other 

wolves if it is not stopped. Because wild 

ungulates commonly winter on private 

property, even wolves that prey 

exclusively on wild ungulates will be in 

proximity to livestock during some 

portion of the year. Wolf recovery has 

occurred and will be maintained 

without substantial modification of 

traditional western land-use practices 

and without requiring the removal of 

livestock from public grazing 

allotments. Public lands in the NRM can 

have both large predators and seasonal 

livestock grazing. Livestock grazing 

practices on public and private lands do 

not need to be modified because wolf 

recovery is not threatened by the current 

levels of these activities. We believe 

State management will continue to 

successfully balance traditional 

livestock grazing practices, open space, 

and wolf conservation. If the wolf 

population were to expand significantly 

beyond its current outer boundaries, we 

anticipate that the level of livestock 

depredation would significantly 

increase. See Response 22. 

Issue 28: Some commenters were 

concerned about humane treatment of 

wolves and were opposed to certain 

methods of take, particularly aerial 

gunning and poisoning. Numerous 

parties suggested that the Service 

should not allow public hunting of 

wolves. Others suggested that we should 

require the use of non-lethal control 

tools to reduce conflict with livestock. 

Response 28: After delisting, the 

State, Tribal, and Federal entities will 

regulate take in a manner that will not 

threaten the wolf population. Wolves 

listed as a game animal (i.e., all wolves 

within the NRM DPS where the Act’s 

protections are being removed) can only 

be taken by the public as proscribed by 

State statute, usually fair chase hunting 

or as furbearers by regulated trapping. 

Public take of wolves in the act of 

depredating on domestic animals is 

regulated by State defense of property 

laws and is limited to shooting. Wildlife 

agency professionals adhere to specific 

protocols when they capture, handle, or 

euthanize wildlife for research or 

management purposes. In the vast 

majority of situations, wolf control will 

be accomplished by regulated public 

hunting and trapping or agency control 

of problem wolves. State authorized 

wolf control may include, just as the 

federally authorized control program 

currently does, gunning from the air and 

ground trapping and, in a few cases, 

removing pups from dens. Deliberate 

poisoning of wolves will not be allowed 

due to current Environmental Protection 

Agency label restrictions on the use and 

application of all poisons (including M– 

44 devices) capable of killing wolves. 

Protections in National Parks would 

continue and would be unaffected by 

delisting. 

Hunting (and in some areas even 

unregulated hunting) has not threatened 

wolf populations (Boitani 2003). 

Hunting is a valuable, efficient, and 

cost-effective tool to help manage 

wildlife populations. Viable robust wolf 

populations in Canada, Alaska and 

other parts of the world are hunted and 

trapped and are not threatened by that 

type of take. The wolf population in 

Wyoming would remain listed and 

could not be legally hunted or trapped 

by the public under this rule. The 

Service recognized (Service 1994, p. 

1–13) and encouraged (Bangs et al. in 

press; Bangs 2008) State wolf 

management programs to incorporate 

regulated public hunting in their wolf 

conservation programs. Conservation 

programs to restore large predators such 

as mountain lions, black bears, and 

wolves succeeded because of the 

historic restoration of wild ungulates, 

such as elk and deer, by State fish and 

game agencies and hunter dollars and 

involvement (Geist et al. 2001, p. 

175–181). 

While not required by the Act, the 

State, Tribal, and Federal managers will 

continue to use a combination of 

management options in order to reduce 

wolf/human conflicts, including 

nonlethal forms (Bangs et al. 2006). 

However, these methods are only 

effective in some circumstances, and no 

single tool is a cure for every problem. 

Lethal control will still be required in 

many circumstances. Lethal control also 

can improve the overall effectiveness of 

non-lethal methods (Brietenmoser et al. 

2005, p. 70). In areas of the NRM DPS 

with year-round high livestock density 

(unsuitable habitat) it is almost 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15148 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

impossible to prevent chronic livestock 

depredation if wolf packs form in those 

areas. 

Issue 29: Some commenters suggested 

that periodic population declines in 

portions of the NRM DPS related to 

disease occurrence and wolves killing 

other wolves to self-regulate the 

population demonstrated that delisting 

was premature. 

Response 29: There is a natural limit 

to how many wolves suitable habitat in 

the NRM can support. Preliminary data 

indicates wolf pack distribution has 

been stagnant since 2002, livestock 

conflicts and wolf control have 

increased (in some areas), and wolf 

numbers maybe stabilizing and that may 

limit the population long-term to 

around 1,500 wolves. Wolf populations 

above carrying capacity appear to be 

more susceptible to disease than those 

below carrying capacity (Mech et al. 

2008, p. 833; Kreeger 2003, p. 202). 

Exposure to canid diseases is high in 

the NRM and localized disease 

outbreaks will continue to periodically 

occur but no diseases have impacted 

wolf recovery. State plans commit to 

monitoring wolf health to ensure any 

impacts caused by diseases or parasites 

are quickly detected. Furthermore, wolf 

numbers become regulated by the 

amount of available prey, intra-species 

conflict, other forms of mortality, and 

dispersal. Intra-species conflict appears 

to intensify when areas reach ‘‘social 

maximums.’’ By managing for at least 50 

percent above the minimal recovery 

levels, State and Federal management 

provide an adequate safety margin for 

such events. This margin, combined 

with the State’s commitment to 

adaptively manage the species as 

needed, adequately addressed concerns 

about periodic population declines. 

Furthermore, wolf populations can 

rapidly recover from severe disruptions 

if mortality is reduced; increases of 

nearly 100 percent per year have been 

documented in low-density suitable 

habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181–183; 

Service et al. 2009, Table 4). Wolf 

biology in combination with careful 

monitoring and management ensure 

periodic population declines will not 

threaten or endanger the NRM DPS. 

Issue 30: Many people commented 

that the State regulatory frameworks 

were not adequate and should not have 

been approved. Some commenters cited 

anti-wolf statements by public officials 

and county ordinances as evidence that 

persecution of wolves will resume if 

delisting occurs. 

Response 30: We recognize that 

human persecution of wolves was the 

primary reason for their wide-spread 

extirpation across North America. We 

fully analyzed the nature and magnitude 

of this threat in Factors C, D, and E. 

below. Despite statements to the media 

by some public officials and some 

county ordinances that, if implemented, 

would be problematic for maintenance 

of a recovered wolf population, the 

official written policy and laws of the 

States supersede county rules and 

authorities and statements by politicians 

reported by the media. Our evaluation 

of State regulatory mechanisms 

considered all available laws, 

regulations, ordinances, resolutions, 

memorials, statements by elected 

officials, and State plans. State and 

Federal management ensures the 

continued long-term maintenance of a 

recovered NRM wolf population. 

Issue 31: Many commenters were 

concerned the States would not honor 

their commitments or would change 

their regulatory framework in a manner 

inconsistent with their wolf 

management plans after delisting. Such 

commenters pointed to State law or 

regulatory protections that changed after 

the publication of our previous final 

delisting determination. 

Response 31: We recognize that States 

can alter their regulatory framework 

after we issue a final delisting rule. 

Therefore, per our post-delisting 

monitoring requirements, we will 

initiate a status review to determine if 

relisting is warranted if States alter their 

State laws or management objectives in 

a manner that significantly increases the 

threat to the wolf population. Should 

relisting be required, we may make use 

of the emergency listing authorities 

under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to 

prevent a significant risk to the wellbeing of any recovered species. This 

measure will preclude inadequate 

regulatory mechanisms from threatening 

the wolf population in any State or 

recovery area. While our post-delisting 

monitoring window is 5 years, 

meaningful changes in State law or 

management objectives that would 

significantly increase the threat to the 

wolf population could lead to 

reconsideration of listing, including the 

potential for emergency listing, at any 

point. For example, if a State changed 

their regulatory framework to authorize 

the unlimited and unregulated taking of 

wolves, a condition we have previously 

determined threatened a wolf 

population, emergency listing would be 

immediately pursued. Finally, as an 

additional layer of protection, the Act 

allows for citizen petitions to consider 

relisting should the population’s status 

change. 

Issue 32: Some commenters indicated 

that that the States’ defense of property 

laws represented an unregulated taking 

of wolves, because wolves could be 

killed regardless of the wolf 

population’s status relative to the 

minimum recovery criteria. Other 

commenters suggested that we ignored 

the possibility of illegal take increasing 

once the protections of the Act were 

removed. Some commenters pointed to 

the high mortality levels that occurred 

after the previous delisting became 

effective as evidence that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are not 

adequate. 

Response 32: Except for the mortality 

that occurred in Wyoming’s predatory 

animal area, nearly all of the NRM wolf 

mortality that occurred after our 

previous delisting took effect would 

have occurred even if the Act’s 

protections had remained in place. In 

terms of take authorization, Idaho’s and 

Montana’s regulatory frameworks are 

similar to the existing nonessential 

experimental population regulations (59 

FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 

2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)). All forms 

of take will be considered in the States’ 

total allowable mortality levels. While 

we expect the delisted NRM wolf 

population to be reduced from current 

levels, the NRM DPS will be managed 

for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 

150 wolves and is likely to consist of 

973 to 1,302 wolves in 77 to 104 

breeding pairs. Should periodic and 

unanticipated disruptions occur, wolf 

biology in combination with careful 

monitoring and management ensure 

declines will not threaten or endanger 

the NRM DPS. Montana and Idaho will 

manage the wolf population at high 

enough levels over their State 

minimums to provide a more than 

adequate safety margin for any 

additional Defense of Property take of 

wolves by private citizens. Furthermore, 

we believe such opportunities will be 

limited as it is uncommon to see a wolf 

attacking livestock, let alone be able to 

shoot it. In addition, the number of 

mountain lions and black bears taken 

under State regulations, and the number 

of wolves taken under similar federal 

regulations, has been low (about 8 

percent of all problem wolves removed 

by agency authorized control) which 

further demonstrates that defense of 

property take is minor and will not 

exceed State safety margins. 

Issue 33: Some commenters thought 

wolf management plans were vague on 

how, whether, and to what extent 

enforcement would be carried out. Some 

commenters thought overwhelmingly 

anti-wolf public sentiment would 

discourage county and State attorneys 

from enforcing State wildlife laws, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15149 

particularly among attorneys with 

ambitions for higher public office. 

Response 33: Upon delisting, wolves 

in all States in the NRM DPS except 

Wyoming will become protected by 

State laws and regulations. In most 

cases, when State game agencies 

recommend prosecution, prosecution is 

pursued. As with all enforcement 

actions (State or Federal), the outcome 

depends upon the strength of the case. 

Such enforcement will ensure illegal 

activity remains minimal. While listed, 

illegal killing was estimated to be 

responsible for 10 percent of annual 

mortality. Following our previous 

delisting, there was no indication that 

illegal mortality levels changed from 

those occurring while wolves were 

delisted. While some level of illegal 

mortality will continue, State 

management well above minimal 

recovery levels, combined with wolves’ 

reproductive capabilities, ensures the 

NRM DPS will not fall below recovery 

levels. Legal hunting opportunities may 

also reduce illegal killing. In the 

Midwest, it appeared that fewer wolves 

were illegally killed during the deer 

hunting season when wolves were 

delisted than when they were listed 

(Wydeven et al. 2008). Should failure to 

prosecute result in excessive mortality 

and an inability maintain the wolf 

population above recovery levels, an 

outcome we believe is extremely 

unlikely, we would consider relisting, 

including the potential for emergency 

relisting. 

Issue 34: We received numerous 

comments on the adequacy of 

Wyoming’s 2003, 2007, and 2008 

regulatory frameworks. Many 

commenters agreed with the July 18, 

2008 District Court preliminary 

injunction order and suggested that it 

left no doubt that Wyoming’s regulatory 

framework contained the same flaws as 

their 2003 regulatory framework. Some 

commenters recommended Wyoming be 

required to revise their wolf 

management law. Other commenters 

thought Wyoming’s plan was adequate 

and pointed to our December 12, 2007 

approval for support. Some of these 

commenters stated that a change in our 

position would result in an 

unobtainable moving target for 

Wyoming. The State of Wyoming 

strongly defended their 2007 law and 

their recent modification to develop an 

improved 2008 plan, and 2008 

emergency regulations (Freudenthal 

2008). The State of Wyoming suggested 

that we ‘‘must consider the State’s 

current wolf management statutes’’ 

(2007 law, 2008 regulations and plan), 

that we ‘‘can not rely on the findings in 

a preliminary injunction order as a 

reason to reject the State’s wolf 

management scheme,’’ and that 

‘‘nothing in the text of the Act requires 

that the regulatory mechanisms 

governing the management of a species 

be statutory.’’ Wyoming stated that our 

comments on their State plan which 

suggested a need to amend State law as 

the foundation for a revision to their 

regulatory framework ‘‘provided 

irrefutable proof of this prejudged 

outcome.’’ Finally, Wyoming wanted 

the Service clarify that it was in error to 

reject Wyoming’s 2003 wolf plan and 

that the Service was correct in its 2007 

approval of Wyoming’s 2007 plan. 

Response 34: The best scientific and 

commercial data available demonstrates 

that the wolf population remains in 

need of the Act’s protections in the 

Wyoming portion of the range because 

of inadequate regulatory mechanisms. 

The 2008 revisions in the Wyoming 

wolf management plan and emergency 

regulations (Chapter 21) are greatly 

improved over earlier versions, however 

they are still dependent on Wyoming 

statute and at times appear to promise 

actions that Wyoming statute prohibits. 

For example the Wyoming plan clearly 

commits to managing genetic 

connectivity, but State law allows no 

regulation of wolf mortality over 88 

percent of the State, including many 

areas likely to be used by dispersing 

wolves. While we still believe most 

breeding pairs will remain inside of the 

boundary of the current trophy game 

area, the extent of the predatory animal 

area certainly limits most opportunity 

for genetic and demographic 

connectivity, a condition that will assist 

in sustaining wolf recovery in the GYA. 

We also believe our 2004 rejection of 

Wyoming’s 2003 wolf management plan 

was correct (see 71 FR 43410, August 1, 

2006). We also determined that in 

hindsight, we were probably too 

optimistic about what the law really 

committed Wyoming to and what could 

be accomplished by regulations alone. 

We also should have evaluated the 

potential for genetic connectivity more 

closely, when we determined the 2007 

plan was sufficient. The very specific 

and deliberate intent, tone, and wording 

of Wyoming law clearly continues to be 

the major impediment to Wyoming 

developing and implementing a wolf 

management plan the Service can 

approve. In the past Wyoming has, with 

the exception of the professional 

recommendations they used to establish 

the proposed 2008 hunting season, 

almost without exception encouraged 

wolf take to drive the wolf population 

down to minimum recovery levels. We 

believe that the best way for Wyoming 

to provide adequate regulatory 

mechanisms would be to develop a 

statewide trophy game management 

designation as the basis for any revised 

regulatory framework. At a minimum, 

this change would require a revision of 

Wyoming’s wolf management law as the 

current law establishes the limits of the 

trophy game area to only 12 percent of 

the State. Until Wyoming revises their 

statutes, management plan, and 

associated regulations, and is again 

Service approved, wolves in Wyoming 

shall remain protected by Act. See 

discussion in Factor D. 

Issue 35: Many parties commented on 

the amount of Wyoming that should be 

managed for maintenance of wolves 

including the size of Wyoming’s trophy 

game area. Commenters suggested that 

wolf recovery could be accomplished: 

Without wolves in Wyoming; within 

Wyoming’s National Parks; within 

Wyoming’s National Parks and 

wilderness areas; or within the 12 

percent of Wyoming currently 

designated as a trophy game area. Some 

believed Wyoming’s 2007 law allowed 

the trophy game area to be expanded by 

the WGFC. Other commenters stated 

Wyoming’s trophy game area should be 

much larger, including all suitable 

habitat and all potential dispersal 

corridors, or State-wide like all the other 

States in the NRM DPS. Some thought 

if wolves remained listed in Wyoming 

then they should continue be managed 

as experimental populations, others did 

not. 

Response 35: The predatory animal 

area of Wyoming covers at least 88 

percent of Wyoming and can not be 

expanded per Wyoming Statute. 

However, the 12 percent of Wyoming 

with trophy game protections can be 

reduced by WGFC. Statewide trophy 

game status: Will allow Wyoming Game 

and Fish Department (WGFD) more 

flexibility to devise a management 

strategy, including regulated harvest, 

that provides for self-sustaining 

populations above recovery goals; 

prevents a patchwork of different 

management statuses; will be easier for 

the public to understand and, thus, will 

be easier to regulate; is similar to State 

management of other resources like 

mountain lions and black-bears; and is 

consistent with the current regulatory 

scheme in that the entire State is 

currently nonessential, experimental. 

Furthermore, maintenance of the Act’s 

protections Statewide will assist Service 

Law Enforcement efforts that might 

otherwise be difficult if predatory 

animal status was allowed in portions of 

Wyoming. Finally, retaining the Act’s 

protections in all of Wyoming is 

biologically warranted because: Wolf 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

dispersal capabilities allow them a 

range that encompasses the entire state; 

and retention of the Act’s protections in 

only the current trophy game area 

would substantially limit potential 

genetic connectivity. This does not 

mean Wyoming must manage for wolf 

pack occupancy everywhere in 

Wyoming in the future as long as their 

management framework safely supports 

their share of a recovered wolf 

population and allows for adequate 

genetic and demographic connectivity 

into the future and incorporates normal 

wildlife population fluctuations, such as 

those that appear to have occurred in 

YNP in 2008. Preliminary counts 

suggest the YNP segment of the wolf 

population may be 124 wolves in 12 

packs with only 6 breeding pairs. 

However, the overall GYA population 

will be similar to 2007, indicating the 

importance of wolves in Wyoming 

outside YNP to maintaining wolf 

recovery in the GYA. 

Thus, this final rule removes the Act’s 

protections throughout the NRM DPS 

except for Wyoming. Wolves in all of 

Wyoming will continue to be regulated 

as a non-essential, experimental 

population per 50 CFR 17.84 (i) and (n). 

We considered removing the Act’s 

protection in those few often fragmented 

parts of Wyoming with adequate 

regulations, such as Wind River Tribal 

lands, National Parks and Refuges, but 

to ensure consistent enforcement of the 

Act, the potential wolf dispersal 

throughout Wyoming, and other reasons 

we did not. The adequacy of Wyoming’s 

regulatory mechanisms is discussed 

further under Factor D below. 

Issue 36: Some believed Idaho 

mandated elimination of wolves. They 

quoted comments from state officials 

that suggested wolves be killed to 

minimum levels as soon as possible. 

Some indicated the Service should not 

have approved Idaho’s wolf 

management plan. Others believed that 

the liberal nature of Idaho’s March 28, 

2008 defense of property law invited 

abuse and cited an incident where a 

person who chased a wolf for a mile 

before shooting it was not prosecuted. 

Some said Idaho’s 2002 plan makes 

clear its position is all wolf removal, 

that IDFG can reclassify wolves ID–36– 

201 and could expand methods of take 

(e.g., could broadcast poison). Others 

said the Service approved Idaho’s plan 

before its step down implementation 

plan was developed, thus it was not 

known to be an adequate plan when 

approved. Others suggested Idaho’s 

regulations were more than adequate 

and wolves should be delisted. 

Response 36: We coordinated 

extensively with Idaho on the 

development of its plan and carefully 

reviewed several drafts of the plan over 

the course of 2002. We stand by our 

conclusion that the Idaho plan 

constitutes adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. Idaho’s implementation 

planning improved the specific wolf 

conservation measures Idaho would 

undertake. Central Idaho provides the 

largest contiguous block of suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM as evidenced by the 

over 840 wolves living there now. The 

quality of this habitat, combined with 

the State’s management strategy leave 

no doubt wolves will be maintained far 

above minimum recovery levels in 

Idaho. Idaho’s comments on the 

proposed rule provide an excellent and 

detailed review of Idaho law, 

regulations and its formal position 

regarding the future of wolves in Idaho 

(Otter 2008). Both its description of how 

its defense of property laws and hunting 

regulations were developed are 

thorough and should remove any doubt 

that Idaho’s regulatory framework will 

adequately regulate human-caused 

mortality and maintain a recovered wolf 

subpopulation in Idaho. 

We have also reviewed all the wolves 

taken under State defense of property 

regulations. Our March 2008 delisting 

was predicated on State defense of 

property laws being similar in their 

biological effect to the Acts’ 2005 and 

2008 experimental population 

regulations. The March 28, 2008 law 

passed by the Idaho Legislature Idaho 

Code § 36–1107 was an amendment to 

an existing law that was specific to 

black bears and mountain lions. The law 

added wolves to the protection of 

property statute and added language 

that governed taking of wolves. It made 

the reporting of wolf mortality more 

stringent than that for bears and lions. 

Following the initial delisting of gray 

wolves, private control actions did not 

increase dramatically. From delisting 

through July 18, 2008, eleven wolves 

were killed under Idaho’s law. In 2006 

and 2007, seven wolves were killed 

each year under the Act’s 10(j) rule. The 

increase in wolves killed in 2008 by 

livestock and pet owners is consistent 

with an increase in wolves and 

concomitant depredations in Idaho that 

year. 

We reviewed the incident where an 

individual chased a wolf on a snow 

machine for a mile before shooting it. 

While IDFG recommended prosecution, 

the local county prosecutor determined 

the new law’s definition of ‘‘worrying’’ 

may not have withstood the scrutiny of 

a jury under the circumstances in this 

case. The prosecutor supported IDGF 

issuing a warning to this individual in 

case should other questionable take 

occur in the future. We believe the 

particulars of this case make it unique. 

IDFG and the Idaho Attorney General’s 

office are working with prosecutors to 

assure consistent enforcement of § 36– 

1107 throughout the state. 

In addition, all known Idaho wolf 

mortality, including that related to 

defense of property, count against the 

total mortality quota for that hunting 

unit and would be removed from the 

allowable hunting harvest. It is unlikely 

that such take would result in a level of 

take beyond that allowed by hunting 

district because hunting occurs after 

most defense of property take would 

occur. Thus, that level of mortality 

would be compensated for by either 

closing or reducing the hunting quota. 

Additionally, State management several 

times above minimum recovery levels 

provides further assurance that recovery 

will not be compromised by such 

sources of mortality. Therefore, we 

determine that the new law will not 

threaten the wolf population in Idaho as 

long as IDFG prosecutes most 

individuals who abuse it and Idaho 

maintains its commitment to manage 

their share of the wolf population well 

above minimum recovery levels. 

Issue 37: While most agreed that 

Montana appeared to have the best plan 

and regulatory framework of any State, 

and it should be the model for other 

states, others believed it was 

inadequate. Some thought the lack of a 

quota system on defense of property 

take of wolves allowed for unlimited 

and unregulated taking. Others thought 

that the level of hunting and trapping 

that Montana’s plan could allow might 

threaten the wolf population. 

Response 37: Montana did an 

outstanding job of describing, in detail, 

its regulatory framework and its 

commitment to wolf management 

(McDonald 2008). We have reviewed all 

the wolves taken under State defense of 

property regulations. Our March 2008 

delisting was predicated on State 

defense of property laws being similar 

in their biological effect to the Acts’ 

2005 and 2008 experimental population 

(10j) regulations. In Montana, only four 

wolves were taken by private citizens 

while wolves were delisted between 

March 28 and July 18, 2008, but all 

could have been taken under the Act’s 

10j regulations if the species had been 

listed. Montana conducted a thorough 

analysis before setting its hunting 

season quota and then chose a 

conservative harvest to build in extra 

caution. Montana regulatory frame 

clearly constitutes an adequate 

regulatory frame work for the purposes 

of the Act. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15151 

Issue 38: Some commenters 

maintained that none of the NRM DPS 

should be delisted until Oregon, 

Washington, and Utah had approved 

wolf management plans. 

Response 38: Any wolf conservation 

by Washington, Oregon, Utah, and the 

Tribes will be beneficial, but is not 

necessary to either achieve or maintain 

a recovered wolf population in the NRM 

DPS. Still, Oregon and Utah have State 

wolf management plans/strategies and 

Washington is close to finishing theirs 

(See Factor D). We have assisted and 

consulted with them during those 

efforts. This is consistent with the 

recovery plan which considered parts of 

these States (Service 1987, p. 2) as being 

associated with the NRM wolf 

population. Management in all three 

States appears likely to benefit the NRM 

DPS but not significantly. 

Issue 39: Some commenters wanted 

the States to manage for breeding pairs 

rather than undefined packs. 

Response 39: The discrepancy 

between breeding pairs and packs no 

longer appears relevant as the States and 

the Service have committed to measure 

wolf recovery criteria by breeding pairs 

and numbers of wolves (Montana 2003; 

IDFG 2007; Wyoming 2008, p. 13; 

Mitchell et al. 2008). However, 

Wyoming’s comments seemed to suggest 

that YNP packs that did not raise pups 

in 2005 might qualify as breeding pairs 

anyway because they bred in 2006 

(Freudenthal 2008, p. 8). This is not an 

accurate interpretation of the breeding 

pair metric. 

Issue 40: Some commenters 

recommended wolf management be 

transferred to the States and Tribes. 

Response 40: The Service agrees that 

a recovered wolf population is best 

managed by the respective States and 

Tribes. The States have relatively large 

and well-distributed professional fish 

and game agencies that have the 

demonstrated skills and experience that 

has successfully managed a diversity of 

resident species, including large 

carnivores. We believe these State 

agencies are similarly qualified to 

manage a recovered wolf population. 

State management of wolves will be in 

alignment with the classic State-led 

North American model for wildlife 

management which has been extremely 

successful at restoring, maintaining, and 

expanding the distribution of numerous 

populations of other wildlife species, 

including other large predators, 

throughout North America (Geist 2006, 

p. 1; Bangs 2008). 

Under cooperative agreements with 

us, Montana and Idaho, and Nez Perce 

Tribe have successfully managed wolves 

in those States for the past 4 to 13 years. 

The Blackfeet, Salish and Kootenia, and 

Wind River Tribes have also developed 

expertise in wolf management within 

their tribal wildlife agencies by 

participating in wolf management for 

the past several years. This allowed 

their organizations to develop 

experience, knowledge, and expertise in 

wolf management and conservation and 

to develop a track record of credibility 

and trust with state residents and local 

government agencies. Unfortunately, 

with the exception of a few months 

when wolves were delisted in 2008, 

Wyoming has chosen to not actively 

participate in wolf management. The 

Service worked closely with the States 

as they developed their wolf 

management plans to ensure that they 

will always maintain a wolf population 

that exceeds recovery criteria. We are 

confident the States, except Wyoming, 

and Tribes will adequately manage 

wolves so the protections of the Act will 

not again be required. 

Until Wyoming revises their statutes, 

management plan, and associated 

regulations, and they are approved by 

the Service, wolves in Wyoming 

continue to require the protections of 

the Act. 

Issue 41: Some parties raised a 

concern that State wolf management 

plans would not be implemented 

because funding for the plans is not 

guaranteed. These commenters thought 

that the lack of guaranteed funding 

undermined the adequacy of the 

regulatory mechanisms, thus, delisting 

should not occur. 

Response 41: It is not possible to 

predict with certainty future 

governmental appropriations, nor can 

we commit or require Federal funds 

beyond those appropriated (31 U.S.C. 

1341(a)(1)(A)). Even though federal 

funding is dependent on year-to-year 

allocations, we have consistently and 

fully funded wolf management. Federal 

funding will continue to be available in 

the future for State management, but 

certainly not to the extent while wolves 

were listed. The States recognize that 

implementation of their wolf 

management plans requires funding. 

The States have committed to secure the 

necessary funding to manage the wolf 

populations under the guidelines 

established by their approved State wolf 

management plans (Montana 2003, p. 

xiv; Idaho 2007, p. 24, 47–48; Idaho 

2002; p. 23–25; Wyoming 2007, p. 29– 

31). All have worked with their 

congressional delegations to secure 

Federal funding, but recognized that 

other sources of funding may eventually 

be required to implement their plans. In 

addition to State license fees or other 

forms of State funding, Federal funding 

is available to help manage a delisted 

wolf population including in the form of 

direct appropriations, PittmanRobertson Wildlife Restoration Act, 

other Federal grant programs, and 

private funding. The Service will 

continue to assist the States to secure 

adequate funding for wolf management. 

The Federal government will continue 

to fund wolf management in Wyoming. 

If wolf management by a State or 

Federal agency was inadequately 

funded to carry out the basic 

commitments of an approved State plan, 

then the promised management of 

threats by the States and the required 

monitoring of wolf populations might 

not be addressed. That scenario could 

trigger a status review for possible 

relisting under the Act, including 

possible use of the emergency listing 

authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act to prevent a significant risk to the 

well-being of any recovered species. 

Issue 42: Several parties suggested 

that we should have considered the risk 

to the wolf population from catastrophic 

events such as fire, climate change, 

drought, disease, and stochastic events. 

Response 42: In response to these 

comments, we added a discussion of 

catastrophic events under Factor E 

below. Other potential catastrophic 

events are considered in other sections 

including our evaluation of habitat 

modification, diseases and parasites, 

human harassment and killing, genetic 

risks, climate change, and human 

attitudes. Wolves are one of the most 

adaptable and resilient land mammals 

on earth and, except for excessive 

human persecution, wolf populations 

can survive every type of natural 

catastrophic event. There is no record of 

a wolf population in historic habitat 

anywhere in the world ever being 

extirpated by a natural event, except 

perhaps during the ice ages. 

Issue 43: Some commenters requested 

the Service consider the potential for 

low genetic diversity to threaten the 

NRM DPS. They contend that the 

current or predicted population is not 

high enough to maintain long-term 

connectivity and genetic security. These 

commenters suggested this issue is of 

greatest concern in the GYA where 

geographic factors could isolate the 

population. Commenters recommended 

that we establish corridors of suitable 

habitat, or nearly contiguous pack 

territories, between the recovery areas. 

Some recommended that we provide 

habitat protections for identified natural 

linkage zones between and within the 

GYA and central Idaho and 

northwestern Montana. It also was 

recommended that we should designate 

critical habitat for these linkage zones. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15152 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response 43: We have greatly 

expanded our discussion in Factor E 

regarding genetics. Furthermore, 

Canadian authorities also have a long 

history of cooperation with us and have 

designed wolf management programs in 

Alberta and British Columbia to 

promote recovery and genetic exchange 

with Montana and Idaho (McDonald 

2008). Assuming adequate regulation of 

take across all potential migratory 

corridors, we do not believe there is 

now or will be in the foreseeable future 

a need to develop specific habitat 

corridors for wolf dispersal. A number 

of factors make this unnecessary 

including: The current high levels of 

genetic diversity; assured future genetic 

exchange by natural dispersal or if 

necessary human assistance; the 

distance wolves routinely disperse 

through even highly unsuitable habitat; 

and the limited amount of current and 

future human development in the 

corridor between the recovery areas 

(and Canada), including the GYA, 

because of the amount and distribution 

of public land. Wolves have an unusual 

ability to rapidly disperse long 

distances, across virtually any habitat 

and select mates to maximize genetic 

diversity (Wabakken et al. 2007, p. 

1631; Linnell et al. 2005, p. 383; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007). Thus, 

connectivity issues are among the least 

likely to affect wolves when compared 

to nearly any other species of land 

mammal (Paquet et al. 2006, p. 3; Liberg 

2008, p. 1). If necessary any 

complications from a potential lack of 

natural habitat connectivity could be 

quickly resolved by agency-managed 

genetic exchange. Connectivity and 

genetics are discussed further below 

under factors A and E, respectively. 

Critical habitat can only be designated 

for threatened and endangered species. 

Furthermore, under section 

10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act, critical habitat 

can not be designated for nonessential 

experimental populations. Therefore, 

across most of the NRM DPS, critical 

habitat has never been appropriate. 

Finally, since we are also removing the 

Act’s protections across those portions 

of the DPS where the species was 

previously endangered these areas no 

longer qualify as potential critical 

habitat. 

Issue 44: Some commenters stated 

that we failed to consider the impacts of 

State hunts on the social structure of 

wolf packs. 

Response 44: Social status in wolf 

packs changes regardless of humancaused mortality and is part of wolf 

ecology. Humans do increase the rate of 

turn over, but healthy wolf populations 

all over the world, including Canada 

and Alaska, are harvested by people and 

wolf pack structure is amazingly 

resilient. The States have incorporated 

hunting seasons, bag limits, and fair 

chase methods of take to intentionally 

reduce the potential impact of humancaused mortality on pack breeding 

potential and its subsequent ability to 

successfully raise pups. This issue is 

considered under Factor E below. 

Issue 45: Some commenters 

encouraged us to investigate human 

dimensions with a protocol that would 

allow quantification of changes in the 

attitudes of the general public, farmers, 

hunters, and other stakeholders. 

Response 45: We agree that the values 

people hold about wolves may provide 

valuable insight into successful 

management strategies. The States have 

already conducted surveys about human 

values towards wolves (Idaho 2007, 

Appendix A; as one example) and will 

likely continue to do so in the future. 

We believe this information may be 

helpful to formulate State policies. 

However, such monitoring is not 

required by the Act in order to justify 

delisting. 

Significant Portion of Range 

Issue 46: Several commenters stated 

that the 2007 Department of the Interior 

Solicitor’s opinion (U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 2007) 

was an incorrect interpretation of the 

Act. These commenters argued that we 

have authority to list or delist only 

whole species, subspecies, and DPSs— 

in other words, if we find a species to 

be in danger of extinction in only a 

significant portion of its range, we must 

list it and apply all of the protections of 

the Act to its entire range, even to 

portions of the range that are not at risk. 

These commenters opined that the 

partial listing approach represents a 

departure from thirty years of listing 

practice. 

In particular, some commenters 

suggested the NRM DPS should be 

protected rangewide because it retains 

the need for listing over a significant 

portion of its range. They suggested 

partial listings would lead to a limitless 

series of petitions and lawsuits over the 

status of taxa in portions of their ranges. 

Others suggested the NRM DPS should 

be delisted throughout its entire range, 

unless the threats are so severe in the 

Wyoming portion of the range that it 

puts the entire NRM DPS’s future in 

doubt. These commenters suggested the 

Service’s new listing approach 

inappropriately allows partial-listings 

when the loss of a portion of range 

results in a decrease, no matter how 

small, in the ability to conserve a 

species, subspecies, or DPS. 

Response 46: On March 16, 2007, the 

Solicitor of the Department of the 

Interior issued a memorandum opinion 

with an extensive evaluation of the 

meaning of ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range’’ (Department of the Interior, 

Office of the Solicitor 2007). We agree 

with the interpretation of the Act set 

forth in the Solicitor’s opinion, and 

disagree with these comments for the 

reasons given in that opinion. Once we 

determine listing is appropriate, section 

4(c) of the Act requires we ‘‘specify with 

respect to each such species over what 

portion of its range it is threatened.’’ In 

this case, we are specifying that the 

protections of the Act remain necessary 

in Wyoming. Thus, the protections of 

the Act shall remain in place in the 

Wyoming portion of its range. The 

interpretation of the Act advocated by 

these commenters fails to give sufficient 

consideration to the import of section 

4(c), is inconsistent with legislative 

history of the Act that strongly supports 

the view that Congress intended to give 

the Secretary broad discretion to tailor 

the protections of the Act with the 

needs of the species. 

Moreover, even before the 2007 

Solicitors opinion, we have applied 

differential levels of protections for 

species facing differential levels of 

threats in different parts of their range. 

For example, in 1978, the gray wolf was 

protected as endangered in the lower-48 

States, except in Minnesota, where it 

was protected as threatened (43 FR 

9607, March 9, 1978). Nor is the listing 

determination for NRM DPS the only 

listing determination applying the 

Solicitor’s opinion. In our 2008 

Gunnison prairie dog (Cynomys 

gunnisoni) 12-month finding (73 FR 

6660, February 5, 2008), we determined 

that the Gunnison’s prairie dog does not 

warrant the Act’s protections 

throughout its range, but that the 

significant portion of the species’ range 

located in central and south-central 

Colorado and northcentral New Mexico 

does warrant protection under the Act. 

On July 10, 2008, we determined the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) was not threatened 

throughout all of its range and the 

portion of the subspecies’ range located 

in Colorado represented a significant 

portion of the range where the 

subspecies should retain its threatened 

status (73 FR 39790). Thus, this rule 

removes the Act’s protections in 

Wyoming while retaining them in 

Colorado (73 FR 39790, July 10, 2008). 

According to the Solicitor’s opinion, 

we have broad discretion in defining 

what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’ 

but this discretion is not unlimited. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15153 

Specifically, we may not define 

‘‘significant’’ to require that a species is 

endangered only if the threats faced by 

a species in a portion of its range are so 

severe as to threaten the viability of the 

species as a whole. The comment that 

a portion of the range of a species can 

be significant only if its loss would put 

the future of the species in doubt rests 

on a single quote from hearing 

testimony on a bill that was a precursor 

to the Act. If by the future of the species 

being in doubt, the commenter meant 

that the threat to the portion of the range 

must threaten the entire species, such 

an interpretation would read the 

‘‘significant portion or its range.’’ The 

Solicitor’s opinion includes a 

comprehensive evaluation of this issue 

and the relevant case law. 

For this determination, we used an 

analysis similar to that we have used in 

other recent listing determinations: A 

portion of a species’ range is significant 

if it is part of the current range of the 

species and it contributes substantially 

to the representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. In other 

words, in considering significance, the 

Service asks whether the loss of this 

portion likely would eventually move 

the species toward extinction, but not to 

the point where the species should be 

listed as threatened or endangered 

throughout all of its range. 

Issue 47: Several commenters stated 

that the ‘‘partial-listing’’ approach 

allowed by the Solicitor’s opinion 

undoes the effect of the 1978 DPS 

amendments to the Act. 

Response 47: We do not believe this 

approach undoes the 1978 amendments 

to the Act. Instead, it compliments the 

1978 amendments. A DPS of a 

vertebrate species which interbreeds 

when mature is considered and treated 

as a species (i.e., a listable entity) under 

the Act. A significant portion of the 

range is a portion of the range of the 

listed entity (whether a full species, 

subspecies, or DPS of a vertebrate) that 

contributes meaningfully to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we may apply the protections of the Act 

in a significant portion of a DPS. In 

addition, we may apply the protections 

of the Act in a significant portion of a 

species or subspecies of non-vertebrate. 

According to our DPS policy (61 FR 

4722, February 7, 1996), a DPS must be 

discrete and must be significant to the 

taxon to which it belongs (species or 

subspecies) as a whole. The term 

‘‘significant’’ in the Act’s definitions of 

endangered and threatened species 

should not be considered entirely 

equivalent to the ‘‘significance’’ element 

of the DPS policy. However, we 

recognize that many of the attributes 

(described below) we have identified as 

important for evaluating whether a 

portion of a species’ range is significant 

are similar to the attributes identified in 

the DPS policy as being appropriate for 

evaluating the significance of a potential 

DPS. There is no requirement that a 

significant portion of the range be 

discrete, but similar to DPSs, a 

significant portion of the range must be 

significant. As explained in detail 

previously, the significance of a 

significant portion of the range is based 

on an evaluation of its contribution to 

the conservation of the listable entity 

being considered. The DPS policy lists 

four possible factors to consider when 

determining significance, but does not 

limit consideration of significance to 

only those four factors. The 

considerations we made in this instance 

for determining whether a portion is 

significant encompass and expand on 

some of the concepts in the DPS policy. 

Issue 48: Some commenters 

recommended we use a 4(d) rule to 

reduce regulatory restrictions in more 

secure portions of its range instead of 

the significant portion of range 

approach. 

Response 48: Special rules under 

section 4(d) of the Act apply only where 

the protections of the Act are in place. 

Thus, once we determined the NRM 

DPS was not threatened in all of its 

range, use of section 4(d) was no longer 

an option across most of the DPS. While 

a 4(d) rule allows us to tailor the Act’s 

taking provisions as necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species, the 

approach used here also eliminates 

additional unnecessary regulation. We 

believe this approach is more consistent 

with the intention of Congress as 

expressed in the legislative history 

concerning the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ 

Issue 49: Some commenters suggested 

a ‘‘partial delisting’’ would not improve 

the conservation status of the DPS and 

would treat different communities 

inequitably with regards to the level of 

protection required and costs associated 

with them over different geographic 

areas. 

Response 49: We believe this 

approach allows for a more surgical 

application of the Act, as envisioned by 

Congress when it wrote the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ language. The Act 

does not allow us to consider in this 

listing decision whether there would be 

higher costs in one portion of the range 

than in the rest of the NRM DPS. On the 

whole, we believe this targeted 

approach provides for the necessary and 

appropriate needs of the species, while 

avoiding unnecessary regulatory 

burdens. 

Issue 50: Many commenters provided 

opinions on what portion of Wyoming 

was a significant portion of range. Some 

commenters supported the position in 

our 2007 proposal that the only 

significant portion of Wyoming was the 

12 percent identified in State law as the 

trophy game area. Many commenters 

were concerned that these boundaries 

would constrain our ability to maintain 

a recovered population in Wyoming and 

instead suggested all of Wyoming was a 

significant portion of range for wolves. 

Some commenters indicated the 

significant portion of Wyoming should 

include all areas of suitable habitat and 

potential dispersal corridors to other 

NRM DPS recovery areas. Other 

commenters thought the significant 

portion of Wyoming should include 

potential included corridors to States 

outside the NRM DPS and cited 

documented dispersal of wolves across 

various portions of Wyoming into South 

Dakota, Colorado, and Utah as evidence. 

Other commenters indicated that all of 

Wyoming was once historic habitat, 

thus all Wyoming should now be 

considered a significant portion of 

range. Still other commenters suggested 

that the significant portion of range 

should not split the recovery area and 

should include the entire GYA 

(including those portions of the 

recovery area in Montana and Idaho). 

Several commenters stated that 

management practicality favors use of 

the man-made boundaries. Our 

significant portion of range analysis can 

be found in the Conclusion of the 5- 

Factor Analysis section of this rule 

below. 

Response 50: After careful 

consideration, we now believe that the 

boundaries of the significant portion of 

the range in Wyoming should be 

expanded to include the entire State. 

Retaining the Act’s protections 

Statewide: Encloses and defines the area 

where threats are sufficient to result in 

a determination that a portion of a DPS’ 

range is significant, and is endangered 

or threatened; clearly defines the 

portion of the range that is specified as 

threatened or endangered; and does not 

circumscribe the current distribution of 

the species so tightly that opportunities 

to maintain recovery are foreclosed. 

Man-made boundaries are appropriate 

because of these boundaries correspond 

to differences in threat management; 

these differences in threat management 

result in biological differences in status. 

There also are a practical considerations 

(e.g., law enforcement) supporting use 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of the State line to delineate the 

significant portion of range where the 

Act’s protections are still necessary. 

Retention of the Act’s protections 

throughout the GYA, including those 

portions in Idaho and Montana, is not 

necessary given the adequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms in those States. 

These issues are discussed further in the 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

section below. 

Issue 51: Some commenters expressed 

dissenting views and interpretations of 

the word ‘‘range’’ in the Act’s phrase 

‘‘significant portion of its range.’’ 

Several believed that ‘‘range’’ should 

mean historical range. Others opined 

that our definition was the same used in 

our 2003 rule that was invalidated by 

the court (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). 

Still others suggested our consideration 

of significant portion of range should 

consider all suitable or potential habitat. 

Response 51: As elaborated in the 

2007 memoradum opinion (Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

2007), we believe the law is clear that 

‘‘range’’ in this phrase refers to ‘‘current 

range,’’ not ‘‘historical range’’ and that 

the Service therefore must focus 

primarily on current range. Data about 

the historical range and how the species 

came to be extinct in a portion of its 

historical range may be relevant in 

understanding or predicting whether a 

species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in 

its current range. The fact that a species 

has ceased to exist in what may have 

been portions of its historical range does 

not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in a significant 

portion of the range where it currently 

exists. For the purposes of this rule, 

‘‘range’’ includes all of the NRM DPS (as 

identified in Factor A below and 

illustrated in Figure 1). Thus, our fivefactor analysis analyzed threats across 

all portions of the NRM DPS. 

Public Involvement 

Issue 52: Some thought that the 

Service should have provided 

additional opportunities to learn more 

about the proposal and to provide 

comments including additional public 

hearings. Specifically, we received 

requests for hearings in Denver, 

Colorado, Seattle, Washington, Portland, 

Oregon, Washington, DC, and Jackson, 

Wyoming. 

Response 52: We have provided 

ample opportunity for public comment 

including public comment periods 

totaling 150 days. Such a lengthy 

comment period goes well beyond the 

basic requirements of the Act and other 

Federal rulemaking procedures. Section 

4(b)(5)(E) requires that we hold one 

public hearing on proposed regulations 

if requested. During this rulemaking 

process we held eight public hearings 

and eight open houses (72 FR 6106, 

February 8, 2007; 72 FR 14760, March 

29, 2007; 73 FR 36939, July 6, 2007). We 

selected locations that were within a 

reasonable driving distance of where 

wolves live and in every State within 

the NRM DPS. We also alerted 

interested parties to the details of public 

hearings and opportunities for public 

comment. Public hearing times and 

locations and other avenues to comment 

were announced in the Federal 

Register, posted on our Web site and in 

our weekly wolf reports, and publicized 

in local and national press releases. All 

comments, whether presented at a 

public hearing or provided in another 

manner, received the same review and 

consideration. Commenting via 

electronic, hand delivery, or letter 

allowed unlimited space to express 

comments, as opposed to the public 

hearing format, which limited 

comments to three minutes in order to 

provide an opportunity for all attending 

to speak. Over 520,000 comments were 

received including approximately 

240,000 comments during our most 

recent comment period. This significant 

effort satisfies our statutory 

responsibility under the Act. 

Scientific Analyses 

Issue 53: Some commenters 

recommended we conduct a population 

viability analysis (PVA) or other 

additional modeling exercises or 

analysis before delisting. 

Response 53: The Act requires that we 

use the best scientific data available 

when we make decisions to list, 

reclassify, or delist a species. PVAs can 

be valuable as a tool to help us 

understand the population dynamics of 

a rare species (White 2000). They can be 

useful in identifying gaps in our 

knowledge of the demographic 

parameters that are most important to a 

species’ survival, but they cannot tell us 

how many individuals are necessary to 

avoid extinction. The difficulty of 

applying PVA techniques to wolves has 

been discussed by Fritts and Carbyn 

(1995) and Boitani (2003). Problems 

include: Our inability to provide 

accurate input information for the 

probability of occurrence of, and impact 

from, catastrophic events (such as a 

major disease outbreak or prey base 

collapse); our inability to incorporate all 

the complexities and feedback loops 

inherent in wild systems and agency 

adaptive management strategies; our 

inability to provide realistic inputs for 

the influences of environmental 

variation (such as annual fluctuations in 

winter severity and the resulting 

impacts on prey abundance and 

vulnerability); temporal variation; 

selective outbreeding (vonHoldt et al. 

2007); individual heterogeneity; and 

difficulty in dealing with the spatial 

aspects of extreme territoriality and the 

long-distance dispersals shown by 

wolves. Relatively minor changes in any 

of these input values into a theoretical 

model can result in vastly different 

outcomes. Thus, while we reviewed 

most of the wolf PVAs conducted to 

date, we believe conducting another 

PVA-type analysis on the effect of wolf 

population management would be of 

limited value in the NRM DPS. Instead, 

we relied upon an extensive body of 

empirical data on wolves and the NRM 

wolf population. We believe the State, 

Tribal and Federal commitments for 

adaptive management preclude any 

need to theorize regarding the NRM 

wolf population’s future status. We also 

used models that employed PVA-like 

parameters and analysis to identify 

potentially suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM DPS now and into the future 

(Carroll et al. 2003, 2006; Carroll 2006). 

While some suggested that we 

conduct a PVA based on maintenance of 

30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves or 

capping a wolf population at an 

arbitrary level, we believe this would 

lead to an inaccurate and misleading 

conclusion. Any such analysis would 

ignore the fluctuating nature of wildlife 

populations, actual requirements of the 

recovery goal, the commitments to 

manage well above that level, and to 

adapt their management strategies and 

adjust allowable rates of human-caused 

mortality should the population ever 

appear to not be meeting their 

management objectives that exceed 

recovery levels. 

One PVA that maybe instructive to 

the NRM was one from Wisconsin 

(1999). It suggested a totally isolated 

population of 300–500 wolves would 

have a high probability of persisting for 

100 years under most scenarios 

evaluated. Managing wolves at a 

hypothetical cultural carrying capacity 

of 300 instead of allowing the 

population to reach the biological 

carrying capacity of 500 had little effect 

on the risk of extinction * * Virtually 

all simulated populations below 80 

individuals declined in the high 

environmental variability scenarios 

(Bangs 2002, p. 6). 

Issue 54: Some commenters felt that it 

was difficult to judge the scientific 

validity of the science we relied upon 

because some of the science and 

literature was gray literature, had not 

been peer reviewed, was in preparation, 

or was through personal 

communication. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15155 

Response 54: While we attempt to use 

peer reviewed literature to the 

maximum extent possible, the Act 

requires us to make our decision based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available regardless of form. 

Because we have so many ongoing 

research and monitoring projects new 

data are constantly being collected, 

analyzed, peer reviewed, and published. 

Such information often represents the 

best scientific data available (Service et 

al. 2007, p. 64, 114, 183, 213). All 

citations have been and continue to be 

available upon request. 

Relisting Criteria 

Issue 55: Some commenters 

recommended we develop a clear, 

unequivocal set of criteria for automatic 

relisting. Some commenters argued that 

monitoring is not sufficient if the results 

of investigations are not promptly 

incorporated in policy and management, 

and this type of rapid response requires 

availability of contingency funds, clear 

roles and authorities, and the power to 

impose the necessary actions on all 

involved partners. They state that 

because the effectiveness of the 

monitoring program depends upon 

adequate funding, the monitoring plan 

should have secure funding for at least 

five years before delisting occurs. 

Response 55: State, Tribal, and 

Federal partners have committed to 

monitor the wolf population according 

to the breeding pair standard and 

publish annual reports of their activities 

for at least the first 5 years after 

delisting. We will post this information 

and our analysis of it annually. 

While the Act contains no provision 

for ‘‘automatic’’ relisting of a species 

based on quantitative criteria, we 

believe that our criteria for relisting 

consideration are clear. Three scenarios 

could lead us to initiate a status review 

and analysis of threats to determine if 

relisting is warranted including: (1) If 

the State wolf population falls below the 

minimum NRM wolf population 

recovery level of 10 breeding pairs of 

wolves and 100 wolves in either 

Montana or Idaho at the end of the year; 

(2) if the wolf population segment in 

Montana or Idaho falls below 15 

breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end 

of the year in either of those States for 

3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change 

in State law or management objectives 

would significantly increase the threat 

to the wolf population. All such reviews 

would be made available for public 

review and comment, including peer 

review by select species experts. 

Additionally, if any of these scenarios 

occurred during the mandatory 5-year 

post-delisting monitoring period, the 

post-delisting monitoring period would 

be extended 5 additional years from that 

point. If Wyoming were to develop a 

Service-approved regulatory framework 

it would be delisted in a separate rule 

and that proposed rule would contain 

additional post-delisting monitoring 

criteria for Wyoming. 

Any such status review would 

analyze status relative to the definition 

of threatened or endangered considering 

the 5 factors outlined in section 4(a)(1). 

If, at any time, data indicate that 

protective status under the Act should 

be reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. If emergency listing 

was instituted, we would then have 240 

days to complete a conventional listing 

rule before the protections of the 

emergency rule would expire. 

Funding for government programs is 

never certain at any level, but the 

funding to support wolf management 

activities of the various Federal and 

State agencies in the NRM has been 

consistently obligated for the past 20 

years and we have a high level of 

confidence that the resources necessary 

to carry out the monitoring and 

management programs will continue for 

the foreseeable future. We may provide 

Federal funding for Federal monitoring 

requirements. 

Use of Section 6 Agreements for States 

Outside the NRM DPS 

Issue 56: Our proposal solicited 

comments regarding our intention to use 

section 6 agreements to allow States 

outside the NRM DPS with Serviceapproved wolf management plans to 

assume management of listed wolves, 

including nonlethal and lethal control 

of problem wolves. Some commenter 

found this approach was inappropriate 

while others commended the idea. 

Response 56: This issue is not directly 

related to delisting in the NRM DPS and 

has been removed from this final rule. 

Miscellaneous Issues Not Germane to 

This Rulemaking 

Issue 57: Some commenters pointed 

out the positive and negative economic 

impacts of wolves, especially related to 

tourism in YNP, livestock depredation, 

and competition with hunters for 

surplus big game. Many people believed 

wolf damage to livestock and big game 

populations was increasing and 

becoming much more of an economic 

burden. 

Response 57: Under the Act, listing 

decisions are not to consider economic 

factors. That said, we believe wolfrelated tourism in places like YNP will 

not be affected by delisting. 

Additionally, State management will 

reduce economic losses caused by 

livestock depredation and competition 

with hunters for wild ungulates. 

Issue 58: Many members of the public 

commented on the timing of this 

regulation. Most thought this final 

determination was being rushed. 

Several commenters suggested that we 

postpone a final determination until 

Wyoming revises its regulatory 

framework including the passage of new 

wolf management legislation. Some 

commenters suggested that we should 

not finalize this regulation until final 

2008 wolf population data is available. 

Response 58: Section 4(b)(6)(A) of the 

Act indicates that we should publish 

final rules within one year of proposed 

rules. Section 4(b)(1)(A) requires that we 

make such determinations solely on the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available. Given our 

statutory directive to make 

determinations within one year and 

instruction to consider ‘‘available’’ 

information, we felt further delay was 

not prudent. Our development of 

previous Federal Register documents 

allowed for this final rule to be prepared 

in much shorter timeframes than are 

typical for federal rulemaking. 

Furthermore, delisting of the NRM 

wolf population has been delayed for 

many years as we waited and 

encouraged Wyoming to develop a 

regulatory framework that would 

conserve a recovered wolf population 

and could withstand legal challenge. It 

would be even more unfair to the other 

States, who have done their part, to wait 

even longer on possible future actions 

by Wyoming. We hope to remove the 

Act’s protections in Wyoming once the 

State has an adequate regulatory 

framework in place. This rule includes 

2008 data. 

Issue 59: Several commenters, 

including Wyoming, opined that we 

should have started the rulemaking 

process over again (i.e., reproposed 

delisting) following the remand and 

vacatur of our previous final rule. A few 

commenters expressed confusion over 

what was being proposed. Specifically, 

they stated that ‘‘To satisfy the 

Administrative Procedure Act’s 

requirements for notice and comment 

rulemaking, interested parties must not 

be expected to ‘divine [the Agency’s] 

unspoken thoughts’ (Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. 

v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 

2000)).’’ 

Response 59: The October 14, 2008 

U.S. District Court order remanded and 

vacated our final rule. All other 

documents associated with this 

rulemaking remained in place. Thus, 

reproposing this action was 

unnecessary. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

We believe our February 8, 2007, (72 

FR 6106) delisting proposal and the 

October 28, 2008, (73 FR 63926) notice 

reopening the comment period were 

clear in what we were proposing. 

Simply, we proposed to identify a NRM 

gray wolf DPS and remove most or all 

this DPS from the list of threatened and 

endangered wildlife. As noted in the 

proposal, if Wyoming failed to develop 

a management regime to adequately 

conserve wolves, we would retain the 

Act’s protections in a significant portion 

of the range in the Wyoming portion of 

the NRM DPS. Our October 28, 2008, 

(73 FR 63926) notice reopening the 

comment period, summarized numerous 

flaws in Wyoming’s wolf management 

framework. This notice (73 FR 63926, 

October 28, 2008) also noted that all 

documents relevant to evaluating the 

adequacy of Wyoming’s regulatory 

mechanisms, including Wyoming State 

law, their wolf management plan, their 

implementing regulations (Wyoming 

Chapter 21), and other supporting 

information, were available on our 

website at: http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov. When 

Wyoming issued emergency regulations 

and a draft revised wolf management 

plan on October 27, 2008, we 

immediately posted online. Failure to 

remedy the adequacy of their regulatory 

framework resulted in our decision to 

retain the Act’s protections in Wyoming. 

Issue 60: Some commenters thought 

the recovery program illegally restored 

the wrong subspecies of wolf to 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

Response 60: In the mid-1980’s, 

naturally dispersing wolves from 

Canada began to form packs in 

northwestern Montana. In 1995 and 

1996, wolves were reintroduced to YNP 

and Central Idaho. For the nonessentialexperimental areas, we selected donor 

wolves that had the greatest chance of 

resulting in a successful reintroduction 

program (Service 1994, p. 5–89). 

Specifically, we selected wolves living 

in habitat and feeding on prey most 

similar to those of the reintroduction 

areas (Service 1994, p. 5–89). Our 1994 

EIS noted that wolf populations that 

historically inhabited the Yellowstone 

and central Idaho area were slightly 

smaller and contained fewer black color 

phase individuals than the more 

northern Canadian wolves that were 

dispersing southward and occupying 

Montana (Service 1994, p. 5–106). At 

the time, the 1994 EIS noted that recent 

molecular investigations indicated that 

gray wolves throughout North America 

were all one subspecies of gray wolf 

(Service 1994, p. 5–106). The EIS went 

on to say that only red wolves and 

Mexican wolves were genetically 

distinct at the molecular level (Service 

1994, p. 5–106). Resolution of species’ 

subspecific taxonomy remains elusive 

as the science continues to evolve (Hall 

1984, pp. 2–11; Service 1994, pp. 1–21– 

22; Brewster and Fritts 1995, p. 353; 

Nowak 1995, p. 375; Nowak 2003, pp. 

248–50; Wayne and Vila 2003, pp. 223– 

4; Leonard et al. 2005; p. 1; Leonard and 

Wayne 2007, p. 1). Legally, the 

subspecies issue remains irrelevant, as 

the gray wolf has been listed at the 

species level in the lower 48 States 

since 1978. 

Issue 61: Many comments were made 

on issues that were not related to or 

affected by this rulemaking. Most often 

these issues involved: Strongly held 

personal opinions or perceptions about 

Federal, State, or Tribal government or 

authorities; property rights; mistrust of 

political leadership, environmentalists 

and/or judges; methods of take; risks to 

human safety; negative affects of wolves 

on elk and deer herds, hunting, State 

wildlife agency budgets, outfitting, or 

livestock production; negative affect of 

this action to tourism; ecosystem 

restoration; the U.S. Constitution; what 

would Jesus do; wildlife management in 

general; wolves and wolf management; 

and modifications to the NRM 

experimental population special 10(j) 

rule. 

Response 61: We respect these 

opinions, but they are beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations (50 CFR part 

424) set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, or removing species from 

listed status. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the 

Act as including any species or 

subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plant, 

and any distinct vertebrate population 

segment of fish or wildlife that 

interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 

1532(16)). Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), we 

may remove the protections of the Act 

if the best available scientific and 

commercial data substantiate that the 

species is neither endangered nor 

threatened for the following reasons: (1) 

The species is extinct; (2) the species 

has recovered; or (3) the original 

scientific data used at the time the 

species was classified were in error. 

A species may be delisted as 

recovered only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

it is no longer endangered or threatened. 

Determining whether a species meets 

the recovered definition requires 

consideration of the five categories of 

threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. For species that are already listed 

as endangered or threatened, this 

analysis of threats is an evaluation of 

both the threats currently facing the 

species and the threats that are 

reasonably likely to affect the species in 

the foreseeable future following the 

delisting or downlisting and the 

removal or reduction of the Act’s 

protections. 

Under section 3 of the Act, a species 

is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ 

in the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ refers to the range in which the 

species currently exists. For the 

purposes of this rule, ‘‘range’’ includes 

all of the NRM DPS (as identified in 

Factor A below and illustrated in Figure 

1). 

Evaluating whether the species 

should be considered threatened or 

endangered in all or a significant 

portion of its range is a multiple-step 

analysis. If we determine that the 

species is endangered throughout all of 

its range, we list it as endangered 

throughout its range and no further 

analysis is necessary. If not, we then 

evaluate if the species meets the 

definition of threatened throughout all 

of its range. If the species is threatened 

in all of its range, we list the species as 

threatened and consider if any 

significant portions of its range warrant 

listing as endangered. If we determine 

that the species is not threatened or 

endangered in all of its range, we 

consider whether any significant 

portions of its range warrant 

consideration as threatened or 

endangered. If we determine that the 

species is threatened or endangered in 

a significant portion of its range, the 

provisions of the Act would only apply 

to the significant portion of the species’ 

range where it is threatened or 

endangered. 

Foreseeable future is defined by the 

Services on a case-by-case basis, taking 

into consideration a variety of speciesspecific factors such as lifespan, 

genetics, breeding behavior, 

demography, threat projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. ‘‘Foreseeable’’ is commonly 

viewed as ‘‘such as reasonably can or 

should be anticipated: Such that a 

person of ordinary prudence would 

expect it to occur or exist under the 

circumstances’’ (Merriam-Webster’s 

Dictionary of Law 1996: Western 

Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho 

2005; CV 04–168–MHW). For the NRM 

DPS, the foreseeable future differs for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15157 

each factor potentially affecting the 

DPS. It took a considerable length of 

time for public attitudes and regulations 

to result in a social climate that 

promoted and allowed for wolf 

restoration in the WGL DPS and NRM 

DPS. The length of time over which this 

shift occurred, and the ensuing stability 

in those attitudes, give us confidence 

that this social climate will persist for 

the foreseeable future in the portion of 

the DPS which we are removing from 

ESA protections. Available habitat and 

potential future distribution models 

(Carroll et al. 2003, 536; Carroll et al. 

2006, Figure 6) predict out about 30 

years. For some threat factors, a longer 

time horizon may be appropriate. In our 

consideration of genetics, we reviewed 

a paper that looked 100 years into the 

future (vonHoldt et al. 2007). When 

evaluating the available information, 

with respect to foreseeable future, we 

take into account reduced confidence as 

we forecast further into the future. 

The following analysis examines all 

five factors currently affecting, or that 

are likely to affect, the NRM gray wolf 

DPS within the foreseeable future. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The NRM DPS is approximately 

980,803 km2 (378,690 mi2) and includes 

402,606 km2 (155,447 mi2) of Federal 

land (41 percent); 49,803 km2 (19,229 

mi2) of State land (5 percent); 32,942 

km2 (12,719 mi2) of Tribal land (3 

percent); 427,998 km2 (165,251 mi2) of 

private land (44 percent) (the remaining 

area is either water or lands in 

Washington that were not categorized 

into ownership in the geographic 

information system layers we analyzed). 

The DPS contains large amounts of three 

Ecoregion Divisions—Temperate Steppe 

(prairie) (312,148 km2 [120,521 mi2]); 

Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) 

(404,921 km2 [156,341 mi2]); and 

Temperate Desert (high desert) (263,544 

km2 [101,755 mi2]) (Bailey 1995, p. iv). 

The following analysis focuses on 

suitable habitat (areas that have a 50 

percent or greater change of supporting 

breeding pairs or persistent wolf packs) 

within the DPS and currently occupied 

areas. Then, unsuitable habitat is 

examined. Habitat suitability is based 

on biological features which impact the 

ability of wolf packs to persist. A 

number of threats to habitat are 

examined including increased human 

populations and development 

(including oil and gas), connectivity, 

ungulate populations, and livestock 

grazing. 

Suitable Habitat—Wolves once 

occupied or transited all of the NRM 

DPS. However, much of the wolf’s 

historical range within this area has 

been modified for human use and is no 

longer suitable habitat to support wolf 

packs and wolf breeding pairs. We have 

reviewed the quality, quantity, and 

distribution of habitat relative to the 

biological requirements of wolves. In 

doing so we reviewed two models, 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 555–558) and 

Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 536–548; 2006, 

pp. 27–31), to help us gauge the current 

amount and distribution of suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM. Both models ranked 

areas as suitable habitat if they had 

characteristics that indicated they might 

have a 50 percent or greater chance of 

supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM was typically 

characterized in both models as public 

land with mountainous, forested habitat 

that contains abundant year-round wild 

ungulate populations, low road density, 

low numbers of domestic livestock that 

are only present seasonally, few 

domestic sheep, low agricultural use, 

and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat 

was typically just the opposite (i.e., 

private land, flat open prairie or desert, 

low or seasonal wild ungulate 

populations, high road density, high 

numbers of year-round domestic 

livestock including many domestic 

sheep, high levels of agricultural use, 

and many people). Despite their 

similarities, these two models had 

substantial differences in the area 

analyzed, layers, inputs, and 

assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et 

al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. 

(2006, p. 33) models predicted different 

amounts of theoretically suitable wolf 

habitat in areas examined by both 

models (i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming). 

Oakleaf’s model was a more intensive 

effort that looked at potential wolf 

habitat in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 555). 

It used roads accessible to two-wheel 

and four-wheel vehicles, topography 

(slope and elevation), land ownership, 

relative ungulate density (based on State 

harvest statistics), cattle (Bos sp.) and 

sheep density, vegetation characteristics 

(ecoregions and land cover), and human 

density to comprise its geographic 

information system layers. Oakleaf 

analyzed the characteristics of areas 

occupied and not occupied by NRM 

wolf packs through 2000 to predict what 

other areas in the NRM might be 

suitable or unsuitable for future wolf 

pack formation (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 

555). In total, Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 

559) ranked 170,228 km2 (65,725 mi2) as 

suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming. 

Carroll’s model analyzed a much 

larger area (all 12 western States and 

northern Mexico) in a less specific way 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). Carroll’s 

model used density and type of roads, 

human population density and 

distribution, slope, and vegetative 

greenness to estimate relative ungulate 

density to predict associated wolf 

survival and fecundity rates (Carroll et 

al. 2006, p. 29). The combination of a 

geographic information system model 

and wolf population parameters were 

used to develop estimates of habitat 

theoretically suitable for wolf pack 

persistence. In addition, Carroll 

predicted the potential effect on suitable 

wolf habitat of increased road 

development and human density 

expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006, 

pp. 30–31). Within the proposed DPS, 

Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 27–31) ranked 

277,377 km2 (107,096 mi2) as suitable 

including 105,993 km2 (40,924 mi2) in 

Montana; 82,507 km2 (31,856 mi2) in 

Idaho; 77,202 km2 (29,808 mi2) in 

Wyoming; 6,620 km2 (2,556 mi2) in 

Oregon; 4,286 km2 (1,655 mi2) in Utah; 

and 769 km2 (297 mi2) in Washington. 

Approximately 96 percent of the 

suitable habitat (265,703 km2 (102,588 

mi2)) within the DPS occurred in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

According to the Carroll model, 

approximately 28 percent of the NRM 

DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). 

The Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31–34) 

model tended to be more generous in 

identifying suitable wolf habitat under 

current conditions than the Oakleaf (et 

al. 2006, pp. 558–560) model or that our 

field observations indicate is realistic. 

But Carroll’s model provided a valuable 

relative measure across the western 

United States upon which comparisons 

could be made. The Carroll model did 

not incorporate livestock density into its 

calculations as the Oakleaf model did 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–29; Oakleaf 

et al. 2005, p. 556). Thus, that model did 

not consider those conditions where 

wolf mortality is high and habitat 

unsuitable because of chronic conflict 

with livestock. During the past 20 years, 

wolf packs have been unable to persist 

in areas intensively used for livestock 

production, primarily because of agency 

control of problem wolves and illegal 

killing. 

Many of the more isolated primary 

habitat patches that the Carroll model 

predicted as currently suitable were 

predicted to be unsuitable by the year 

2025, indicating they were likely on the 

lower end of what ranked as suitable 

habitat in that model (Carroll et al. 2006, 

p. 32). Because these areas were 

typically too small to support breeding 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

pairs and too isolated from the core 

population to receive enough dispersing 

wolves to overcome high mortality rates, 

we do not believe they are currently 

suitable habitat based upon on our data 

on wolf pack persistence for the past 20 

years (Bangs 1991, p. 9; Bangs et al. 

1998, p. 788; Service et al. 1999–2009, 

Figure 1). 

Despite the substantial differences in 

each model’s analysis area, layers, 

inputs, and assumptions, both models 

predicted that most suitable wolf habitat 

in the NRM was in northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA, 

which is the area currently occupied by 

the NRM wolf population. These models 

are useful in understanding the relative 

proportions and distributions of various 

habitat characteristics and their 

relationships to wolf pack persistence. 

Both models generally support earlier 

Service predictions about wolf habitat 

suitability in the NRM (Service 1980, p. 

9; 1987, p. 7; 1994, p. vii). Because 

theoretical models only define suitable 

habitat as those areas that have 

characteristics with a 50 percent or 

more probability of supporting wolf 

packs, the acreages of suitable habitat 

that they indicate can be successfully 

occupied are only estimates. 

The Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) model 

also indicated that these three areas had 

habitat suitable for dispersal between 

them and it would remain relatively 

intact in the future. However, northwest 

Montana and Idaho were much more 

connected to each other and the wolf 

population in Canada than to the GYA 

and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 

554). Collectively the three core areas 

are surrounded by large areas of habitat 

unsuitable for pack persistence. We note 

that habitat that is unsuitable for pack 

persistence may be important for 

connectivity between areas that are 

suitable for pack persistence. 

Overall, we evaluated data from a 

number of sources on the location of 

suitable wolf habitat in developing our 

estimate of currently suitable wolf 

habitat in the NRM. Specifically, we 

considered the recovery areas identified 

in the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 

1987, p. 23), the primary analysis areas 

analyzed in the 1994 EIS for the GYA 

(63,700 km2 [24,600 mi2]) and central 

Idaho (53,600 km2 [20,700 mi2]) 

(Service 1994, p. iv), information 

derived from theoretical models by 

Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and Oakleaf 

et al. (2006, p. 554), our nearly 20 years 

of field experience managing wolves in 

the NRM, and locations of persistent 

wolf packs and breeding pairs since 

recovery has been achieved. 

Collectively, this evidence leads us to 

concur with the Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 

559) model’s predictions that the most 

important habitat attributes for wolf 

pack persistence are forest cover, public 

land, high elk density, and low livestock 

density. Therefore, we believe that 

Oakleaf’s calculations of the amount 

and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 

available for persistent wolf pack 

formation, in the parts of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, 

represents the most reasonable 

prediction of suitable wolf habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

The area we conclude that is suitable 

habitat is depicted in Oakleaf et al.’s 

(2006) map on page 559. Generally, 

suitable habitat is located in western 

Montana west of I–15 and south of I–90; 

Idaho north of I–84; and northwest 

Wyoming (see figure 1 in 73 FR 63926, 

October 28, 2008). A comparison of 

actual wolf pack distribution in 2006 

(Service et al. 2007, Figure 1) and 

Oakleaf et al.’s (2006, p. 559) prediction 

of suitable habitat indicates that nearly 

all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming is currently occupied and 

areas predicted to be unsuitable remain 

largely unoccupied. 

Although Carroll determined there 

may be some (4 percent) potentially 

suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS 

outside of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, we believe it is marginally 

suitable at best and is insignificant to 

NRM wolf population recovery because 

it occurs in small isolated fragmented 

areas. While some areas predicted to be 

unsuitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming have been temporarily 

occupied and used by wolves or even 

packs, we still consider them as largely 

unsuitable habitat. Generally, wolf 

packs in such areas have failed to 

persist long enough to be categorized as 

breeding pairs and successfully 

contribute toward recovery. Therefore, 

we consider such areas as containing 

unsuitable habitat and find that 

dispersing wolves attempting to 

colonize those areas are unlikely to form 

breeding pairs or contribute to 

population recovery. 

Unoccupied Suitable Habitat— 

Habitat suitability modeling indicates 

that the three NRM core recovery areas 

are atypical of other habitats in the 

western United States because suitable 

habitat in those core areas occur in such 

large contiguous blocks (Service 1987, 

p. 7; Larson 2004, p. 49; Carroll et al. 

2006, p. 35; Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559). 

Without core refugia areas like YNP or 

the central Idaho wilderness that 

provide a steady source of dispersing 

wolves, other potentially suitable wolf 

habitat is not likely to be capable of 

sustaining wolf breeding pairs. Some 

habitat ranked by models as suitable 

adjacent to core refugia may be able to 

support wolf breeding pairs, while other 

habitat farther away from a strong 

source of dispersing wolves may not be 

able to support persistent packs. This 

fact is important when considering 

suitable habitat as defined by the Carroll 

(et al. 2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf (et al. 

2006, p. 559) models, because wolf 

populations can persist despite very 

high rates of mortality only if they have 

high rates of immigration (Fuller et al. 

2003, p. 183). Therefore, model 

predictions regarding habitat suitability 

does not always translate into successful 

wolf occupancy and wolf breeding 

pairs. 

Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 

km2 [1,000 mi2]) patches of theoretically 

suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

34; Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559) 

(typically, isolated mountain ranges) 

often possess higher mortality risk for 

wolves because of their enclosure by, 

and proximity to, unsuitable habitat 

with a high mortality risk. In addition, 

pack territories often form along distinct 

geological features (Mech and Boitani 

2003, p. 23), such as the crest of a 

rugged mountain range, so useable 

space for wolves in isolated long narrow 

mountain ranges may be reduced by half 

or more. This phenomenon, in which 

the quality and quantity of suitable 

habitat is diminished because of 

interactions with surrounding lesssuitable habitat, is known as an edge 

effect (Mills 1995, pp. 400–401). Edge 

effects are exacerbated in small habitat 

patches with high perimeter-to-area 

ratios (i.e., those that are long and 

narrow, like isolated mountain ranges) 

and in species with large territories, like 

wolves, because they are more likely to 

encounter surrounding unsuitable 

habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, 

p. 2128). Because of edge effects, some 

habitat areas outside the core areas may 

rank as suitable in models, but are 

unlikely to actually be successfully 

occupied by wolf packs. For these 

reasons, we believe that the NRM wolf 

population will remain anchored by the 

three recovery areas. These core 

population segments will continue to 

provide a constant source of dispersing 

wolves into surrounding areas, 

supplementing wolf packs and breeding 

pairs in adjacent, but less secure 

suitable habitat. 

Currently Occupied Habitat—We 

calculated the area currently occupied 

by the NRM wolf population by drawing 

a line around the outer points of radiotelemetry locations of all known wolf 

pack territories in 2005 (Service et al. 

2006, Figure 1; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 

2006, p. 6640). We defined occupied 

wolf habitat as that area confirmed as 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15159 

being used by resident wolves to raise 

pups or that is consistently used by two 

or more territorial wolves for longer 

than 1 month (Service 1994, pp. 6:5–6). 

This approach includes all intervening 

areas including suitable or unsuitable 

habitat. Typically by the end of the year, 

only 50 percent of packs meet the 

criteria to be classified as breeding 

pairs. The overall distribution of wolf 

packs has been similar since 2000, 

despite a wolf population that has more 

than doubled (Service et al. 2001–2009, 

Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press). This 

pattern persisted in 2006, 2007, and 

2008. Since the wolf population has 

saturated most suitable habitat in the 

NRM DPS, significant growth in the 

population’s outer distribution is 

unlikely. This final rule relied upon 

recent wolf monitoring data which has 

changed little in recent years (see Figure 

1). 

We included areas between the core 

recovery segments as occupied wolf 

habitat because they are important for 

demographic and genetic connectivity. 

While these areas are no longer capable 

of supporting persistent wolf packs, 

dispersing wolves routinely travel 

through those areas and packs 

occasional occupy them (Service 1994, 

pp. 6:5–6; Bangs 2002, p. 3; Jimenez et 

al. 2008d). These areas include the 

Flathead Valley and other smaller 

valleys intensively used for agriculture 

and a few of the smaller, isolated 

mountain ranges surrounded by 

agricultural lands in western Montana. 

Important dispersal areas also include 

parts of western Wyoming outside the 

current State trophy game boundary, 

such as the Wyoming Range adjacent to 

Idaho and valleys north of Kemmerer. 

Dispersing wolves from Idaho that bred 

in the GYA likely crossed this area and 

survived during the winter breeding 

season, resulting in natural genetic 

connectivity. 

As of the end of 2004, we estimated 

approximately 275,533 km2 (106,384 

mi2) of occupied habitat in parts of 

Montana (125,208 km2 [48,343 mi2]), 

Idaho (116,309 km2 [44,907 mi2]), and 

Wyoming (34,017 km2 [13,134 mi2]) 

(Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). This 

pattern persisted in 2005–2008 (Service 

et al. 2006–2009). Although currently 

occupied habitat includes some prairie 

(4,488 km2 [1,733 mi2]) and some high 

desert (24,478 km2 [9,451 mi2]), wolf 

packs have not used these habitat types 

successfully (Service et al. 2005–2009, 

Figure 1). Since 1986, no persistent wolf 

pack has had a majority of its home 

range in high desert or prairie habitat. 

Landownership in the occupied habitat 

area is 183,485 km2 (70,844 mi2) Federal 

(67 percent); 12,217 km2 (4,717 mi2) 

State (4.4 percent); 3,064 km2 (1,183 

mi2) Tribal (1.7 percent); and 71,678 

km2 (27,675 mi2) private (26 percent) 

(Service et al. 2005–2009, Figure 1). 

We determined that the current wolf 

population is a three-segment 

metapopulation and that the overall area 

used by persistent wolf packs has not 

significantly expanded since the 

population achieved its recovery goal. 

While there maybe occasional 

exceptions, stagnant outer distribution 

patterns for the past 6 years indicate 

there is probably limited suitable habitat 

for the NRM wolf population to expand 

significantly beyond its current outer 

boundaries. Carroll’s model predicted 

that 165,503 km2 (63,901 mi2) of 

suitable habitat (62 percent) was within 

the occupied area; however, the model’s 

remaining potentially suitable habitat 

(38 percent) was often fragmented, in 

smaller, more isolated patches (Carroll 

et al. 2006, p. 35) and to date has not 

been occupied by breeding pairs . 

The NRM wolf population occupies 

nearly 100 percent of the recovery areas 

recommended in the 1987 recovery plan 

(i.e., central Idaho, the GYA, and the 

northwestern Montana) (Service 1987, 

p. 23) and nearly 100 percent of the 

primary analysis areas (the areas where 

suitable habitat was predicted to exist 

and the wolf population would live) 

analyzed for wolf reintroduction in 

central Idaho and the GYA (Service 

1994, p. 1:6). This pattern will continue 

because management plans for public 

lands in the NRM DPS will result in 

forest cover, high ungulate densities, 

low to moderate road and livestock 

densities, and other factors critical to 

maintaining suitable wolf habitat. 

Potential Threats Affecting Habitat or 

Range—Establishing a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM did not require 

land-use restrictions or curtailment of 

traditional land-uses because there was 

enough suitable habitat, enough wild 

ungulates, and sufficiently few livestock 

conflicts to recover wolves under 

existing conditions (Bangs et al. 2004, 

pp. 95–96). We do not believe that any 

traditional land-use practices in the 

NRM need be modified to maintain a 

recovered NRM wolf population into the 

foreseeable future. We do not anticipate 

overall habitat changes in the NRM 

occurring at a magnitude that will 

threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable 

future because 71 percent of the 

occupied habitat is in public ownership 

that is managed for multiple uses that 

are complementary with suitable wolf 

habitat, and maintenance of viable wolf 

populations (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; 

Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 560). 

The GYA and central Idaho recovery 

areas, 63,714 km2 (24,600 mi2) and 

53,613 km2 (20,700 mi2), respectively, 

are primarily composed of public lands 

(Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest 

contiguous blocks of suitable habitat 

within the NRM DPS. Public lands in 

National Parks, wilderness, roadless 

areas and large blocks of contiguous 

mountainous forested habitat are largely 

unavailable and/or unsuitable for 

intensive development. Central Idaho 

and the GYA provide secure wolf 

habitat and abundant ungulate 

populations, with about 99,300 

ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in 

central Idaho (Service 1994, pp. viii–ix). 

These areas are considered secure 

because they are not available for 

development due to their land-use 

classifications, management guidelines 

for other species (e.g., grizzly bears), 

habitat, access, and geological 

characteristics (Service 1993, 1996, 

2007; Servheen et al. 2003; U.S. Forest 

Service 2006). Thus, they will continue 

to provide optimal suitable habitat for a 

resident wolf population and will be a 

dependable source of dispersing wolves 

to help maintain genetic connectivity 

and a viable wolf population in the 

NRM (Service 1994, p. 1:4). The central 

Idaho recovery area has 24,281 km2

(9,375 mi2) of designated wilderness at 

its core (Service 1994, p. 3:85). The GYA 

recovery area has a core including over 

8,094 km2 (3,125 mi2) in YNP and about 

16,187 km2 (6,250 mi2) of designated 

wilderness (although these areas are less 

useful to wolves, except seasonally, due 

to high elevation) (Service 1994, p. 

3:45). These areas are in public 

ownership that is not suitable and/or 

not available for human development of 

a scale that could possibly affect its 

overall suitability for wolves, and no 

foreseeable habitat-related threats would 

prevent them from supporting a wolf 

population that exceeds recovery levels. 

While the northwestern Montana 

recovery area (basically west of I–15 and 

north of I–90 in Montana and Idaho) 

(84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2)) also has a 

core of protected suitable habitat 

(Glacier National Park, the Bob Marshal 

Wilderness Complex, and extensive 

Forest Service lands), it is not as high 

quality or as contiguous as that in either 

central Idaho or GYA (Smith et al. 

2008). The primary reason for this is 

that many ungulates do not winter 

throughout the Park or Wilderness areas 

because it is higher in elevation. Most 

wolf packs in northwestern Montana 

live west of the Continental Divide, 

where forest habitats are a fractured mix 

of private and public lands (Service et 

al. 1989–2008, Figure 1; Murrey et al. 

submitted 2008). This mix exposes 

wolves to high levels of mortality, and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15160 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

thus this area supports smaller and 

fewer wolf packs. Wolf dispersal into 

northwestern Montana from the more 

stable resident packs in the core 

protected area (largely the North Fork of 

the Flathead River along the eastern 

edge of Glacier National Park and the 

few large river drainages in the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness Complex) and the 

abundant National Forest Service lands 

largely used for recreation and timber 

production rather than livestock 

production helps to maintain that 

segment of the NRM wolf population 

(Bangs et al. 1998, p. 786). Wolves also 

disperse into northwestern Montana 

from central Idaho and Canada and 

several packs have trans-boundary 

territories, helping to maintain the NRM 

population (Boyd et al. 1995, p. 136; 

Service 2002–2009, Figure 1). 

Conversely, wolf dispersal from 

northwestern Montana into Canada, 

where wolves are much less protected, 

continues to draw some wolves into 

vacant or low-density habitats in 

Canada where they are subject to liberal 

hunting and agency control (Bangs et al. 

1998, p. 790). Despite mortalities that 

occur in Canada, the trans-boundary 

movements of wolves and wolf packs 

that led to the original establishment of 

wolves in Montana connects the wolf 

population in the NRM to the much 

larger wolf population in Canada and 

will continue to have an overall positive 

effect on wolf genetic diversity and 

demography in the northwest Montana 

segment of the NRM wolf population. 

An important factor in maintaining 

wolf populations is the native ungulate 

population. Wild ungulate prey in these 

three areas are composed mainly of elk, 

white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, 

and (in the GYA) bison. Bighorn sheep, 

mountain goats, and pronghorn antelope 

also are common but not important, at 

least to date, as wolf prey. In total, 

100,000 to 250,000 wild ungulates are 

estimated in each State where wolf 

packs currently exist (Service 1994, pp. 

viii–ix). The States in the NRM DPS 

have successfully managed resident 

ungulate populations for decades. State 

ungulate management plans, discussed 

in Factor D below, commit them to 

maintain ungulate populations at 

densities that will continue to support 

a recovered wolf population well into 

the foreseeable future (See Idaho 2007, 

p. 1–2; Curtis 2007, p. 14–21 as an 

examples of such plans). 

Last year, 2008 marked the first year 

since our reintroductions began that the 

NRM wolf population did not grow by 

20 percent. We believe this slowing 

growth rate is the result of the NRM 

wolf population reaching carrying 

capacity. Human-caused mortality in 

2008 was not high enough to explain all 

the reduced growth in the population. 

At carrying capacity natural factors such 

as disease, social strife, and food 

limitations begin to help regulate wolf 

populations. As demonstrated by the 

NRM DPS’s suspected carrying capacity, 

there is sufficient suitable habitat to 

maintain the NRM wolf population well 

above recovery levels but not 

significantly higher than current levels. 

Cattle and sheep are at least twice as 

numerous as wild ungulates even on 

public lands (Service 1994, p. viii). Most 

wolf packs have at least some 

interaction with livestock. Wolves and 

livestock can live near one another for 

extended periods of time without 

significant conflict if agency control 

prevents the behavior of chronic 

livestock depredation from becoming 

widespread in the wolf population. 

Through active management, most 

wolves learn that livestock can not be 

successfully attacked and do not view 

them as prey. However, when wolves 

and livestock mix, some livestock and 

some wolves will be killed. Conflict 

between wolves and livestock has 

resulted in the average annual removal 

of 8 to 14 percent of the NRM wolf 

population (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 130; 

Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. 

2005, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 2009, 

Tables 4, 5; Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). 

Such control promotes occupancy of 

suitable habitat in a manner that 

minimizes damage to private property 

and fosters public support to maintain 

recovered wolf populations in the NRM 

DPS without threatening the NRM wolf 

population. 

We do not foresee a substantial 

increase in livestock abundance across 

the NRM that would result in increased 

mortality. The opposite trend has been 

occurring. In recent years, about 200,000 

hectares (500,000 acres) of public land 

grazing allotments have been purchased 

and retired in areas of chronic conflict 

between livestock and large predators, 

including wolves (Fischer 2008). 

Assuming adequate regulation of other 

threat factors (discussed below), we do 

not believe the continued presence of 

livestock will in any meaningful way 

threaten the recovered status of the 

NRM DPS in the foreseeable future. 

Within the GYA, human populations 

are expected to increase (Carroll 2006). 

In six northwest Wyoming counties 

most used by wolves, the human 

population is projected to increase by 

roughly 15,000 residents between 2000 

and 2020 (from 105,215 in 2000 to 

120,771 by 2020) (Wyoming Department 

of Administration and Information 

Economic Analysis Division 2005). The 

Montana GYA counties are expected to 

increase by roughly 35,000 people 

during this same time (from 120,934 in 

2000 to 154,800 by 2020) (NPA Data 

Services 2002). We anticipate similar 

levels of population growth in the 

remaining portions of the DPS given 

that the West, as a region, is projected 

to increase at rates faster than any other 

region (U.S. Census Bureau Population 

Division 2005). 

As human populations increase 

associated impacts will follow. We 

expect the region will see: Increased 

growth and development including 

conversion of private low-density rural 

lands to higher density urban and 

suburban development; accelerated road 

development and increasing amounts of 

transportation facilities (pipelines and 

energy transmission lines); additional 

resource extraction (primarily oil and 

gas, coal, and wind development in 

certain areas); and added recreation on 

public lands (Robbins 2007). Despite 

efforts to minimize impacts to wildlife 

(Brown 2006, p. 1–3), some 

development will make some areas of 

the NRM less suitable for wolf 

occupancy. However, we expect these 

impacts will be minimal as sufficient 

habitat is secure. 

Wolves are one of the most adaptable 

large predators in the world and are 

unlikely to be substantially impacted by 

any threat except human persecution 

(Fuller et al. 2003, p. 163; Boitani 2003, 

p. 328–330). Land-use restrictions on 

human development were not necessary 

to recover the wolf population. Even 

active wolf dens can be quite resilient 

to nonlethal disturbance by humans 

(Frame et al. 2007, p. 316). The vast 

majority of suitable wolf habitat and the 

current wolf population is secure in 

mountainous forested Federal public 

land (National Parks, wilderness, 

roadless areas, and lands managed for 

multiple uses by the U.S. Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management) that 

will not be legally available or suitable 

for intensive levels of human 

development. Furthermore, the range of 

wolves and grizzly bears overlap in 

many parts of Montana, Idaho and 

Wyoming and mandatory habitat 

guidelines on public lands for grizzly 

bear conservation guarantee and far 

exceed necessary criteria for 

maintaining suitable habitat for wolves 

(for an example, see U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 2006). Current and 

projected levels of human use of public 

lands will be managed to limit resource 

impacts by the management plans of the 

appropriate land management agencies 

or governments. 

Most types of intensive human 

development predicted in the future 

will occur in areas that have already 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15161 

been extensively modified by human 

activities and are unsuitable wolf 

habitat (Wyoming 2005, Appendix III). 

In terms of mineral extraction activities, 

such development is likely to continue 

to be focused at lower elevation, private 

lands and in open habitats, and outside 

of currently suitable and currently 

occupied wolf habitat (Robbins 2007). 

Development on private land near 

suitable habitats will continue to expose 

wolves to more conflicts and higher risk 

of human-caused mortality. However, 

the rate of conflict (now approximately 

23 percent mortality per year) is well 

within the wolf population’s biological 

mortality threshold (30 to 50 percent), 

especially given the large amount of 

secure habitat that will support a 

recovered wolf population and will 

provide a reliable and constant source of 

dispersing wolves. Furthermore, 

management programs (Linnell et al. 

2001, p. 348), research and monitoring, 

and outreach and education about living 

with wildlife can somewhat reduce such 

impacts. 

Modeling exercises also can provide 

some insights into future land-use 

development patterns. While these 

models have weaknesses, such as an 

inability to accurately predict economic 

upturns or downturns, uncertainty 

regarding investments in infrastructure 

that might drive development (such as 

roads, airports, or water projects), and 

an inability to predict open-space 

acquisitions or conservation easements, 

we nevertheless think that such models 

are useful in adding to our 

understanding of likely development 

patterns. Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 

2006, p. 31) predicted future wolf 

habitat suitability under several 

scenarios through 2025, including 

increased human population growth 

and road development. Similarly, in 

2005, the Center for the West produced 

a series of maps predicting growth 

through 2040 for the West (Travis et al. 

2005, pp. 2–7). These projections are 

available at: http://www.centerwest.org/ 

futures/west/2040.html. These models 

predict very little development across 

occupied and suitable portions of the 

NRM DPS. Threats were not predicted 

to alter wolf habitat suitability in the 

NRM DPS nearly enough to cause the 

wolf population to fall below recovery 

levels in the foreseeable future or even 

significantly effect wolf dispersal 

between the recovery segments, 

including the GYA. In many areas 

within the NRM DPS (including 

northwest Montana, the GYA, and 

northeast Oregon), habitat suitability 

will be increased beyond current levels 

as roads on public lands are reduced, a 

process underway in the NRM (Carroll 

et al. 2006, p.25; Servheen et al. 2003; 

Service 1993, 1996, 2007; Brown 2006, 

1–3). 

We acknowledge habitat suitability 

for wolves will change over time with 

human development, activities, and 

attitudes, but not to the extent that it is 

likely to threaten wolf recovery. 

Therefore, we do not believe there is a 

need to limit or manage future human 

population growth for wolf conservation 

in the NRM. Wolf populations persist in 

many areas of the world that are far 

more developed than the NRM currently 

is or is likely to be in the foreseeable 

future (Boitani 2003, pp. 322–23). 

Current habitat conditions are adequate 

to support a wolf population well above 

minimal recovery levels and model 

predictions indicate that development 

in the NRM over the next 25 years is 

unlikely to change habitat in a manner 

that would threaten the NRM wolf 

population (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 544). 

Furthermore, we do not expect any 

threats to habitat or range to 

meaningfully impact dispersal or 

connectivity. Wolves have exceptional 

dispersal abilities including the ability 

to disperse long-distances across vast 

areas of unsuitable habitat. Numerous 

lone wolves have already been 

documented to have successfully 

dispersed through these types of 

developed areas (Jimenez et al. 2008d). 

Thus, we believe wolves are among the 

least likely species of land mammal to 

face a serious threat from reduced 

connectivity related to projected 

changes in habitat. 

At present, all three recovery areas 

appear sufficiently connected. There is 

more than enough habitat connectivity 

between occupied wolf habitat in 

Canada, northwestern Montana, and 

Idaho to ensure exchange of sufficient 

numbers of dispersing wolves to 

maintain demographic and genetic 

diversity in the NRM wolf 

metapopulation (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 

559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; Boyd et 

al. 2007; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). 

We have documented routine movement 

of radio-collared wolves across the 

nearly contiguous available suitable 

habitat between Canada, northwestern 

Montana, and central Idaho (Pletscher et 

al. 1991, p. 544; Boyd and Pletscher 

1999, pp. 1095–1096; Sime 2007). In 

addition, there are several shared 

transborder packs, between Canada, 

Montana, and Idaho. While the GYA is 

the most isolated core recovery area 

within the NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 

2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 

19), radio telemetry data demonstrate 

that the GYA is not isolated as at least 

one wolf naturally disperses into the 

GYA each year and at least 4 radiocollared non-GYA wolves have bred and 

produced offspring in the GYA in the 

past 12 years (1996–2008). 

Within the foreseeable future, some 

habitat degradation will occur between 

the core recovery areas. Overall, we 

believe this will have only minimal 

impacts on foreseeable levels of 

dispersal and connectivity. Model 

predictions through 2025 (Carroll et al. 

2003, p. 541; Carroll 2006, p. 32) and 

2040 (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2–5, 14–15; 

http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/ 

2040.html), in combination with our 

understanding of wolf dispersal 

capabilities, demonstrate the quantity, 

quality, and distribution of habitat, 

including consideration of intervening 

development, will remain more than 

sufficient to allow adequate levels of 

natural connectivity into the foreseeable 

future. 

Thus, threats to habitat are unlikely to 

disrupt connectivity in the foreseeable 

future. Factor E provides a detailed 

evaluation of the adequacy of current 

and expected levels of genetic exchange 

as well as alternative approaches to 

genetic exchange should they ever 

become necessary (an outcome we 

believe is extremely unlikely). Factor D 

discusses the adequacy of available 

regulatory frameworks to ensure genetic 

exchange will be maintained. 

Summary threats to Wolf Habitat— 

We do not foresee that impacts to 

habitat or range will occur at levels that 

will significantly affect wolf numbers or 

distribution, connectivity, or affect 

population recovery and long-term 

viability in the NRM. Occupied suitable 

habitat is secured by core recovery areas 

in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, 

and the GYA, including Wyoming. 

These areas include Glacier National 

Park, Grand Teton National Park, YNP, 

numerous U.S. Forest Service 

Wilderness Areas, and other State and 

Federal public lands. These areas will 

continue to be managed for high 

ungulate densities, moderate rates of 

seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-tolow road densities associated with 

abundant native prey, low potential for 

livestock conflicts, and security from 

excessive unregulated human-caused 

mortality. Secure portions of the NRM 

DPS will be able to support large wolf 

populations well into the foreseeable 

future. 

Unsuitable habitat and small 

fragmented areas of suitable habitat 

outside of these core areas largely 

represent geographic locations where 

wolf breeding pairs would only persist 

in low numbers, if at all. Although such 

areas may historically have contained 

suitable habitat, wolf pack persistence 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

in these areas are not important or 

necessary for maintaining a viable, selfsustaining, and evolving representative 

wolf population in the NRM into the 

foreseeable future. Still, these areas may 

contribute to a healthy wolf population 

by facilitating dispersal between core 

recovery areas. The available data 

indicate that threats to habitat are 

unlikely to disrupt such connectivity in 

the foreseeable future. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

While listed under the Act, gray 

wolves could not be legally killed or 

removed from the wild in the NRM for 

commercial, recreational (hunting, 

trapping), or educational purposes. In 

the NRM, about 3 percent of the wolves 

captured for scientific research, 

nonlethal control, and monitoring have 

been accidentally killed (Bangs et al. in 

press). Some wolves may have been 

illegally killed for commercial use of the 

pelts and other parts, but we believe 

illegal commercial trafficking in wolf 

pelts or wolf parts is rare. Illegal capture 

of wolves for commercial breeding 

purposes also is possible, but we have 

no evidence that it occurs in the NRM. 

We believe the prohibition against 

‘‘take’’ provided for by Section 9 of the 

Act has discouraged and minimized the 

illegal killing of wolves for commercial 

or recreational purposes. Although 

Federal penalties under Section 11 of 

the Act will not apply if delisting is 

finalized other Federal laws will still 

protect wildlife in National Parks and 

on other Federal lands (Service 1994, 

pp. 1:5–9). In addition, Montana, Idaho, 

Wyoming (only in the trophy game 

area), Washington, Oregon, Utah, and 

the Tribes have similar laws and 

regulations that will protect wolves 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, and educational 

purposes (this issue is also discussed in 

Factor D below). We believe these laws 

will continue to provide a strong 

deterrent to illegal killing of wolves by 

the public, except in Wyoming’s 

predatory animal area, as they have 

been effective in State-led conservation 

programs for other resident wildlife 

such as black bears, mountain lions, elk, 

and deer. In addition, the State fish and 

game agencies, National Parks, other 

Federal agencies, and most Tribes have 

well-distributed experienced 

professional law enforcement officers to 

help enforce State, Federal, and Tribal 

wildlife regulations (See Factor D). 

Scientific Research and Monitoring— 

From 1984 to 2008, the Service and our 

cooperating partners captured nearly 

1,100 NRM wolves for monitoring, 

nonlethal control, and research 

purposes with 25 accidental deaths. If 

NRM wolves were delisted, the State, 

National Parks, and Tribes would 

continue to capture and radio-collar 

wolves in the NRM area for monitoring 

and research purposes in accordance 

with their State laws, wolf management 

plans, and regulations (See Factor D and 

Post-Delisting Monitoring sections 

below). We expect that capture-caused 

mortality by Federal, State, and Tribal 

agencies, and universities conducting 

wolf monitoring, nonlethal control, and 

research will remain below 3 percent of 

the wolves captured, and will be an 

insignificant source of mortality to the 

wolf population. 

Education—We are unaware of any 

wolves that have been removed from the 

wild for solely educational purposes in 

recent years. Wolves that are used for 

such purposes are typically privatelyheld captive-reared offspring of wolves 

that were already in captivity for other 

reasons and are not protected by the 

Act. However, States may get requests to 

place wolves that would otherwise be 

euthanized in captivity for research or 

educational purposes. Such requests 

have been, and will continue to be, rare; 

would be closely regulated by the State 

wildlife management agencies through 

the requirement for State or Federal 

permits, except in Wyoming’s predatory 

animal area; and would not 

substantially increase human-caused 

wolf mortality rates. 

Commercial and Recreational Uses— 

This section primarily addresses the 

potential for hunting and trapping 

across the NRM DPS post-delisting. 

Other forms of human caused mortality 

are discussed under the discussion of 

human predation under Factor C. 

Wolf populations can maintain 

themselves despite sustained humancaused mortality rates of between 30 

and 50 percent per year (Keith 1983; 

Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 182–184). When 

populations are maintained below 

carrying capacity and natural mortality 

rates and self-regulation of the 

population remain low, human-caused 

mortality can replace up to 70 percent 

of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, 

p. 186). Wolf pups can also be 

successfully raised by other pack 

members and breeding individuals can 

be quickly replaced by other wolves 

(Brainerd et al. 2008, p. 1). Collectively, 

these factors mean that wolf populations 

are quite resilient to human-caused 

mortality if it is adequately regulated. 

Regulated hunting and trapping are 

traditional and effective wildlife 

management tools that can be applied to 

help achieve State and Tribal wolf 

management objectives (Bangs 2008). In 

the absence of the Act’s protections, 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, in the 

trophy game area, would use public 

harvest to manipulate wolf distribution 

and overall population size to help 

reduce conflicts with livestock and, in 

some cases, human hunting of big game, 

just as they do for other resident species 

of wildlife. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming 

and some Tribes in those States, would 

allow regulated public harvest of 

surplus wolves in the NRM wolf 

population for commercial and 

recreational purposes by regulated 

private and guided hunting and 

trapping. Such take and any commercial 

use of wolf pelts or other parts would 

be regulated by State or Tribal law (see 

discussion of State laws and plans 

under Factor D). 

The regulated take of those wolves 

would not affect wolf population 

recovery or viability in Montana and 

Idaho because these States would allow 

such take only for wolves that are not 

needed to achieve the State’s 

commitment to maintaining a recovered 

population (see Factor D below). If 

Montana and Idaho had implemented 

their planned hunt, the wolf population 

in Montana and Idaho would still be far 

in excess of recovered levels. In the 

trophy game areas of northwest 

Wyoming, if other sources of mortality 

had been adequately regulated, this 

level of hunter harvest would not 

threaten Wyoming’s share of a recovered 

wolf populations; however, Wyoming’s 

overall regulatory framework does not 

adequately regulate other sources of 

mortality. In the predatory area of 

Wyoming, commercial and recreational 

use would be unlimited and 

unregulated. This lack of regulation 

would not allow wolves to persist in 

predatory portions of the State. State 

laws in Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

do not currently allow public take of 

wolves for recreational or commercial 

purposes. These issues are discussed in 

much greater detail in Factor D below. 

In summary, we determine scientific 

and educational take to remain 

insignificant factors in maintaining the 

NRM wolf population well above 

recovery levels well into the foreseeable 

future. Furthermore, we believe Idaho 

and Montana will adequately manage 

commercial and recreational use for the 

foreseeable future. Commercial and 

recreational use in Wyoming will not be 

adequately managed. These issues are 

discussed fully in Factor D below. 

C. Disease or Predation 

As discussed in detail below, a wide 

range of diseases may affect the NRM 

wolves. However, no diseases or 

parasites, even in combination, are of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15163 

such magnitude that the population is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. Similarly, 

predation does not pose a significant 

threat to the NRM wolf population. The 

rates of mortality caused by disease and 

predation are well within acceptable 

limits, and we do not expect those rates 

to change appreciably if NRM wolves 

are delisted. State plans commit to 

monitoring wolf health to ensure any 

new or new impacts caused by diseases 

or parasites are quickly detected. 

Natural predation on wolves is rare but 

predation by humans is a significant 

issue if not regulated. More information 

on disease and predation (including by 

humans) are discussed below. 

Disease—The NRM wolves are 

exposed to a wide variety of diseases 

and parasites that are common 

throughout North America. Many 

diseases (viruses and bacteria, many 

protozoa and fungi) and parasites 

(helminthes and arthropods) have been 

reported for the gray wolf, and several 

of them have had significant, but 

temporary impacts during wolf recovery 

in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et 

al. 1995, p. 428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202– 

214). The EIS on gray wolf 

reintroduction identified disease impact 

as an issue, but did not evaluate it 

further, as it appeared to be insignificant 

(Service 1994, pp. 1:20–21). 

Infectious disease induced by 

parasitic organisms is a normal feature 

of the life of wild animals, and the 

typical wild animal hosts a broad multispecies community of potentially 

harmful parasitic organisms (Wobeser 

2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that 

these diseases and parasites will follow 

the same pattern seen in other areas of 

North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

428–429; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 445; 

Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–204; Atkinson 

2006, p. 1–7; Smith and Almberg 2007, 

17–19; Johnson 1995a, b) and will not 

significantly threaten wolf population 

viability. The diseases and parasites of 

wolves are unlikely to effect human 

health and safety and most are already 

endemic in other wild carnivores and 

dogs. Nevertheless, because these 

diseases and parasites, and perhaps 

others, have the potential to impact wolf 

population distribution and 

demographics, careful monitoring (as 

per the State wolf management plans) 

will track such events (Atkinson 2006, 

p. 1–7). Should such an outbreak occur, 

human-caused mortality would be 

regulated over an appropriate area and 

time period to ensure wolf population 

numbers in the NRM DPS are 

maintained above recovery levels in 

those portions of the DPS. 

Canine parvovirus (CPV) infects 

wolves, domestic dogs (Canis 

familiaris), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), 

coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis), 

and raccoons (Procyon lotor). The 

population impacts of CPV occur via 

diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to 

abnormally high pup mortality 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical CPV is 

characterized by severe hemorrhagic 

diarrhea and vomiting; debility and 

subsequent mortality is a result of 

dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, 

and shock. CPV has been detected in 

nearly every wolf population in North 

America including Alaska (Bailey et al. 

1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; 

Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211; Johnson et 

al. 1994), and exposure in wolves is 

thought to be almost universal. 

Currently, nearly 100 percent of the 

wolves handled by MFWP (Atkinson 

2006) and YNP (Smith and Almberg 

2007, p. 18) had blood antibodies 

indicating nonlethal exposure to CPV. 

CPV might have contributed to low pup 

survival in the northern range of YNP in 

1999. CPV was suspected to have done 

so again in 2005 and possibly 2008, but 

evidence points to canine distemper as 

being the primary cause of low pup 

survival during those years (Smith et al. 

2006, p. 244; Smith 2008). Pup 

production and survival in YNP 

returned to normal levels after each 

event (Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 18– 

19). The impact of disease outbreaks to 

the overall NRM wolf population has 

been localized and temporary, as has 

been documented elsewhere (Bailey et 

al. 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 

421; Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211). 

Despite these periodic disease 

outbreaks, the NRM wolf population 

increased at a rate of about 22 percent 

annually from 1996 to 2008 (Service et 

al. 2009, Table 4). Mech et al. (2008, p. 

824) recently concluded CPV reduced 

pup survival, subsequent dispersal, and 

the overall rate of population growth in 

Minnesota (a population near carrying 

capacity in suitable habitat). It is 

possible that at carrying capacity the 

NRM population may be effected 

similarly and the overall rate of growth 

maybe reduced. 

Canine distemper (CD) is an acute, 

fever-causing disease of carnivores 

caused by a virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

It is common in domestic dogs and 

some wild canids, such as coyotes and 

foxes in the NRM (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

The prevalence of antibodies to this 

disease in samples of wolf blood in 

North American wolves is about 17 

percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209), but 

varies annually and by specific location. 

Nearly 85 percent of Montana wolf 

blood samples analyzed in 2005 

indicated nonlethal exposure to CD 

(Atkinson 2006). Similar results were 

found in YNP (Smith and Almberg 

2007, p. 18). Mortality in wolves has 

been documented in Canada (Carbyn 

1982, p. 109), Alaska (Peterson et al. 

1984, p. 31; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441), 

and in a single Wisconsin pup 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). 

CD is not a major mortality factor in 

wolves, because despite high exposure 

to the virus, affected wolf populations 

usually demonstrate good recruitment 

(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420–421). 

Mortality from CD has only been 

confirmed once in NRM wolves despite 

their high exposure to it, but we suspect 

it contributed to the high pup mortality 

documented in the northern GYA in 

spring 1999, 2005, and 2008. These 

periodic outbreaks will undoubtedly 

occur but as documented elsewhere CD 

does not threaten wolf populations and 

the NRM wolf population increased 

even during years with localized 

outbreaks. Park biologist’s (Smith 2008, 

pers. comm.) believes that wolf deaths 

mainly occurred from CD when the YNP 

population was around the historic high 

of 170 wolves the previous winter. In 

2008, wolf packs in Wyoming outside 

YNP (about 25 packs and 18 breeding 

pairs) appear to have only slightly lower 

pup production (Jimenez 2008, pers. 

comm.), indicating the probable most 

severe disease outbreak in 2008 was 

localized to the northern range of YNP. 

This suggests CD mortality maybe 

associate with high wolf density, and 

possibly carrying capacity. Thus the 

NRM population may be more effected 

by CD, and other diseases when at the 

carrying capacity in suitable habitat. 

Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete 

bacterium, is spread primarily by deer 

ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species 

include humans, horses (Equus 

caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, elk, white-footed mice 

(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern 

chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, 

and wolves. In WGL populations, it 

does not appear to cause adult 

mortality, but might be suppressing 

population growth by decreasing wolf 

pup survival (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 1999, p. 61. Lyme 

disease has not been reported from 

wolves beyond the Great Lakes regions 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61). 

Mange (Sarcoptes scabeii) is caused 

by a mite that infests the skin. The 

irritation caused by feeding and 

burrowing mites results in intense 

itching, resulting in scratching and 

severe fur loss, which can lead to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

mortality from exposure during severe 

winter weather or secondary infections 

(Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). Advanced 

mange can involve the entire body and 

can cause emaciation, decreased flight 

distance, staggering, and death (Kreeger 

2003, p. 207). In a long-term Alberta 

wolf study, higher wolf densities were 

correlated with increased incidence of 

mange, and pup survival decreased as 

the incidence of mange increased 

(Brand et al. 1995, pp. 427–428). Mange 

has been shown to temporarily affect 

wolf population growth rates and 

perhaps wolf distribution (Kreeger 2003, 

p. 208). 

Mange has been detected in, and 

caused mortality to, wolves in the NRM 

almost exclusively in the GYA, and 

primarily east of the Continental Divide 

(Jimenez et al. 2008b; Atkinson 2006, p. 

5; Smith and Almberg 2007, p. 19). 

Those wolves likely contracted mange 

from coyotes or fox whose populations 

experience occasional outbreaks. 

Between 2003 and 2008, the percent of 

Montana packs with mange fluctuated 

between 3 and 24 percent of packs 

including infestation rates of 3%, 10%, 

24%, 10%, 4%, and 0%, respectively. 

Between 2002 and 2008, the percent of 

Wyoming packs with mange fluctuated 

between 3 and 15 percent of packs 

including infestation rates of 5%, 8%, 

12%, 3%, 9%, 15%, and 15%, 

respectively. In these cases, mange did 

not appear to infest every member of the 

pack. For example, in 2008, manage was 

detected in 8 wolves from 4 different 

packs in YNP, one pack in Wyoming 

outside YNP, and a couple of packs in 

previously infested areas of 

southwestern Montana. Manage has 

never been confirmed in wolves in 

Idaho (Jimenez et al. 2008b, p. 1). 

In packs with the most severe 

infestations, pup survival appeared low, 

and some adults died (Jimenez et al. 

2008b). In addition, we euthanized 

several wolves with severe mange for 

humane reasons and because of their 

abnormal behavior. We predict that 

mange in the NRM will act as it has in 

other parts of North America (Brand et 

al. 1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

207–208) and not threaten wolf 

population viability. Evidence suggests 

NRM wolves will not be infested on a 

chronic population-wide level given the 

recent response of wolves that naturally 

overcame a mange infestation (Jimenez 

et al. 2008b, p. 1). 

Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) 

commonly feed on domestic dogs, but 

can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz 

et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. 

404). The lice can attain severe 

infestations, particularly in pups. The 

worst infestations can result in severe 

scratching, irritated and raw skin, 

substantial hair loss particularly in the 

groin, and poor condition. While no 

wolf mortality has been confirmed, 

death from exposure and/or secondary 

infection following self-inflicted trauma, 

caused by inflammation and itching, 

appears possible. Dog-biting lice were 

first confirmed in NRM wolves on two 

members of the Battlefield pack in the 

Big Hole Valley of southwestern 

Montana in 2005, and on a wolf in 

south-central Idaho in early 2006, but 

their infestations were not severe 

(Service et al. 2006, p. 15; Atkinson 

2006, p. 5; Jimenez et al. 2008c). The 

source of this infestation is unknown, 

but was likely domestic dogs. Lice have 

not been documented in the NRM since 

2006. 

Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria 

immitus), blastomycosis, brucellosis, 

neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine 

tuberculosis, canine coronavirus, viral 

papillomatosis, hookworm, tapeworm 

(Echinococcus granulosus, Foreyt et al. 

2008, p. 1), lice, coccidiosis, and canine 

adenovirus/hepatitis have all been 

documented in wild gray wolves, but 

their impacts on future wild wolf 

populations are not likely to be 

significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419– 

429; Johnson 1995a, b, pp. 5–73, 1995b, 

pp. 5–49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

202–214; Atkinson 2006, p. 1–7). Canid 

rabies caused local population declines 

in Alaska (Ballard and Krausman 1997, 

p. 242) and may temporarily limit 

population growth or distribution where 

another species, such as arctic foxes 

(Alopex lagopus), act as a reservoir for 

the disease. We have not detected rabies 

in wolves in the NRM. Range expansion 

could provide new avenues for exposure 

to several of these diseases, especially 

canine heartworm, rabies, bovine 

tuberculosis, and possibly new diseases 

such as chronic wasting disease and 

West Nile virus, further emphasizing the 

need for vigilant disease monitoring 

programs. 

Because several of the diseases and 

parasites are known to be spread by 

wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence 

may increase if wolf densities increase. 

However, because wolf densities are 

already high and may be peaking 

(Service et al. 2009, Table 1 & Figure 1), 

wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely 

lead to a continuing increase in disease 

prevalence. The wolves’ exposure to 

these types of organisms may be most 

common outside of the core population 

areas, where domestic dogs are most 

common, and lowest in the core 

population areas because wolves tend to 

flow out of, not into, saturated habitats. 

Despite this dynamic, we assume that 

most NRM wolves will continue to have 

exposure to most diseases and parasites 

in the system. Diseases or parasites have 

not been a significant threat to wolf 

population recovery in the NRM or 

elsewhere to date, and we have no 

reason to believe that they will become 

a significant threat to their viability in 

the foreseeable future. 

In terms of future monitoring, States 

have committed to monitor the NRM 

wolf population for significant disease 

and parasite problems. State wildlife 

health programs often cooperate with 

Federal agencies and universities and 

usually have both reactive and proactive 

wildlife health monitoring protocols. 

Reactive strategies consist of periodic 

intensive investigations after disease or 

parasite problems have been detected 

through routine management practices, 

such as pelt examination, reports from 

hunters, research projects, or population 

monitoring. Proactive strategies often 

involve ongoing routine investigation of 

wildlife health information through 

collection and analysis of blood and 

tissue samples from all or a sub-sample 

of wildlife carcasses or live animals that 

are handled. We do not believe that 

diseases or changes in disease 

monitoring will threaten wolf 

population recovery in the NRM DPS. 

Natural Predation—No wild animals 

routinely prey on gray wolves (Ballard 

et al. 2003, pp. 259–260). Occasionally 

wolves have been killed by large prey 

such as elk, deer, bison, and moose 

(Mech and Nelson 1989, p. 207; Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 247; Mech and Peterson 

2003, p. 134), but those instances are 

few. Since the 1980s, wolves in the 

NRM have died from wounds they 

received while attacking prey on about 

a dozen occasions (Smith et al. 2006, p. 

247). That level of natural mortality 

could not significantly affect wolf 

population viability or stability. 

Since NRM wolves have been 

monitored, only three wolves have been 

confirmed killed by other large 

predators. Two adults were killed by 

mountain lions, and one pup was killed 

by a grizzly bear (Jimenez et al. 2008a, 

p. 1). Wolves in the NRM inhabit the 

same areas as mountain lions, grizzly 

bears, and black bears, but conflicts 

rarely result in the death of either 

species. Wolves evolved with other 

large predators, and no other large 

predators in North America, except 

humans, have the potential to 

significantly impact wolf populations. 

Other wolves are the largest cause of 

natural predation among wolves. 

Numerous mortalities have resulted 

from territorial conflicts between wolves 

and about 7 percent of wolf deaths are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15165 

caused by territorial conflict in the NRM 

wolf population (Smith 2007, p. 1). 

Wherever wolf packs occur, including 

the NRM, some low level of wolf 

mortality will result from territorial 

conflict. Wolf populations tend to 

regulate their own densities; 

consequently, territorial conflict is 

highest in saturated habitats like YNP. 

This cause of mortality is infrequent 

except at carry-capacity and does not 

result in a level of mortality (<3 percent 

rate of natural wolf mortality in the 

NRM) that would significantly affect a 

wolf population’s viability in the NRM 

(Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). 

Human-caused Predation—Wolves 

are susceptible to human-caused 

mortality, especially in open habitats 

such as those that occur in the western 

United States (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). 

An active eradication program is the 

sole reason that wolves were extirpated 

from the NRM (Weaver 1978, p. i). 

Humans kill wolves for a number of 

reasons. In all locations where people, 

livestock, and wolves coexist, some 

wolves are killed to resolve conflicts 

with livestock (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 

Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86–107, 345– 

7). Occasionally, wolf killings are 

accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by 

vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, 

or caught in traps set for other animals) 

(Bangs et al. 2005, p. 346) and some are 

reported to State, Tribal, and Federal 

authorities. A few (2 in 2008) wolves 

have been killed by people who stated 

that they believed their physical safety 

was being threatened. 

However, many wolf killings are 

intentional, illegal, and are never 

reported to authorities. Wolves may 

become unwary of people or human 

activity, and that can make them 

vulnerable to human-caused mortality 

(Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 300–302). 

In the NRM, mountain topography 

concentrates both wolf and human 

activity in valley bottoms (Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999, p. 1105), especially in 

winter, which increases wolf exposure 

to human-caused mortality. The number 

of illegal killings is difficult to estimate 

and impossible to accurately determine 

because they generally occur with few 

witnesses. Often the evidence has 

decayed by the time the wolf’s carcass 

is discovered or the evidence is 

destroyed or concealed by the 

perpetrators. While human-caused 

mortality, including both illegal killing 

and agency control, has not prevented 

population recovery, it has affected 

NRM wolf distribution (Bangs et al. 

2004, p. 93) preventing successfully 

pack establishment and persistence in 

open prairie or high desert habitats 

(Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; Service et al. 

1989–2009, Figure 1). 

As part of the interagency wolf 

monitoring program and various 

research projects, about 30 percent of 

the NRM wolf population has been 

monitored with radio telemetry since 

the 1980s (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). The 

annual survival rate of mature wolves in 

northwestern Montana and adjacent 

Canada from 1984 through 1995 was 80 

percent (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459) 

including 84 percent for resident wolves 

and 66 percent for dispersers. A 

preliminary analysis of the survival data 

among NRM radio-collared wolves 

(Hensey and Fuller 1983, p. 1; Smith et 

al. 2008, p. 1) from 1984 through 2006 

indicates that about 26 percent of adultsized wolves die every year, so annual 

adult survival averages about 74 

percent, which typically allows wolf 

population growth (Keith 1983, p. 66; 

Fuller et al. 2003, p. 182). Wolves in the 

largest blocks of remote habitat without 

livestock, such as central Idaho or YNP, 

had annual survival rates around 80 

percent (Smith et al., 2006 p. 245; Smith 

et al. 2008). Wolves outside of large 

remote areas had survival rates as low 

as 54 percent in some years (Smith et al. 

2006, p. 245; Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). 

This percentage is among the lower end 

of adult wolf survival rates that an 

isolated population can sustain (Fuller 

et al. 2003, p. 185). 

Of all mortalities of radio-collared 

wolves from 1984–2004, 21 percent 

were killed by natural causes (including 

7 percent wolf-to-wolf conflict), 15 

percent died from human-caused 

mortality other than agency control 

(vehicles, capture-related, incidental 

trapping, accidents, and legal harvest of 

wolves that range into Canada), 28 

percent were killed in control actions, 

21 percent were illegally killed, and in 

15 percent cause of death was unknown 

(Smith 2007, p. 1). Nevertheless, wolf 

numbers have increased at rate of about 

22 percent annually, until 2008, in the 

face of ongoing levels of human-caused 

mortality. 

It should be noted that our analysis 

did not estimate the cause or rate of 

survival among pups younger than 7 

months of age because they are too 

small to radio-collar. These survival 

rates may also be biased in other ways. 

Wolves are more likely to be radiocollared if they likely to come into 

conflict with people, so the proportion 

of mortality caused by agency 

depredation control actions could be 

overestimated by radio-telemetry data. 

Wolves initially radio-collared because 

of livestock depredation had higher 

rates of mortality (Murray et al. 2008, p. 

1). People who illegally kill wolves may 

destroy the radio-collar, so the 

proportion of illegal mortality could be 

underestimated. Wolves that disperse 

long distances are much more difficult 

to locate than resident wolves, so their 

survival maybe even lower than 

telemetry data indicate (Murray et al. 

2008, p. 1). The high proportion of 

wolves radio-collared in National Parks 

for research purposes can result in 

underestimating the overall rate of 

human-caused mortality in the NRM 

wolf population. 

Wolf mortality from agency control of 

problem wolves (which includes legal 

take by private individuals under 

defense of property regulations in rules 

promulgated under section 10(j) of the 

Act) is estimated to remove around 10 

percent of adult radio-collared wolves 

annually. If the Act’s protections were 

removed, we expect comparable levels 

of agency control. In terms of defense of 

property, from 1995 through 2008, about 

75 wolves were legally killed by private 

citizens under Federal defense of 

property regulations (Service 1994, pp. 

2:13–14; 59 FR 60252, November 22, 

1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 

70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005; 73 FR 

4720, January 28, 2008; 50 CFR 17.84(i) 

& (n)). Existing 10(j) regulations are 

similar to State laws that would take 

effect and direct take of problem wolves 

if wolves were delisted, except in 

Wyoming. Thus, we do not expect 

private citizen take under State defense 

of property laws to significantly 

increase the overall rate of wolf 

removal, except in Wyoming (Bangs et 

al. in press, pp. 19–20). All sources of 

human-caused mortality would be 

considered in total allowable mortality 

levels. In Wyoming, State law mandates 

much more aggressive control in the 

Trophy game area and unregulated take 

in the predatory animal area and would 

far exceed take allowed under existing 

10(j) regulations. Given adequate 

regulatory mechanisms in all portions of 

the NRM DPS, except Wyoming, we 

believe this issue will not threaten the 

recovered status of the NRM DPS, 

except in Wyoming. These issues are 

discussed in more detail relative to State 

regulation in Factor D below. 

In our previous final rule we 

explained that, post-delisting, State 

management would likely increase the 

mortality rate outside National Parks 

and National Wildlife Refuges from its 

current level (Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). 

We explained that wolf mortality could 

nearly double without reducing the 

population (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185). 

In 2008, the high number of wolves in 

the NRMs, saturation of suitable habitat, 

and increased dispersal into unsuitable 

habitat, in combination with more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

aggressive State management 

frameworks, resulted in about a forty 

percent increase (78 wolves) in agency 

authorized control actions from the 

previous year. As more wolves tried to 

establish themselves in unsuitable 

habitat livestock depredations increased 

and more wolves and a larger 

percentage of the wolf population were 

killed by agency control actions. 

However, this increase alone could not 

have resulted in the slower growth in 

the NRM wolf population. Increased 

agency control only explains between 

thirty-three percent of the difference 

between a predicted NRM wolf 

population of 1,876 wolves for 2008 

(assuming continued population growth 

of 24 percent as documented prior to 

2008) and our actual mid-year 2008 

estimate of 1,639 wolves, a difference of 

237 wolves. We also think it’s unlikely 

other sources of human-caused 

mortality made up the difference 

between these two estimates. Instead, 

we believe the NRM’s slowing growth 

was primarily the result of reaching 

carry capacity where a host of natural 

causes (disease, social strife, starvation, 

etc.) have acted to help control the 

population. 

In summary, recent and predicted 

human-caused mortality rates will allow 

for rapid wolf population growth when 

the wolf population is below carrying 

capacity. The protection of wolves 

under the Act promoted rapid initial 

wolf population growth in suitable 

habitat. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

have committed to continue to regulate 

human-caused mortality so that it does 

not reduce the NRM wolf population 

below recovery levels. But only 

Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

and Utah have adequate laws and 

regulations to fulfill those commitments 

and ensure that the NRM wolf 

population remains above recovery 

levels (see Factor D). Each post-delisting 

management entity (State, Tribal, and 

Federal) has experienced and 

professional wildlife staff to ensure 

those commitments can be 

accomplished. 

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

The following analysis summarizes 

the current regulatory approach as well 

as the regulatory mechanisms that 

would take effect post-delisting. The 

analysis considers whether such postdelisting regulatory mechanisms in each 

portion of the NRM DPS are adequate to 

maintain the recovered status of the 

NRM DPS. 

Current Wolf Management—The 1980 

and 1987 NRM wolf recovery plans 

(Service 1980, p. 4; Service 1987, p. 3) 

recognized that conflict with livestock 

was the major reason that wolves were 

extirpated, and that management of 

conflicts was a necessary component of 

wolf restoration. The plans also 

recognized that control of problem 

wolves was necessary to maintain local 

public tolerance of wolves and that 

removal of some wolves would not 

prevent the wolf population from 

achieving recovery. In 1988, the Service 

developed an interim wolf control plan 

that applied to Montana and Wyoming 

(Service 1988, p. 1); the plan was 

amended in 1990 to include Idaho and 

eastern Washington (Service 1990, p. 1). 

We analyzed the effectiveness of those 

plans in 1999, and revised our 

guidelines for management of problem 

wolves listed as endangered (Service 

1999, p. 1). Evidence showed that most 

wolves do not attack livestock, 

especially larger livestock such as adult 

horses and cattle, but wolf presence 

around livestock will always result in 

some level of depredation (Bangs and 

Shivik 2001; Bangs et al. 2005, pp. 348– 

350). Therefore, we developed a set of 

guidelines under which depredating 

wolves could be harassed, moved, or 

killed by agency officials (Service 1999, 

pp. 39–40). The control plans were 

based on the premise that agency wolf 

control actions would affect only a 

small number of wolves, but would 

sustain public tolerance for nondepredating wolves, thus enhancing the 

chances for successful population 

recovery (Mech 1995, pp. 276–276). Our 

assumptions have proven correct, as 

wolf depredation on livestock and 

subsequent agency control actions have 

remained compatible with recovery, as 

the wolf population expanded its 

distribution and numbers far beyond, 

and more quickly than, earlier 

predictions (Service 1994, p. 2:12; 

Service et al. 2007, Tables 4). 

The conflict between wolves and 

livestock has resulted in the average 

annual removal of 8 to 14 percent of the 

wolf population (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 

130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et 

al. 2005, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 

2008, Tables 4, 5; Smith et al. 2008, p. 

1). We estimate illegal killing removed 

another 10 percent of the wolf 

population, and accidental and 

unintentional human-caused deaths 

have removed 3 percent of the 

population annually (Smith et al. 2008, 

p. 1). Even with this level of mortality, 

populations have expanded rapidly 

(Service et al. 2008, Table 5). Despite 

liberal regulations regarding wolf 

removal, nearly all suitable areas for 

wolves are being occupied by resident 

packs (Service et al. 2008, Figure 1; 

Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 559). The outer 

NRM wolf pack distribution has 

remained largely unchanged since the 

end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001–2009, 

Figure 1), indicating that wolf packs are 

simply filling in the areas with suitable 

habitat, not successfully expanding their 

range into unsuitable habitat. As we 

previously explained in the recovery 

section, we believe that the NRM wolf 

population is likely at or above longterm carrying capacity. 

Because wolf populations continually 

try to expand, we expect wolves will 

increasingly disperse into unsuitable 

areas that are intensively used for 

livestock production. A higher 

percentage of wolves in those areas will 

become involved in conflicts with 

livestock, and a higher percentage of 

those wolves will be removed to reduce 

future livestock damage. In the earlier 

stages of wolf restoration about 6 

percent of the NRM wolf population 

was removed annually (Service et al. 

2008, Table 5). In recent years, this total 

has more than doubled (Service et al. 

2007–2009, Table 5). Fuller et al. (2003) 

reviewed all available wolf studies to 

determine whether a population 

increased, stabilized, or decreased based 

on its annual mortality rates. According 

to these field data, assuming the 

population is maintained below 

carrying capacity, human-caused 

mortality would have to remove 

somewhere between 34 percent and 50 

percent of the wolf population annually 

before the population would decline 

(Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184–185). In 

practice, until 2008, the wolf population 

grew an average rate of 24 percent 

annually despite an annual mortality 

rate of 26 percent (ranging from 20 to 50 

percent depending on location and year) 

(Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). Actual capacity 

to withstand mortality will vary by 

geographic area. The State laws and 

management plans intend to balance the 

level of wolf mortality, primarily 

human-caused mortality, with the wolf 

population growth rate to achieve 

desired population objectives. 

Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms 

Within the NRM DPS—It has been long 

recognized that the future conservation 

of a delisted wolf population in the 

NRM depends almost solely on State 

regulation of human-caused mortality. 

In 1999, the Governors of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming agreed that 

regional coordination in wolf 

management planning among the State, 

Tribes, and other jurisdictions was 

necessary. They signed a MOU to 

facilitate cooperation among the three 

States in developing adequate State wolf 

management plans so that delisting 

could proceed. In this agreement, all 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15167 

three States committed to maintain at 

least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 

per State. The States were to develop 

their pack definitions to approximate 

the current breeding pair definition. 

Governors from the three States 

renewed that agreement in April 2002. 

Because the primary threat to the wolf 

population (human caused mortality) 

still has the potential to significantly 

impact wolf populations if not 

adequately managed, we must find that 

the States will manage for sustainable 

mortality levels before we can remove 

the Act’s protections. Therefore, we 

requested that the States of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming prepare State wolf 

management plans to demonstrate how 

they would manage wolves after the 

protections of the Act were removed. 

With limited suitable habitat in 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah and on 

Tribal lands within the NRM DPS, we 

believe these areas will play only a 

small role in the conservation of the 

NRM DPS. We do not believe threats in 

those States or on Tribal lands are likely 

to be significant enough to affect wolf 

population recovery. Nevertheless, all 

areas within the NRM DPS are 

considered below. 

Several issues were key to our 

approval of State plans including: 

Consistency between State laws, 

management plans, and regulations; 

regulations that prevent excessive take; 

methods used to measure wolf 

population status; the organizational 

ability and skill to successfully monitor 

and manage State wolf populations; and 

commitments to manage wolves safely 

above minimum recovery levels. Our 

determination of the adequacy of those 

three key State management plans was 

based on the combination of Service 

knowledge of State law, the State 

management plans, wolf biology, our 

experience managing wolves for the last 

20 years, the success of wolf 

management in other areas of the world 

peer review of the State plans, the State 

response to peer review, and public 

comments including those from the 

States. 

State plans and other documents 

pertinent to State wolf management 

post-delisting can be viewed at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. All current 

State and Tribal management laws, 

plans, and regulations in the NRM DPS 

have been evaluated and are discussed 

below. 

Montana—Montana has demonstrated 

their capacity to manage their wolf 

population. In June 2005, MFWP 

entered into a Cooperative Agreement 

with the Service allowing it manage all 

wolves in the State subject to general 

oversight by the Service. The State’s 

efforts have proven successful, as 

Montana’s wolf population estimate 

increased from 152 wolves in 15 

breeding pairs in late 2004 to about 491 

wolves in 34 breeding pairs in 2008 

(Service et al. 2009, Table 4). 

Preliminary data also indicated that 

Montana’s wolf population in 2008 

would be at higher levels than in 2007 

(McDonald 2008). Their post-delisting 

approach is discussed in detail below. 

The gray wolf was listed under the 

Montana Nongame and Endangered 

Species Conservation Act of 1973 (87– 

5–101 MCA). Senate Bill 163, passed by 

the Montana Legislature and signed into 

law by the Governor in 2001 and 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

12.2.501 and 12.5.201 establish the 

current legal status for wolves in 

Montana. Upon Federal delisting, 

wolves would be classified and 

protected under Montana law as a 

‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ 

(MCA 87–5–101 to 87–5–123). Montana 

law defines ‘‘species in need of 

management’’ as ‘‘The collection and 

application of biological information for 

the purposes of increasing the number 

of individuals within species and 

populations of wildlife up to the 

optimum carrying capacity of their 

habitat and maintain those levels. The 

term includes the entire range of 

activities that constitute a modern 

scientific resource program, including, 

but not limited to research, census, law 

enforcement, habitat improvement, and 

education. The term also includes the 

periodic or total protection of species or 

populations as well as regulated 

taking.’’ 

Classification as a ‘‘Species in Need of 

Management’’ and the associated 

administrative rules under Montana 

State law create the legal mechanism to 

protect wolves and regulate humancaused mortality (including regulated 

public harvest) beyond the immediate 

defense of life/property situations. Some 

illegal human-caused mortality would 

still occur, but is to be prosecuted under 

State law and Commission regulations. 

In 2000, the Governor of Montana 

appointed the Montana Wolf 

Management Advisory Council to advise 

MFWP regarding wolf management after 

the species is removed from the lists of 

Federal and State-protected species. In 

August 2003, MFWP completed a Final 

EIS pursuant to the Montana 

Environmental Policy Act and 

recommended that the Updated 

Advisory Council alternative be selected 

as Montana’s Final Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan 

(Montana 2003, p. 131). See http:// 

fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/ 

default.html to view the MFWP Final 

EIS and the Montana Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

Under the management plan, the wolf 

population would be maintained above 

the recovery level of 10 breeding pairs 

by managing for a total of at least 15 

breeding pairs. Wolves would not be 

deliberately confined to any specific 

geographic areas of Montana nor would 

the population size be deliberately 

capped at a specific level. However, 

wolf numbers and distribution would be 

managed adaptively based on ecological 

factors, wolf population status, conflict 

mitigation, and human social tolerance. 

The plan and Administrative Rules 

commit MFWP to implement its 

management framework in a manner 

that encourages connectivity among 

wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, 

GYA, and Montana to maintain the 

overall metapopulation structure (see 

Factor E.). Overall, wolf management 

would include population monitoring, 

routine analysis of population health, 

management in concert with prey 

populations, law enforcement, control 

of domestic animal/human conflicts, 

implementation of a wolf-damage 

mitigation and reimbursement program, 

research, and information and public 

outreach. Montana’s plan (Montana 

2003, p. 132) predicted that under State 

management, the wolf population 

would be between 328 and 657 wolves 

with approximately 27 to 54 breeding 

pairs by 2015. 

An important ecological factor 

determining wolf distribution in 

Montana is the availability and 

distribution of wild ungulates. Montana 

has a rich, diverse, and widely 

distributed prey base on both public and 

private lands. The MFWP has and will 

continue to manage wild ungulates 

according to Commission-approved 

policy direction and species 

management plans. The plans typically 

describe a management philosophy that 

protects the long-term sustainability of 

the ungulate populations, allows 

recreational hunting of surplus game, 

and aims to keep the population within 

management objectives based on 

ecological and social considerations. 

The MFWP takes a proactive approach 

to integrate management of ungulates 

and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is to be 

balanced with maintaining sufficient 

prey populations to sustain Montana’s 

segment of a recovered wolf population. 

Ongoing efforts to monitor populations 

of both ungulates and wolves will 

provide credible, scientific information 

for wildlife management decisions. 

MFWP will manage problem wolves 

in a manner similar to the control 

program currently being implemented 

in the experimental population area in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15168 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

southern Montana. Similar to the 

current federal regulations in the 

experimental areas, Montana law (MCA 

87–3–130) will allow a citizen to haze, 

harass, or kill a wolf that is seen 

attacking, killing, or threatening to kill 

a person or livestock or domestic dogs. 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

(12.9.1301 through 12.9.1305) will guide 

MFWP’s approach to addressing wolflivestock conflicts, including non-lethal 

and lethal control. Agency control of 

problem wolves is incremental and in 

response to confirmed depredations. 

State management of conflicts would 

become more conservative and no 

public hunting would be allowed if 

there were fewer than 15 breeding pairs 

statewide. 

State laws, Administrative Rules and 

Commission-approved regulations 

would allow agency management of 

problem wolves by MFWP and USDA– 

Wildlife Services (WS); take by private 

citizens in defense of private property; 

and, when the population is above 15 

breeding pairs, regulated fair chase 

hunting of wolves. Montana law 

allowing take in defense of private 

property is similar to the 2005 

experimental population regulations, 

whereby livestock owners can shoot 

wolves seen attacking or threatening 

livestock or domestic dogs as long as 

such incidents are reported promptly 

and subsequent investigations confirm 

that livestock were being attacked by 

wolves. Since 2004, MFWP has enlisted 

and directed USDA–WS in problem 

wolf management, just as the Service 

has done since 1987. 

For the 2008 hunting season, MFWP 

recommended a tentative state-wide 

total harvest quota of 75 wolves, split 

across three wolf management units. 

The Commission’s decision to adopt 

final quotas was pre-empted by issuance 

of the preliminary injunction. Thus, the 

Commission did not adopt final quotas. 

If it would have approved MFWP’s 

recommendation and implemented, a 

MFWP simulation model predicted that 

one year later, there would be about 497 

wolves, between 93 and 100 packs, and 

between 44 and 61 breeding pairs in 

Montana; this would have been larger 

than the minimum 2007 population. 

This model simulation now appears 

to have been reasonable because 

without hunting, the wolf population 

increased by 69 wolves in 2008. 

Montana’s wolf season-setting processes 

(framework and quotas) also incorporate 

adequate safety nets to prevent 

overharvest. These include: (1) 

Establishing quotas at a time of year 

(tentative in July and final in August) so 

that the most current monitoring data 

could be considered; (2) creation of a 1– 

800 hotline update so that hunters 

would know whether or not wolf 

harvest was legal (i.e. quota was open) 

prior to going hunting; (3) mandatory 

reporting of successful harvest within 

12 hours so FWP can closely monitor 

hunter success and quota status; (4) 

mandatory carcass inspection within 10 

days to verify age/sex of harvested 

animals and collect other biological 

information; (5) closure of the season 

upon a 24-hour notice when a wildlife 

management unit the quota is filled; (6) 

FWP authority to initiate a season 

closure prior to reaching a quota when 

conditions or circumstances indicate the 

quota may be reached within 24 hours; 

(7) definite season-ending closure date, 

regardless of whether the quotas were 

reached; and (8) emergency season 

closure at any time by order of the FWP 

Commission. If the full tentative statewide harvest recommended MFWP had 

occurred in 2008, it would have resulted 

in an estimated statewide wolf 

population of 416 wolves in 35 to 40 

breeding pairs. Should overharvest ever 

occur, next years harvest would be 

adjusted to compensate. No public 

hunting would be allowed if there were 

fewer than 15 breeding pairs statewide. 

The MFWP Commission also 

prohibited more than 25% of the total 

allowable wolf management unit quota 

to be taken during the month of 

December. This would have limited 

wolf harvest when wolves are known to 

disperse at higher rates. 

Hunt and defense of property laws, 

regulations, and other background 

information can be viewed at: http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov and in 

Montana’s (2008) comments on the 

delisting proposal. 

When the Service reviewed and 

determined that the Montana wolf plan 

and regulatory framework met the 

requirements of the Act, we stated that 

Montana’s wolf management plan 

would maintain a recovered wolf 

population and minimize conflicts with 

other traditional activities in Montana’s 

landscape. We have also carefully 

reviewed Montana’s 2008 comments on 

this rule (McDonald 2008). In their 

comments Montana explained in detail 

how their regulatory framework 

guarantee’s the secure future of wolves 

in Montana, the process used to develop 

Montana’s hunting framework and 

quota system and its safeguards, and its 

commitment and the steps Montana had 

already taken to ensuring demographic 

and genetic connectivity with Canada 

and the other recovery areas. The 

Service has every confidence that 

Montana will implement, for the 

foreseeable future, the commitments it 

has made in its current laws, 

regulations, and wolf plan. Thus, we 

continue to determine that Montana’s 

State law, wolf management plan, and 

implementing regulations provide the 

necessary regulatory mechanisms to 

assure maintenance of the State 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population well 

into the foreseeable future. 

Idaho—Idaho has demonstrated their 

capacity to manage their wolf 

population. In January 2006, the 

Governor of Idaho signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

the Secretary of the Interior that 

provided IDFG the responsibility and 

authority to manage all Idaho wolves as 

a designated agent of the Service. The 

State’s efforts have proven successful, as 

Idaho’s wolf population estimate 

increased from 512 wolves in 36 

breeding pairs in late 2005 (Service et 

al. 2006, Table 4) to about 846 wolves 

in 39 breeding pairs in 2008 (Service et 

al. 2009). Slower growth and higher 

levels of conflicts in 2008 indicates 

suitable habitat maybe saturated and the 

wolf population will stabilize because it 

is at carrying capacity. Their postdelisting approach is discussed in detail 

below. 

The Idaho Fish and Game 

Commission (IFGC) has authority to 

classify wildlife under Idaho Code 36– 

104(b) and 36–201. The gray wolf was 

classified as endangered by the State 

until March 2005, when the IFGC 

reclassified the species as a big game 

animal under Idaho Administrative 

Procedures Act (13.01.06.100.01.d). The 

big game classification will take effect 

once this rule becomes effective. As a 

big game animal, State regulations will 

adjust human-caused wolf mortality to 

ensure recovery levels are exceeded. 

Title 36 of the Idaho statutes has 

penalties associated with illegal take of 

big game animals. These rules are 

consistent with the legislatively adopted 

Idaho Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan (IWCMP) (Idaho 

2002) and big game hunting regulations 

currently in place. The IWCMP states 

that wolves will be protected against 

illegal take as a big game animal under 

Idaho Code 36–1402, 36–1404, and 36– 

202(h). 

The IWCMP was written with the 

assistance and leadership of the Wolf 

Oversight Committee established in 

1992 by the Idaho Legislature. Many 

special interest groups including 

legislators, sportsmen, livestock 

producers, conservationists, and IDFG 

personnel were involved in the 

development of the IWCMP. The 

Service provided technical advice to the 

Committee and reviewed numerous 

drafts before the IWCMP was finalized. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15169 

In March 2002, the IWCMP was adopted 

by joint resolution of the Idaho 

Legislature. The IWCMP can be found 

at: http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/ 

cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf. 

The IWCMP calls for IDFG: To be the 

primary manager of wolves after 

delisting; to maintain a minimum of 15 

packs of wolves to maintain a 

substantial margin of safety over the 10 

breeding pair minimum; and to manage 

them as a viable self-sustaining 

population that will never require 

relisting under the Act. Wolf take will 

be more liberal if there are more than 15 

packs and more conservative if there are 

fewer than 15 packs in Idaho. The wolf 

population will be managed by defense 

of property regulations similar to those 

now in effect under the Act. Public 

harvest will be incorporated as a 

management tool when there are 15 or 

more packs in Idaho to help mitigate 

conflicts with livestock producers or big 

game populations that outfitters, guides, 

and others hunt. The IWCMP allows 

IDFG to classify the wolf as a big game 

animal or furbearer, or to assign a 

special classification of predator, so that 

human-caused mortality can be 

regulated. In March 2005, the IGFC 

adopted the classification of wolves as 

a big game animal post-delisting, with 

the intent of managing wolves similar to 

black bears and mountain lions, 

including regulated public harvest when 

populations are above 15 packs. The 

IWCMP calls for the State to coordinate 

with USDA–WS to manage depredating 

wolves depending on the number of 

wolves in the State. It also calls for a 

balanced educational effort. 

In November 2007, Idaho released its 

Wolf Population Management Plan for 

public review and comment (Otter 2007, 

p. 1; Idaho 2007). That plan is a more 

detailed step-down management plan 

compared to the general guidance given 

in the plan Idaho adopted in 2002 and 

discusses the State’s intent to manage 

the population above 20 breeding pairs 

to provide hunting opportunities for 

wolves surplus to that goal (Idaho 2007). 

The population goal within the plan 

calls for maintaining the population 

near or above the 2005 levels 

(approximately 520 wolves). The 2007 

plan details how wolf populations will 

be managed to assure their niche in 

Idaho’s wild places into the future 

(Otter 2007). It was finalized and 

adopted by the IFGC in March 2008. 

Maintenance of prey populations is an 

important part of continued wolf 

recovery. The IDFG will manage elk and 

deer populations to meet biological and 

social objectives according to the State’s 

species management plans. The IDFG 

will manage both ungulates and 

carnivores, including wolves, to 

maintain viable populations of each. 

Ungulate harvest will focus on 

maintaining sufficient prey populations 

to sustain quality hunting and healthy, 

viable wolf and other carnivore 

populations. IDFG has conducted 

research to better understand the 

impacts of wolves and their 

relationships to ungulate population 

sizes and distribution so that regulated 

take of wolves can be used to assist in 

management of ungulate populations 

and vice versa. 

The Mule Deer Initiative in southeast 

Idaho was implemented by IDFG in 

2005, to restore and improve mule deer 

populations. Though most of the 

initiative lies outside current wolf range 

and suitable wolf habitat in Idaho, 

improving ungulate populations and 

hunter success will decrease negative 

attitudes toward wolves. When mule 

deer increase, some wolves may move 

into the areas that are being highlighted 

under the initiative. Habitat 

improvements within much of southeast 

Idaho would focus on improving mule 

deer conditions. The Clearwater Elk 

Initiative also is an attempt to improve 

elk numbers in the area of the 

Clearwater Region in north Idaho where 

currently IDFG has concerns about the 

health of that once-abundant elk herd 

(Idaho 2006). This is the same area 

where low elk numbers resulted in a 

proposal to temporarily reduce wolf 

density for 5 years in an attempt to 

increase elk numbers. Ultimately more 

prey always allows areas the potential to 

support more predators, including 

wolves. 

Once wolves are delisted, humancaused mortality will be regulated as 

directed by the IWCMP to maintain a 

recovered wolf population. In its 

preliminary injunction order, the 

District Court stated that Idaho’s 

depredation control law was not likely 

to threaten the continued existence of 

the wolf in Idaho because that State has 

committed to managing for at least 15 

breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves. 

We agree with this conclusion. The 

Idaho management plan is designed to 

maintain the Idaho wolf population at 

over 500 wolves in midwinter. At this 

level, it would be impossible for the 

Idaho’s defense of property regulations 

to significantly affect the overall rate of 

wolf mortality in Idaho (Smith et al. 

2008, p. 1; Service et al. 2009, Table 5). 

Furthermore, every mortality, including 

defense of property mortality which 

usually occurs in summer, will be 

deducted from the fall hunting quota. 

Therefore, all wolves taken in defense of 

property in Idaho would simply reduce 

the amount that could otherwise be 

taken by hunters in the fall. Idaho 

provided a more detailed analysis of 

their regulatory framework in their 

comments (Otter 2008) to our 2008 

notice (73 FR 63926, October 28, 2008) 

reopening the comment period on our 

February 8, 2007 proposed rule (72 FR 

6106). 

The court specifically noted that 

Idaho’s final wolf hunting regulations 

set a quota for the 2008 hunting season 

of 428 wolves from all causes of 

mortality Statewide. We anticipate that 

most mortality from hunters would 

occur in the fall elk and deer season in 

October and November when access is 

greatest and more hunters are afield. 

Mortality limits were set by zone so that 

once reached, the hunting season for 

that zone would be closed. As 

implemented, Idaho included all take in 

defense of property in the total 

allowable mortality levels. Mandatory 

reporting of harvest or defense of 

property take is required within 72 

hours. The court’s July 18, 2008, order 

preliminarily enjoining the delisting 

rule prevented implementation of the 

2008 hunting season. Had the hunting 

season occurred, the maximum level of 

wolf mortality would have been a 

maximum (and likely unreachable) 

harvest of about 244 wolves. If that oneyear quota had been fully achieved it 

would have still likely resulted in a 

remaining wolf population in Idaho of 

at least 602 wolves by mid-winter 2008 

(Otter 2008). In subsequent years, Idaho 

intended to greatly reduce the harvest to 

about 54 wolves per year to maintain 

the wolf population at or above 518 

wolves statewide. Any changes in actual 

harvest or actual wolf population levels 

from theoretical predictions would be 

adjusted (adaptive management) in 

subsequent years. Wolf populations are 

so biologically resilient, Idaho habitat so 

productive and expansive, and Idaho is 

managing for such a large buffer above 

minimum population levels, that such 

typical year-to-year fluctuations 

between theory and reality would never 

reduce the wolf population below State, 

let alone recovery minimum levels. 

Hunt and defense of property laws, 

regulations, and other background 

information can be viewed at: http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov and are 

discussed in detail in Idaho’s (Otter 

2008) comments on the proposal for this 

delisting rule. 

Our analysis of Idaho’s regulatory 

framework determined that the 

combined impact of the State law, their 

wolf management plans and IFGC 

actions and implementing regulations 

constitute a biologically-based and 

scientifically sound wolf conservation 

strategy. It will maintain the wolf 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

population well above recovery 

minimums and the methods that they 

will utilize to established the hunting 

quota system and harvest season it will 

promote natural connectivity from 

Idaho into the GYA (Otter 2008). The 

Service has every confidence that Idaho 

will implement, for the foreseeable 

future, the commitments it has made in 

its current laws, regulations, and wolf 

plan. Thus, we continue to determine 

that Idaho’s State law, wolf management 

plan, and implementing regulations 

provide the necessary regulatory 

mechanisms to assure maintenance of 

the State numerical and distributional 

share of a recovered NRM wolf 

population well into the foreseeable 

future. 

Wyoming—In 2007, the Wyoming 

legislature passed a State statute which 

provided the framework for Wyoming’s 

wolf management once the wolf is 

delisted from the Act. Following the 

change in State law, Wyoming drafted a 

revised wolf management plan 

(Wyoming 2007). On November 16, 

2007, the WGFC unanimously approved 

the 2007 Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 

2007, p. 1). On December 12, 2007, the 

Service determined that this plan, if 

implemented, would provide adequate 

regulatory protections to conserve 

Wyoming’s portion of the recovered 

NRM wolf population into the 

foreseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 1–3). 

The plan went into effect upon the 

Governor’s certification to the Wyoming 

Secretary of State that all of the 

provisions found in the 2007 Wyoming 

wolf management law have been met 

(W.S. §§ 23–1–109(b)&(c); Freudenthal 

2007a, p. 1–3). 

Implementation of that law was 

premised on Wyoming’s Governor 

certifying to the Wyoming Secretary of 

State that (1) the Service publishing a 

delisting rule that includes the entire 

State of Wyoming by February 28, 2007; 

(2) the Service completed a modification 

of the 2005 special rule (10j) for the 

experimental population that addressed 

Wyoming’s concerns about wolf 

management to maintain ungulate herds 

above State management objectives; and 

(3) settlement of the claims in 

Wyoming’s lawsuit contesting the 

Service not approving Wyoming’s 2003 

wolf management law and wolf plan. 

Wyoming provided the necessary 

certifications before the effective date 

and the Service-approved 2007 

Wyoming wolf management plan was 

legally authorized by Wyoming statutes. 

It was implemented on March 28, 2008, 

when the previous delisting rule became 

effective (73 FR 10514, February 27, 

2008). 

During the subsequent litigation, the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Montana reviewed our approval of 

Wyoming’s regulatory framework. The 

court stated that we acted arbitrarily in 

delisting a wolf population that lacked 

evidence of genetic exchange between 

subpopulations. The court also stated 

that we acted arbitrarily and 

capriciously when we approved 

Wyoming’s 2007 regulatory framework. 

The court was particularly concerned 

that Wyoming failed to commit to 

managing for at least 15 breeding pairs. 

The court also stated that accepting a 

‘‘small’’ trophy game area designation 

(approximately 12 percent of northwest 

Wyoming) was not supported by the 

record and was therefore arbitrary and 

capricious. Even more problematic, in 

the courts view, was the ‘‘malleable’’ 

nature of the trophy game area which 

could be diminished by the WGFC postdelisting. Finally, the court raised 

concerns with Wyoming’s depredation 

control law which it viewed as 

significantly more expansive than 

existing experimental population 

regulations. The court concluded that 

the Plaintiffs were likely to prevail on 

the merits of their claims. 

Based on the concerns expressed by 

the district court, we reanalyzed 

Wyoming’s regulatory framework. A 

central component of Wyoming’s 

regulatory framework is its plan to 

designate wolves as predatory animals 

across at least 88 percent of the State 

and manage wolves as a trophy game 

animal in the remaining portions of 

northwest Wyoming. The trophy game 

area totaled just over 31,000 km2

(12,000 mi2) (12% of Wyoming) in 

northwestern Wyoming, including YNP, 

Grand Teton National Park, John D. 

Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, adjacent 

U.S. Forest Service-designated 

Wilderness Areas, and adjacent public 

and private lands. 

In the predatory area, wolves will 

experience unregulated human-caused 

mortality. Wolves are unlike coyotes in 

that wolf behavior and reproductive 

biology results in wolves being 

extirpated in the face of extensive 

human-caused mortality. As we have 

previously concluded (71 FR 43410, 

August 1, 2006; 72 FR 6106, February 8, 

2007; 73 FR 10514, February 27, 2008), 

wolves are unlikely to survive in 

portions of Wyoming where they are 

regulated as predatory animals. This 

conclusion was validated this spring. 

After our previous delisting became 

effective, most of the wolves in the 

predatory animal area were killed 

within a few weeks of losing the Act’s 

protection (17 of at least 28). Mortality 

included: 9 shot from the ground by 

private individuals, sometimes after 

being chased long distances by 

snowmobile; 2 shot by private aerial 

gunners permitted by the Wyoming 

Department of Agriculture; 5 killed by 

agency authorized control, and 1 died of 

unknown causes. 

‘‘Trophy game’’ status allows the 

WGFC and WGFD to regulate methods 

of take, hunting seasons, types of 

allowed take, and numbers of wolves 

that could be killed. All other States 

within the NRM DPS manage wolves as 

a game species. 

We previously approved this 

approach because the 12 percent of 

Wyoming where wolves would be 

managed as a trophy game species 

included 70 percent of the State’s 

suitable wolf habitat and was presumed 

large enough to support Wyoming’s 

share of a recovered wolf population. 

This approach failed to consider the 

impacts of the predatory animal area to 

genetic connectivity. As discussed fully 

in Factor E and the Conclusion of the 5- 

Factor Analysis sections below, we now 

believe Wyoming must institute 

additional protections to facilitate 

natural genetic exchange in order to 

constitute an adequate regulatory 

mechanism. Specifically, long distance 

dispersers from other recovery areas, 

especially from Idaho, are most likely to 

cross the predatory animal area to find 

and join other packs (facilitating genetic 

connectivity) east or south of YNP. This 

approach also had failed to consider the 

likelihood that some lone wolves or 

even breeding pairs or packs from the 

trophy game area may periodically and 

temporarily disperse from the trophy 

animal area. Some of these dispersers 

would normally return to the northwest 

Wyoming’s core of suitable habitat. The 

current regulatory framework 

substantially increases the odds that 

these periodic dispersers will not 

survive, thus, impacting Wyoming’s 

wolf population including opportunities 

for genetic and demographic exchange. 

Wyoming’s 2008 plan commits to 

maintain genetic connectivity, but 

under State law they have no 

management authority or means in the 

predatory animal area to actually fulfill 

that promise. 

While the statute sets the legal 

maximum for Wyoming’s trophy game 

area, ‘‘This area may be diminished by 

rule of the commission if the 

commission determines the diminution 

does not impede the delisting of gray 

wolves and will facilitate Wyoming’s 

management of wolves’’ (Wyoming 

House Bill 0231, (xii)(l) p. 8). The first 

condition is not useful since wolves 

would have already been delisted for 

Wyoming’s law to apply. As previously 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15171 

determined (71 FR 43410, August 1, 

2006), a smaller trophy game area is not 

sufficient to maintain Wyoming’s share 

of a recovered NRM gray wolf 

population. Our previous analysis failed 

to consider the possibility that the 

WGFC would alter these boundaries. We 

now determine that a reduction in the 

trophy game area and expansion of the 

predatory area would further limit 

breeding pair occupancy in Wyoming 

and reduce opportunities for successful 

dispersal and genetic exchange. 

Within the trophy game portions of 

the State, Wyoming State law mandates 

an ‘‘aggressive’’ wolf management 

strategy that we now determine is 

unlikely to conserve Wyoming’s share of 

a recovered wolf population. One flaw 

with Wyoming’s approach is the law’s 

dependence on the National Parks to 

contribute at least 8 breeding pairs 

toward the total goal of at least 15 

breeding pairs statewide. Such 

dependence could lead the Wyoming 

wolf population to quickly slide below 

recovery goals. While the National Parks 

will maintain more than 8 breeding 

pairs in most years, the National Parks’ 

population will periodically fall below 

8 breeding pairs. In 2005, disease and 

other factors caused the YNP population 

to fall to 118 wolves in 7 breeding pairs 

(Service et al. 2006). Preliminary data 

for 2008 indicates similar natural factors 

reduced the YNP population to 124 

wolves in 6 breeding pairs (Smith 2008). 

Wyoming State law maintains that ‘‘the 

(WGFC) shall promulgate rules and 

regulations requiring lethal control of 

wolves harassing * * * livestock and 

for wolves occupying areas where 

chronic wolf predation occurs.’’ It goes 

on to state that ‘‘permits shall be issued 

as long as there are seven (7) breeding 

pairs within the State and outside of 

YNP.’’ The mandatory issuance of such 

lethal take permits are independent of 

predictions whether the year-end wolf 

population would be below 7 breeding 

pairs outside the National Parks or 15 

breeding pairs or 150 wolves Statewide. 

The law allows for cancellation or 

suspension of permits only if further 

lethal control could cause the relisting 

of wolves. 

Thus, State law mandates aggressive 

management until the population 

outside the National Parks fall to 6 

breeding pairs. If such a management 

strategy had been fully implemented in 

2008, when disease and other natural 

factors appear to have reduced the YNP 

population to 6 breeding pairs, the total 

Wyoming population would have fallen 

to the minimum recovery goal and any 

additional unregulated mortality (e.g., 

illegal killing, defense of property, 

control of problem wolves, death 

following dispersal into the predatory 

area) eliminating breeding pairs would 

have pushed the Wyoming wolf 

population below minimum recovery 

levels. We have long maintained that 

Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho must 

each manage for at least 15 breeding 

pairs and at least 150 wolves in midwinter to ensure the population never 

falls below the minimum recovery goal 

of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per 

State. As demonstrated here, Wyoming 

State law does not satisfy this standard. 

Thus, we now determine Wyoming 

State law would prevent Wyoming from 

maintaining its share of a recovered 

NRM wolf population into the 

foreseeable future. 

On March 13, 2008, WGFC issued 

regulations implementing the law 

(Wyoming Chapter 21). These 

regulations further demonstrate the 

inadequacy of the regulatory framework 

established by State law. As noted 

above, State law requires lethal control 

of wolves where chronic wolf predation 

occurs. The WGFC’s implementing 

regulations defined a ‘‘chronic wolf 

predation area’’ as any area where there 

were two or more livestock 

depredations over any time frame 

(Talbott 2008). The WGFC’s March 25, 

2008 wolf regulation guidance 

stipulated that once an area is deemed 

a chronic depredation area, the WGFD 

supervisor can issue permits without 

verification of predation. This 

interpretation meant that every part of 

the trophy game area outside the 

National Parks qualified as a chronic 

wolf predation area as every part of 

Wyoming has had two or more 

depredations on livestock by wolves 

since 1995 and that issuance of lethal 

take permits would be mandatory on the 

part of WGFD provided seven packs 

were present outside the National Parks 

in Wyoming, regardless of the number 

of wolves in National Parks. The 

changes made in the emergency WGFC 

regulations in 2008 largely rectified that 

problem of unregulated take in the 

trophy game area. 

Shortly after our previous wolf 

delisting, WGFD issued its first trophy 

game area annual lethal take permit. 

This permit authorized lethal take of 

four wolves after the landowner 

reported seeing a wolf track on his 

private property. In early July, and 

despite no recent depredations, this 

same permit was modified by WGFD to 

include a total of nine people some of 

whom had no apparent connection to 

the property. In early May, a federal 

grazing permittee who had depredations 

on his allotment the previous summer 

requested that WGFD remove wolves 

prior to him placing his cattle on 

allotment or to provide him with a 

lethal control permit. As his grazing 

allotment was in the chronic wolf 

predation area (as was all of the trophy 

game area in Wyoming outside the 

National Parks), the WGFC regulations 

required them to issue the lethal take 

permit. Such examples demonstrate that 

the framework established by State law 

allows Wyoming to reduce their wolf 

population outside the National Parks to 

6 breeding pairs regardless of whether 

the year-end wolf population would be 

below 7 breeding pairs outside the 

National Parks or 15 breeding pairs or 

150 wolves Statewide. 

At the point where we became aware 

of these implementing regulations, we 

began discussions with Wyoming about 

whether these regulations constituted an 

adequate regulatory mechanism. In 

response, WDGF asked the Wyoming 

Attorney General’s Office to review the 

situation. On May 8, 2008, the Attorney 

General issued an opinion on the 

implementing regulation’s definition of 

chronic wolf predation area. The 

regulation states ‘‘ ‘Chronic wolf 

predation area’ means a geographic area 

within the Wolf Trophy Game 

Management Area where gray wolves 

have repeatedly (twice or more) 

harassed, injured, maimed or killed 

livestock or domesticated animals.’’ The 

opinion found that the regulations use 

of ‘‘twice or more’’ was ambiguous and 

that in order to meet the intent of the 

Statute that wolves not be relisted, the 

State should interpret ‘‘twice or more’’ 

to mean within a calendar year (Martin 

2008, p. 1–5). Consequently, the State 

determined that WGFD may not initiate 

wolf control actions, including issuing 

lethal take permits, unless an area had 

two or more instances of wolves 

harassing, injuring, maiming or killing 

livestock or domestic animals since 

January 1 of that year. While this 

significantly improved implementation 

of their regulations, we remained 

concerned about this ambiguity. 

Following this May 8, 2008, opinion, 

Wyoming indicated they would amend 

the regulations at their earliest 

opportunity. Revisions were finally 

made to their regulations after the 

District Court vacated and remanded 

our previous final rule. 

On October 27, 2008, Wyoming issued 

emergency regulations and a revised 

wolf management plan. We have closely 

reviewed Wyoming’s comments on the 

proposed delisting rule (Freudenthal 

2008) and all changes to Wyoming’s 

regulatory framework. While we believe 

the revised regulatory framework is a 

vast improvement over its predecessor, 

the emergency regulation is temporary 

(it is only in effect for 120 days). Thus, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

we can not rely on it as an adequate 

regulatory mechanism. Most 

importantly, these regulatory 

improvements do not address the 

legislative shortcomings noted above 

(i.e., a trophy game area that can be 

diminished and a statute that 

encourages the WGFC to manage the 

population toward the minimum 

recovery goals in a manner that allows 

the possible reduction of the wolf 

population to below recovery levels. 

We find that a regulatory framework 

for wolf management at minimum 

recovery levels is not adequate. 

Attempts to maintain any wildlife 

population at bare minimum levels are 

unlikely to be successful. As with all 

wildlife species, periodic disturbance or 

random events will occur. This fact was 

proven by the dramatic, but temporary 

changes, in wolves and breeding pairs 

in YNP in 2005 and 2008. Managing at 

minimal levels increases the likelihood 

that periodic disturbance or random 

events will leave the population below 

management objectives. Instead, the 

State wildlife agency should be given 

leeway in its management approach to 

compensate for periodic or random 

events, as Montana and Idaho have 

done. Managing to minimal recovery 

levels also increases the chances of 

genetic problems developing in the GYA 

population and would reduce the 

opportunities for demographic and 

genetic exchange in the WY portion to 

the GYA. 

We also reviewed Wyoming’s 

proposed 2008 hunting season 

regulation. While the proposed 2008 

hunting season was not implemented, 

we determined it was well designed, 

biologically sound, and, by itself, it 

would not have threatened Wyoming’s 

share of the recovered NRM wolf 

population. Wyoming’s hunting season 

was designed around an allowable 

hunter-caused mortality in each of four 

hunting districts in the trophy game 

area. Hunting would end by November 

30, or in each subquota as its individual 

quota is filled, or when 25 wolves had 

been harvested, whichever is sooner. 

This level of hunter-caused mortality 

would remove a small portion of the 

wolves in Wyoming outside the national 

parks. If other sources of mortality had 

been adequately regulated, this level of 

hunter harvest would likely have 

resulted in a Wyoming wolf population 

outside the national parks of just under 

200 wolves by December 31, 2008 and 

nearly 400 wolves in the GYA. Because 

hunting harvest would end November 

30, it would have had only minor 

negative impacts within the trophy 

game area on naturally dispersing 

wolves or the opportunity for effective 

genetic migrants into Wyoming. Wolves 

in YNP would not be substantially 

affected by a regulated public hunt, as 

hunting is not allowed in national parks 

and wolves rarely leave YNP during the 

time period when the fall hunting 

season would occur. 

Considering all of the above, we now 

determine that Wyoming’s regulatory 

framework does not provide the 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

assure that Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population would 

be conserved if the protections of the 

Act were removed (Gould 2009). Until 

Wyoming revises their statutes, 

management plan, and associated 

regulations, and is approved by the 

Service, wolves in Wyoming remain 

listed as experimental population in this 

portion of the NRM DPS. Specific 

required revisions are discussed in the 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

section of the rule below. 

Washington—Wolves in Washington 

are listed as endangered under the 

State’s administrative code (WAC 

232.12.014; these provisions may be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/). 

Under Washington’s administrative 

code (WAC 232.12.297), ‘‘endangered’’ 

means any wildlife species native to the 

State of Washington that is seriously 

threatened with extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range 

within the State. Endangered species in 

the State of Washington are protected 

from hunting, possession, and malicious 

harassment, unless such taking has been 

authorized by rule of the Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Commission (RCW 

77.15.120; these provisions can be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/). 

If the NRM DPS is delisted, those areas 

in Washington included in the NRM 

DPS would remain listed as endangered 

by Washington State law until the wolf 

meets the statewide conservation 

objectives in the Washington Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

The Conservation objectives will 

establish the targets for downlisting to 

threatened, downlisting to sensitive 

status, and then delisting from sensitive 

status. The areas in Washington not 

included in the NRM DPS would remain 

listed as endangered under both State 

and Federal law until further 

rulemaking is proposed. 

Although we have received reports of 

individual and wolf family units in the 

North Cascades of Washington (Almack 

and Fitkin 1998), agency efforts to 

confirm them were unsuccessful until 

summer 2008 when a breeding pair (at 

least an adult male and female and 6 

pups) were confirmed near Twisp, 

Washington. Genetic analysis indicated 

that neither adult was related to the 

NRM wolves and had probably 

originated in central British Columbia. 

Intervening unsuitable habitat makes it 

highly unlikely that many wolves from 

the NRM population will disperse to the 

North Cascades of Washington in the 

future. 

Washington State does not currently 

have a final wolf conservation and 

management plan for wolves. However, 

the State established a wolf working 

group advisory committee and is 

preparing a draft State gray wolf 

conservation and management plan (see 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/ 

gray_wolf/). That plan should be 

finalized in late 2009. Interagency Wolf 

Response Guidelines have been 

developed by the Service, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and 

USDA WS to provide a checklist of 

response actions for five situations that 

may arise in the future (can be viewed 

at http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/diversty/soc/ 

gray_wolf/contacts.htm. Wolf 

management in Washington may be 

beneficial to the NRM wolf population, 

but is not necessary for achieving or 

maintaining a population of wolves in 

the NRM DPS. 

Oregon—The gray wolf has been 

classified as endangered under the 

Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 

496.171–192) since 1987. The law 

requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission to conserve the species in 

Oregon. Anticipating the 

reestablishment of wolves in Oregon 

from the growing Idaho population, the 

Commission directed the development 

of a wolf conservation and management 

plan to meet the requirements of both 

the Oregon Endangered Species Act and 

the Oregon Wildlife Policy. ORS 

496.012 states in part that ‘‘It is the 

policy of the State of Oregon that 

wildlife shall be managed to prevent 

serious depletion of any indigenous 

species and to provide the optimum 

recreational and aesthetic benefits for 

present and future generations of the 

citizens of this State.’’ 

In February 2005, the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Commission adopted the 

Oregon Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan (Oregon 2005). The 

plan was built to meet the following five 

delisting criteria identified in State 

statutes and administrative rules: (1) 

The species is not now (and is not likely 

in the foreseeable future to be) in danger 

of extinction in any significant portion 

of its range in Oregon or in danger of 

becoming endangered; (2) the species’ 

natural reproductive potential is not in 

danger of failure due to limited 

population numbers, disease, predation, 

or other natural or human-related 

factors affecting its continued existence; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15173 

(3) most populations are not undergoing 

imminent or active deterioration of 

range or primary habitat; (4) 

overutilization of the species or its 

habitat for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes is not 

occurring or likely to occur; and (5) 

existing State or Federal programs or 

regulations are adequate to protect the 

species and its habitat. 

The Plan describes measures the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) will take to conserve and 

manage the species. These measures 

include actions that could be taken to 

protect livestock from wolf depredation 

and address human safety concerns. The 

following summarizes the primary 

components of the plan. 

Wolves that naturally disperse into 

Oregon will be conserved and managed 

under the plan. Wolves will not be 

captured outside of Oregon and released 

in the State. Wolves may be considered 

for Statewide delisting once the 

population reaches four breeding pairs 

for 3 consecutive years in eastern 

Oregon. Four breeding pairs are 

considered the minimum conservation 

population objective, also described as 

Phase 1. The plan calls for managing 

wolves in western Oregon, as if the 

species remains listed, until the western 

Oregon wolf population reaches four 

breeding pairs. This means, for example, 

that a landowner would be required to 

obtain a permit to address depredation 

problems using injurious harassment. 

While the wolf remains listed as a 

State endangered species, the following 

will be allowed: (1) Wolves may be 

harassed (e.g., shouting, firing a shot in 

the air) to distract a wolf from a 

livestock operation or area of human 

activity; (2) harassment that causes 

injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or 

bean bag projectiles) may be employed 

to prevent depredation, but only with a 

permit; (3) wolves may be relocated to 

resolve an immediate localized problem 

from an area of human activity (e.g., 

wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to 

the nearest wilderness area; (4) 

relocation will be done by ODFW or 

USDA–WS personnel; (5) livestock 

producers who witness a wolf in the act 

of attacking livestock on public or 

private land must have a permit before 

taking any action that would cause harm 

to the wolf; and (6) wolves involved in 

chronic depredation may be killed by 

ODFW or USDA–WS personnel; 

however, nonlethal methods will be 

emphasized and employed first in 

appropriate circumstances. 

Once the wolf is State-delisted, more 

options are available to address wolflivestock conflict. While there are five to 

seven breeding pairs (the management 

population objective for Phase 2), 

landowners may kill a wolf involved in 

chronic depredation with a permit. 

Under Phase 3 (more than seven 

breeding pairs), a limited controlled 

hunt could be allowed to decrease 

chronic depredation or reduce pressure 

on wild ungulate populations. 

The plan provides wildlife managers 

with adaptive management strategies to 

address wolf predation problems on 

wild ungulates if confirmed wolf 

predation leads to declines in localized 

herds. In the unlikely event that a 

person is attacked by a wolf, the plan 

describes the circumstances under 

which Oregon’s criminal code and the 

Federal Act would allow harassing, 

harming or killing of wolves where 

necessary to avoid imminent, grave 

injury. Such an incident must be 

reported to law enforcement officials. 

A strong information and education 

program will ensure anyone with an 

interest in wolves is able to learn more 

about the species and stay informed 

about wildlife management activities. 

The plan identifies several research 

projects as being necessary for future 

success of long-term wolf conservation 

and management in Oregon. Monitoring 

and radio-collaring wolves are listed as 

critical components of the plan both for 

conservation and communication with 

Oregonians. An economic analysis 

provides estimates of costs and benefits 

associated with wolves in Oregon and 

wolf conservation and management. 

Finally, the plan requires annual 

reporting to the Commission on program 

implementation. 

The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, 

as approved by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission in February 2005, 

called for three legislative actions which 

the 2005 Oregon Legislative Assembly 

considered, but did not adopt. In 2007, 

ODFW proposed the bill again in the 

state Legislature to make three 

legislative actions, but again they were 

not adopted. ODFW has no plans to 

reintroduce any wolf legislation in the 

2009 session. These actions were: (1) 

Changing the legal status of the gray 

wolf from protected non-game wildlife 

to a ‘‘special status mammal’’ under the 

‘‘game mammal’’ definition in ORS 

496.004; (2) amending the wildlife 

damage statute (ORS 498.012) to remove 

the requirement for a permit to lethally 

take a gray wolf caught in the act of 

attacking livestock; and (3) creating a 

State-funded program to pay 

compensation for wolf-caused losses of 

livestock and to pay for proactive 

methods to prevent wolf depredation. 

As a result, the Fish and Wildlife 

Commission amended the Oregon Plan 

in December 2005 and rather than 

dropping the proposals, moved them 

from the body of the Plan to an 

appendix. The Commission remains on 

record as calling for those legislative 

enhancements; however, 

implementation of the Oregon Plan does 

not depend upon them. 

Under the Oregon Wolf Management 

Plan, the gray wolf will remain 

classified as endangered under State law 

until the conservation population 

objective for eastern Oregon is reached 

(i.e., four breeding pairs for 3 

consecutive years). Once the objective is 

achieved, the State delisting process 

will be initiated. Following delisting 

from the State Endangered Species Act, 

wolves will retain their classification as 

nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375. 

Compared to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 

containing suitable habitat within 

Oregon is small. We acknowledge that a 

few packs may become established 

within the DPS in Oregon; however, 

their role in the overall conservation of 

the NRM DPS is inherently small given 

the limited number of packs that habitat 

there is likely to support. That said, we 

encourage State efforts to conserve 

wildlife that is locally rare or 

endangered and we expect Oregon’s 

wolf management approach to be 

beneficial to the NRM wolf population. 

We determine wolf management in 

Oregon is adequate to facilitate the 

maintenance of, and in no way 

threatens, the NRM DPS’s recovered 

status. 

Utah—If federally delisted, wolves in 

Utah’s portion of the NRM DPS would 

remain listed as protected wildlife 

under State law. In Utah, wolves fall 

under three layers of protection—(1) 

State code, (2) Administrative Rule and 

(3) Species Management Plan. The Utah 

Code can be found at: http:// 

www.le.State.ut.us/∼code/TITLE23/ 

TITLE23.htm. The relevant 

administrative rules that restrict wolf 

take can be found at http:// 

www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/ 

r657-003.htm and http:// 

www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/ 

r657-011.htm. These regulations restrict 

all potential taking of wolves in Utah, 

including that portion in the NRM DPS. 

In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed 

House Joint Resolution 12, which 

directed the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) to draft a wolf 

management plan for the review, 

modification and adoption by the Utah 

Wildlife Board, through the Regional 

Advisory Council process. In April 

2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed 

UDWR to develop a proposal for a wolf 

working group to assist the agency in 

this endeavor. The UDWR created the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Wolf Working Group in the summer of 

2003. The Wolf Working Group is 

composed of 13 members that represent 

diverse public interests regarding 

wolves in Utah. 

On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife 

Board passed the Utah Wolf 

Management Plan (Utah 2005). The goal 

of the Plan is to manage, study, and 

conserve wolves moving into Utah 

while avoiding conflicts with the elk 

and deer management objectives of the 

Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing livestock 

depredation; and protecting wild 

ungulate populations in Utah from 

excessive wolf predation. The Utah Plan 

can be viewed at http:// 

www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/. Its purpose 

is to guide management of wolves in 

Utah during an interim period from 

Federal delisting until 2015, or until it 

is determined that wolves have become 

established in Utah, or the political, 

social, biological, or legal assumptions 

of the plan change. During this interim 

period, immigrating wolves will be 

studied to determine where they are 

most likely to settle without conflict. 

Compared to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 

containing suitable habitat within Utah 

is very small. Wolf management in Utah 

will have no effect on the recovered 

wolf population. We acknowledge that a 

few packs might become established 

within the DPS in Utah; however, their 

role in the overall conservation of the 

NRM DPS is inherently small given the 

limited number of packs that habitat 

there is likely to support. That said, we 

encourage State efforts to conserve 

wildlife that is locally rare or 

endangered and we expect Utah’s wolf 

management approach to be beneficial 

to the NRM wolf population. We 

determine wolf management in Utah is 

adequate to facilitate the maintenance 

of, and in no way threatens, the NRM 

DPS’s recovered status. 

Tribal Plans—Approximately 20 

Tribes are within the NRM DPS. 

Currently, perhaps only 1 or 2 wolf 

packs are entirely dependent on Tribal 

lands for their existence in the NRM 

DPS. In the NRM DPS about 32,942 km2

(12,719 mi2) (3 percent) of the area is 

Tribal land. In the NRM wolf occupied 

habitat, about 4,696 km2 (1,813 mi2) (2 

percent) is Tribal land (Service 2006; 71 

FR 6645, February 8, 2006). Therefore, 

while Tribal lands can contribute some 

habitat for wolf packs in the NRM, they 

will be relatively unimportant to 

maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM DPS. Many wolf 

packs live in areas of public land where 

Tribes have various treaty rights, such 

as wildlife harvest. The States agreed to 

incorporate Tribal harvest into their 

assessment of the potential surplus of 

wolves available for public harvest in 

each State, each year, to ensure that the 

wolf population is maintained above 

recovery levels. Utilization of those 

Tribal treaty rights will not significantly 

impact the wolf population or reduce it 

below recovery levels because a small 

portion of the wolf population could be 

affected by Tribal harvest or lives in 

areas subject to Tribal harvest rights. 

The overall regulatory framework 

analyzed in this proposed rule depends 

entirely on State-led management of 

wolves that are primarily on lands 

where resident wildlife is traditionally 

managed primarily by the State. Any 

wolves that may establish themselves on 

Tribal lands will be in addition to those 

managed by the State outside Tribal 

reservations. At this point in time, only 

the Wind River Tribe (Wind River Tribe 

2007) has an approved tribal wolf 

management plan for its lands. In 

addition, Nez Perce Tribe had a Service 

wolf management plan approved in 

1995, but that plan only applied to 

listed wolves. It was approved by the 

Service so the Tribe could take a portion 

of the responsibility for wolf monitoring 

and management in Idaho under the 

special regulation under section 10(j). 

While the Blackfeet Tribe has a wolf 

management plan, Blackfeet Tribal 

lands are not in the experimental 

population area. Therefore, all wolf 

management on Blackfeet Tribal lands 

has been directed by Service guidelines 

(Service 1999). No other Tribe has 

submitted a wolf management plan. 

In November 2005, the Service 

requested information from all Tribes in 

the NRM regarding their Tribal 

regulations and any other relevant 

information regarding Tribal 

management or concerns about wolves 

(Bangs 2004). All responses were 

reviewed and addressed, including 

incorporation into the rule where 

appropriate. 

Compared to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 

containing suitable habitat within Tribal 

lands is small. We acknowledge that a 

few packs may become established 

within the DPS on Tribal lands; 

however, their role in the overall 

conservation of the NRM DPS is 

inherently small given the limited 

number of packs that habitat there is 

likely to support. That said, we 

encourage State efforts to conserve 

wildlife that is locally rare or 

endangered and we expect 

Washington’s wolf management 

approach to be beneficial to the NRM 

wolf population. We determine wolf 

management on Tribal lands is adequate 

to facilitate the maintenance of, and in 

no way threatens, the NRM DPS’s 

recovered status. 

Summary—We have determined that 

adequate regulatory mechanisms are in 

place in all portions of the NRM DPS 

except Wyoming. Montana and Idaho 

have committed to manage for at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in mid-winter to ensure the 

population never falls below 10 

breeding pairs and 100 wolves in either 

State. All sources of mortality will be 

carefully managed. State projections 

indicate that the NRM wolf population 

in Montana and Idaho will be managed 

for around 673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 

79 breeding pairs. As long as 

populations are maintained well above 

minimal recovery levels, wolf biology 

(namely the species’ reproductive 

capacity) and the availability of large, 

secure blocks of suitable habitat will 

maintain strong source populations 

capable of withstanding all other 

foreseeable threats. 

Wyoming’s regulatory framework 

does not provide the adequate 

regulatory mechanisms to assure that 

Wyoming’s share of a recovered NRM 

wolf population would be conserved if 

the protections of the Act were 

removed. We determine that revision of 

Wyoming’s wolf management law is 

necessary (Gould 2009). This revision 

will then provide the foundation for 

Wyoming’s larger regulatory framework, 

including the State’s wolf management 

plan and implementing regulations so 

that it assures conservation of the gray 

wolf rather than focus on aggressive 

control. Until Wyoming revises their 

statutes, management plan, and 

associated regulations, and is again 

Service approved, wolves in Wyoming 

continue to require the protections of 

the Act. 

Compared to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, the portion of the DPS 

containing suitable habitat within 

Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Tribal 

lands is small. We acknowledge that a 

few packs may become established 

within these portions of the DPS; 

however, their role in the overall 

conservation of the NRM DPS is 

inherently small given the limited 

number of packs that habitat there is 

likely to support. That said, we 

encourage State and Tribal efforts to 

conserve wildlife that is locally rare or 

endangered and we expect wolf 

management in these areas to be 

beneficial to the NRM wolf population. 

Any wolf breeding pairs that do become 

established in these areas would be in 

addition to those necessary to maintain 

the wolf population above recovery 

levels. The adjacent States of Utah, 

Oregon, and Washington all have in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15175 

place laws protecting wolves that would 

remain in effect after delisting. Utah, 

Oregon, and the Wind River Tribe have 

adopted beneficial wolf management 

plans and Washington is currently 

finalizing one. We determine wolf 

management in these areas is adequate 

to facilitate the maintenance of, and in 

no way threatens, the NRM DPS’s 

recovered status. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray 

Wolf—Human attitudes toward wolves 

is the main reason the wolf was listed 

under the Act. These attitudes are 

largely based on the real and perceived 

conflicts between human activities and 

values and wolves, such as depredation 

on livestock and pets, competition for 

surplus wild ungulates between hunters 

and wolves, concerns for human safety, 

wolves’ symbolic representation of 

wildness and ecosystem health, the 

economic costs and benefits, killing of 

wolves by people, and the wolf-related 

traditions of Native American Tribes or 

local culture. 

Public hostility toward wolves led to 

the excessive human-caused mortality 

that extirpated the species from the 

NRM DPS in the 1930s. Such attitudes 

toward wolves are deeply ingrained in 

some individuals and continue to affect 

human tolerance of wolves. The 

predatory animal designation in 

Wyoming underscores this point. 

Wyoming’s 2003 State law and wolf 

management plan essentially confined 

wolves to Wyoming’s National Parks 

and wilderness areas. In 2007, Wyoming 

mandated wolves be classified as 

predatory animals in at least 88 percent 

of the State and allowed this area to be 

expanded if the WGFC ‘‘determines the 

diminution does not impede the 

delisting of gray wolves and will 

facilitate Wyoming’s management of 

wolves.’’ Such a management strategy is 

not required to manage wolf density and 

distribution and was not used by other 

States. 

Because of the impact that public 

attitudes can have on wolf recovery, we 

are requiring adequate regulatory 

mechanisms to be in place that will 

balance negative attitudes towards 

wolves in the places necessary for 

recovery. As discussed extensively in 

Factor D, we find that the management 

plans in Idaho and Montana adequately 

protect wolves from this threat. 

However, the regulatory mechanisms in 

Wyoming are currently insufficient to 

protect the wolves in that State from 

some of the outcomes that occur when 

the public has negative perceptions 

regarding wolf presence. 

Outside of Wyoming, all the other 

States in the NRM DPS appear to have 

reached an acceptable compromise 

balancing the needs of the species and 

the diverse opinions of their citizens. 

Montana and Idaho have passed laws 

and regulations that implement a 

balanced and socially acceptable 

program that meets the legal 

requirements of the Act, promotes 

occupancy of suitable habitat in a 

manner that minimizes damage to 

private property, allows for 

continuation of traditional western 

land-uses such as grazing and hunting, 

and allows for direct citizen 

participation in and funding for State 

wolf management (State defense of 

property and hunting regulations). With 

the continued help of private 

conservation organizations, Montana, 

Idaho, and the Tribes will continue to 

foster public support to maintain 

recovered wolf populations in the NRM 

DPS. Post-delisting management by 

Montana and Idaho will further enhance 

local public support for wolf recovery 

(Bangs 2008). State management 

provides a larger and more effective 

local organization and a more familiar 

means for dealing with these conflicts 

(Mech 1995, pp. 275–276; Williams et 

al. 2002, p. 582; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 

102; Bangs et al. in press, Bangs 2008). 

State wildlife organizations have 

specific departments and staff dedicated 

to providing accurate and science-based 

public education, information, and 

outreach (Idaho 2007, p. 23–24, 

Appendix A; Montana 2003, p. 90–91). 

The comprehensive approach to wolf 

management in Montana and Idaho 

ensures human attitudes toward wolves 

should not again threaten each state’s 

contribution to a recovered wolf 

population. The neighboring States of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah, as well 

as many of the Tribes, have also 

developed regulatory mechanisms that 

balance the needs of the species and the 

diverse opinions of their citizens in 

order to facilitate the maintenance of, 

and in no way threaten, the NRM DPS’s 

recovered status. 

Genetic Considerations—Currently, 

genetic diversity throughout the NRM 

DPS is very high (Forbes and Boyd 

1996, p. 1084; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 

226; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; 

vonHoldt et al. 2008). Contemporary 

statistics for genetic diversity from 

2002–2004 for central Idaho, 

northwestern Montana, and the GYA, 

respectively are; n = 85, 104, 210; allelic 

diversity = 9.5, 9.1, 10.3; observed 

heterozygosity = 0.723, 0.650, 0.708; 

expected heterozygosity = 0.767, 0.728, 

0.738. (vonHoldt et al. 2008). These 

levels have not diminished since 1995. 

The high allelic diversity (a measure of 

the richness of genetic material 

available for natural selection to act on) 

and the high heterozygosity (a measure 

of how gene forms are packaged in an 

individual, with high heterozygosity 

tending to lead to higher fitness) 

demonstrate all subpopulations within 

the NRM wolf populations have high 

standing levels of genetic variability. In 

short, wolves in northwestern Montana 

and both the reintroduced populations 

are as genetically diverse as their vast, 

secure, healthy, contiguous, and 

connected populations in Canada; thus, 

inadequate genetic diversity is not a 

wolf conservation issue in the NRM at 

this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 

1089; vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19; 

vonHoldt et al. 2008). This genetic 

health is the result of deliberate 

management actions by the Service and 

its cooperators since 1995 (Bradley et al. 

2005). 

Genetic exchange at one effective 

migrant (i.e., a breeding migrant that 

passes on its genes) per generation is 

enough to ensure that genetic diversity 

will remain high (Mills 2007, p. 193). 

Wolves have an unusual ability to 

rapidly disperse long distances across 

virtually any habitat and select mates to 

maximize genetic diversity. Thus, 

wolves are among the least likely 

species to be affected by inbreeding 

when compared to nearly any other 

species of land mammal (Fuller et al. 

2003, 189–190; Paquet et al. 2006, p. 3; 

Liberg 2008, p. 1). The northwestern 

Montana and central Idaho core 

recovery areas are well connected to 

each other, and to large wolf 

populations in Canada, through regular 

dispersals (Boyd et al. 1995; Boyd and 

Pletscher 1999; Jimenez et al. 2008d; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007; vonHoldt et al. 

2008). 

While the GYA is the most isolated 

core recovery area within the NRM DPS 

(Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt et 

al. 2007, p. 19), radio telemetry data 

demonstrate that the GYA is not isolated 

as wolves regularly disperse into the 

area from the other recovery areas. For 

example, in 2002, a collared wolf from 

Idaho dispersed into Wyoming and 

became the breeding male of the 

Greybull pack near Meeteetse. In 2009, 

a male disperser from central Idaho 

(whose father dispersed from YNP to 

central Idaho) likely bred with a female 

in the GYA and is establishing a new 

pack east of YNP. He also associated 

with the newly formed Evert pack in 

YNP in 2008 (Smith 2008). Since only 

about 30 percent of the NRM wolf 

population has been radio-collared, 

other unmarked wolves from Idaho or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

northwestern Montana have 

undoubtedly made the journey to the 

GYA and successfully bred. While 

vonHoldt et al. (2007) found no 

evidence of gene flow into YNP, an 

expanded analysis by vonHoldt et al. 

(2008) has demonstrated gene flow by 

naturally dispersing wolves form other 

recovery areas into the GYA. 

Overall, data from radio-collared 

wolves indicates that at least one wolf 

naturally disperses into the GYA each 

year and at least 4 radio-collared nonGYA wolves have bred and produced 

offspring in the GYA in the past 12 

years (1996–2008). Undoubtedly, other 

uncollared wolves have also naturally 

dispersed into and bred in the GYA 

(Wayne 2009, pers. comm.). Since a 

wolf generation is approximately 4 

years, there has been over one effective 

migrant per generation in the GYA wolf 

population. This amount of migration 

exceeds the widely accepted effective 

migrant per generation rule. This rule, 

widely accepted by conservation 

biology and genetic literature, holds that 

one breeding immigrant per generation 

should allow for local evolutionary 

adaptation while minimizing negative 

effects of genetic drift and inbreeding 

depression (Mills 2008). 

State and Federal management postdelisting will continue to ensure 

potential for natural genetic exchange. 

Wolves will be managed at high levels 

and human caused mortality will be 

purposely limited during peak periods 

of dispersal. Management practices, 

committed to in State management 

plans, will increase the potential to 

naturally incorporate effective migrants 

include: Reducing the rate of population 

turnover and fostering persistent wolf 

packs in all or select core recovery 

segments or all or select areas of suitable 

habitat (Oakleaf et al. 2005; 72 FR 6106, 

February 8, 2007); periodically creating 

localized disruptions of wolf pack 

structure or modified wolf density in 

select areas of suitable habitat to create 

social vacancies or space for dispersing 

wolves to fill; maintaining higher rather 

than lower overall wolf numbers in all 

or select recovery areas; maintaining 

more contiguous and broader wolf 

distribution instead of disjunction and 

limited breeding pair distribution; 

minimizing mortality between and 

around core recovery segments during 

critical wolf dispersal and breeding 

periods (December through April); and 

reducing the rates of mortality in core 

recovery segments during denning and 

pup rearing periods (April through 

September). 

Montana and Idaho have already 

incorporated most of these types of 

management practices into their wolf 

management frameworks. Furthermore, 

Montana and Idaho have designed their 

management practices, especially 

hunting seasons, to maintain relatively 

high wolf numbers and distribution 

throughout suitable habitat and to 

protect dispersing wolves from harvest 

during peak dispersal, breeding and pup 

rearing periods. In addition, problem 

wolf control is restricted to recent 

depredation events which are 

uncommon during peak dispersal 

periods. These measures should ensure 

dispersal toward the GYA from 

northwest Montana and central Idaho 

continues. 

Additionally, connectivity across the 

NRM will remain a high priority issue 

for the Service and our partner wildlife 

agencies. A process to identify, maintain 

and improve wildlife movement areas 

between the large blocks of public land 

in the NRM is ongoing (Servheen et al. 

2003, p. 3). This interagency effort 

involves 13 State and Federal agencies 

working on linkage facilitation across 

private lands, public lands, and 

highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 2001, pp. 1–2; Brown 2006, 

p. 1–3). To date, this effort has 

included—(1) development of a written 

protocol and guidance document on 

how to implement linkage zone 

management on public lands (Public 

Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, pp. 3–5); 

(2) production of several private land 

linkage management documents 

(Service 1997; Parker and Parker 2002, 

p. 2); (3) analyses of linkage zone 

management in relation to highways 

(Geodata Services Inc. 2005, p. 2; Waller 

and Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) a 

workshop in the spring of 2006 on 

implementing management actions for 

wildlife linkage (the proceedings of 

which are available online at: http:// 

www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage). The 

objective of this work is to maintain and 

enhance movement opportunities for all 

wildlife species across the NRM. 

Although this linkage work is not 

directly associated with the wolf 

population, it should benefit wolves 

even after delisting. 

Successful natural migration into the 

GYA is also dependant upon Wyoming. 

Specifically, wolves must not only be 

able to get to Wyoming but they must 

be able to traverse large portions of it for 

extended periods of time, to survive 

long enough to find a mate in suitable 

habitat and reproduce. Wyoming’s 

current regulatory framework for 

delisted wolves minimizes the 

likelihood of successful migration into 

the GYA. Under current State law, 

wolves are classified as predatory 

animals in at least 88 percent of the 

State. Wolves are unlikely to survive 

long in portions of Wyoming where they 

are regulated as predatory animals. As 

most wolves tend to disperse in winter, 

dispersing wolves tend to travel through 

valleys where snow depths are lowest 

and wild prey is concentrated. Likely 

wolf dispersal patterns indicate that 

dispersing wolves moving into the GYA 

from Idaho or Montana tend to move 

through the predatory area (Oakleaf et 

al. 2005, p. 559). Physical barriers (such 

as high-elevation mountain ranges that 

are difficult to traverse in winter) appear 

to discourage dispersal through the 

National Parks’ northern and western 

boundaries. Limited social openings in 

the National Parks’ wolf packs also 

direct wolves dispersing from Idaho and 

Montana around the National Parks and 

toward the predatory area portions of 

Wyoming. Furthermore, Wyoming’s 

maintains 22 winter elk feeding grounds 

that support thousands of wintering elk. 

These areas attract and could potentially 

hold dispersing wolves in the predatory 

area. Many dispersing wolves in 

Wyoming, and even some established 

breeding pairs, temporarily leave their 

primary territory to visit the elk feed 

grounds in winter. Twelve of the 22 elk 

feed grounds are currently in 

Wyoming’s predatory animal area. 

Potential expansion of the predatory 

animal area, as allowed by Wyoming’s 

current statute, could further limit 

breeding pair occupancy in Wyoming 

and would reduce opportunities for 

successful dispersal and genetic 

exchange. 

We believe Wyoming must institute 

additional protections to facilitate 

natural genetic exchange in order to 

constitute an adequate regulatory 

mechanism. Specifically, the State’s 

regulatory framework should minimize 

take in all suitable habitat and across all 

of Wyoming’s potential migration routes 

among NRM subpopulations. This 

management is particularly important 

during peak dispersal, breeding, and 

pup rearing periods. In addition to 

requiring that Wyoming manage for at 

least 15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in mid-winter in their State, 

Wyoming must also manage for at least 

7 breeding pairs and at least 70 wolves 

in Wyoming outside the National Parks. 

Such requirements are necessary to 

preserve connectivity and allow for a 

buffer to ensure that the population will 

not drop down below the minimum 

number of wolves necessary for 

recovery. This secondary goal will 

provide dispersing wolves more social 

openings and protection from excessive 

human-caused mortality. This strategy 

will also maintain a sufficiently large 

number of wolves in the GYA; larger 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15177 

population size is a proven remedy to 

genetic inbreeding. 

Implementation of the recently 

completed MOU (Groen et al. 2008) 

makes it even more unlikely that 

agency-managed genetic exchange 

would be necessary in the foreseeable 

future. This MOU recognizes that 

genetic diversity is currently very high 

throughout the NRM DPS and commits 

to establish and maintain a monitoring 

protocol to ensure that necessary levels 

of gene flow occur so that the 

population retains high levels of genetic 

diversity and its recovered status (Groen 

et al. 2008). 

Population levels across the NRM 

DPS could also impact gene flow. The 

delisted NRM DPS wolf population is 

likely to be reduced from its current 

levels of around 1,639 wolves by State 

management. However, wolf 

populations in the three States 

containing most of the occupied and 

most of the suitable habitat in the NRM 

DPS will be managed for at least 15 

breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves 

so that the population never goes below 

recovery levels. State projections 

indicate they will manage the 

population at least two to three times 

this minimal recovery level and likely 

over 1,000 wolves. 

Natural wolf dispersal between all 

recovery areas has occurred when the 

wolf population was far below 1,000 

wolves (the first wolf to disperse from 

northwestern Montana to the GYA 

occurred in 1992 when there were only 

41 wolves and 4 breeding pairs in the 

NRM, and in 2002 a radio-collared wolf 

from central Idaho dispersed into the 

GYA to form the Greybull pack when 

there were only 663 wolves in 49 

breeding pairs). Therefore, we believe 

state management of a population below 

1,000 wolves is unlikely to significantly 

reduce the overall rate of dispersal in 

the NRM. If the population is managed 

for over a thousand wolves, as expected, 

we believe the impact on dispersal and 

connectivity will be negligible. If the 

population is managed to the minimum 

recovery target of 150 wolves per State, 

we expect dispersal to noticeably 

decrease. Nevertheless, dispersal events 

still occurred even when wolf 

populations were low, and when 

mortality averaged 26 percent of the 

population annually. We expect 

adequate levels of dispersal will 

continue given the State’s commitment 

to manage well above minimal recovery 

goals. Yearling and other young wolves 

must disperse to find unrelated mates 

(wolves strongly seek nonrelated wolves 

as mates). This social event is a basic 

function of wolf populations and occurs 

regardless of the numbers, density, or 

presence of other wolves (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, p. 11–180). 

Wolf biology also provides some 

assurance that levels of gene flow will 

be sufficient to avoid the threat of loss 

of genetic diversity. Natural wolf mate 

selection shows that future dispersers 

into a system experiencing some level of 

inbreeding would be much more likely 

to be selected for breeding and have 

their genes incorporated into the inbred 

population (Bensch et al. 2006, p. 72; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 1). Thus, 

introduction of just one or two new 

genetic lines can substantially benefit, 

although not completely remedy, 

conservation issues related to low 

genetic diversity (Vila et al. 2003, p. 9; 

Liberg et al. 2004; Liberg 2005, pp. 5– 

6; Mills 2007, pp. 195–196; Fredrickson 

et al. 2007, p. 2365; Vila 2008). 

We recognize additional research on 

the appropriate level of gene flow 

relative to the population size is 

ongoing. Post-delisting, we expect the 

GYA population will be managed for 

more than 300 wolves across portions of 

the GYA in Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming (63,700 km2 (24,600 mi2)). 

Maintenance at such levels, combined 

with expected levels of gene flow, 

indicates genetic diversity will not 

threaten this wolf population. The other 

recovery areas face even lower threat 

levels related to future genetic diversity. 

The recently completed memorandum 

of understanding ensures this issue will 

be appropriately managed into the 

foreseeable future by the NRM DPS’s 

State and Federal partners as new 

information comes to light (Groen et al. 

2008). 

As with all models, theoretical 

predictions concerning viability rely 

upon the quality and accuracy of the 

data being inputted. In most cases, 

available theoretical predictions of 

genetic factors impacting wolf 

population viability have proven poor 

predictors of actual status of very small 

wolf populations (Fritts and Carbyn 

1995; Boitani 2003; Fuller et al. 2003, 

189–190). Review of the scientific 

literature shows that, throughout the 

world, truly isolated wolf populations 

that are far smaller and far less 

genetically diverse than the GYA 

population have persisted for many 

decades and even centuries (Fritts and 

Carbyn 1995, p. 33; Boitani 2003, pp. 

322–23, 330–335; Fuller et al. 2003, p. 

189–190; Liberg 2005, pp. 5–6; 73 FR 

10514, February 27, 2008). Even the 

Mexican wolf with its extremely limited 

genetic diversity (only 7 founders) is not 

threatened by reduced genetic diversity 

where the addition of a single new 

genetic line reversed inbreeding 

depression (Fredrickson et al. 2007). A 

wolf population on Isle Royale National 

Park that started from 2 or 3 founders 

in 1949 and remained very small (<50 

wolves, long term effective population 

size 3.8) has persisted until the present 

time (Boitani 2003, p. 330). While this 

population’s key demographic 

properties (Fuller et al. 2003) are 

comparable to outbred populations of 

wolves, being founded from such a 

small number of individuals and 

maintenance at such extremely low 

levels for such a long time has resulted 

in a congenital malformation in the 

vertebrae column and might eventually 

effect its population dynamics 

(Raikkonen et al. in review). This 

extreme case will not occur anywhere in 

the NRM DPS. 

A more relevant example is the Kenai 

Peninsula wolf population. This area is 

somewhat developed and connected to 

the mainland by 16 km (10 mi) of glacier 

and rugged mountains. Wolves were 

extirpated there by 1919. A few wolves 

naturally recolonized it in the 1960’s 

and bred in the mid- 1960’s. The wolf 

population grew rapidly and within 10 

years it occupied all suitable wolf 

habitat (roughly 15,500 km2 (6,000 

mi2)). It has remained relatively stable 

for the past 35 years despite being 

isolated, small (<200 wolves), liberally 

hunted and trapped, and exposed to 

typical wolf diseases and parasites. The 

population is not threatened (Peterson 

et al. 1994, p. 1) and remains genetically 

fit (Talbot and Scribner 1997, p. 20–21). 

Because the NRM wolf population will 

be managed well above this level, we 

are confident that the theoretical 

predictions of inbreeding are highly 

unlikely to occur. We find that actual 

data concerning genetic diversity in 

wolves and wolf population persistence 

is a better predictor of future outcomes 

than theoretical models. 

In all but the most extreme cases, 

small wolf populations are unlikely to 

be threatened solely by the loss of 

genetic diversity (Boitani 2003, p. 330). 

In fact, none of the highly inbred 

recovering populations from around the 

world have ever gone extinct or failed 

to recover because of low genetic 

diversity (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 189– 

190). It is our current professional 

judgment that even in the highly 

unlikely event that no new genes enter 

YNP or the GYA in the next 100 years, 

that wolf population’s currently high 

genetic diversity would be slightly 

reduced, but not to the point the GYA 

wolf population would be threatened. 

Even the totally isolate, highly inbred, 

and very small (never more than 50 

wolves) Isle Royale wolf population has 

persisted for over 60 years and has still 

maintained similar demographics 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

compared to other non-inbred wolf 

populations. The NRM wolf population 

does not currently have and will not 

have such severe issues. Furthermore, 

from a purely biological perspective, the 

NRM DPS is a 400-mile southwestern 

extension of a North American wolf 

population consisting of many tens of 

thousands of individuals, and its 

recovery is not even remotely 

comparable to other situations where 

concerns about genetic diversity have 

been raised. 

VonHoldt et al. (2007) concluded ‘‘if 

the YNP wolf population remains 

relatively constant at 170 individuals 

(estimated to be YNP carrying capacity), 

the population will demonstrate 

substantial inbreeding effects within 60 

years,’’ resulting in an ‘‘increase in 

juvenile mortality from an average of 23 

to 40%, an effect equivalent to losing an 

additional pup in each litter.’’ The 

vonHoldt et al. (2007) prediction of 

eventual inbreeding in YNP relies upon 

several unrealistic assumptions. One 

such assumption limited the wolf 

population analysis to YNP’s (8,987 km2

(3,472 mi2)) carrying capacity of 170 

wolves, instead of the 449 that currently 

occupy the GYA and the more than 300 

wolves to be managed for in the entire 

GYA (63,700 km2 (24,600 mi2)) by 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. YNP is 

only 14 percent of the area in the GYA 

and only contains about a third of the 

wolves in the GYA wolf population. 

Wolf pack territories in YNP are 

contiguous with those outside YNP in 

the GYA. The vonHoldt et al. (2007) 

predictive model also capped the 

population at the YNP population’s 

winter low point, rather than at higher 

springtime levels when pups are born. 

Springtime levels are sometimes double 

the winter low. 

As explained in the recovery section 

above, wolf recovery in the NRM never 

depended solely on natural dispersal. 

Should genetic issues ever materialize, 

an outcome we believe is extremely 

unlikely, the MOU provides a failsafe in 

that it ensures States will implement 

techniques to facilitate agency-managed 

genetic exchange (moving individual 

wolves or their genes into the affected 

population segment) (Groen et al. 2008). 

Human intervention in maintaining 

recovered populations is necessary for 

many conservation-reliant species and a 

well-accepted practice in dealing with 

population concerns (Scott et al. 2005). 

The 1994 wolf reintroduction EIS 

indicated that intensive genetic 

management might become necessary if 

any of the sub-populations developed 

genetic demographic problems (Service 

1994, p. 6–74). The 1994 EIS stated that 

other wildlife management programs 

rely upon such agency-managed genetic 

exchange and that the approach should 

not be viewed negatively (Service 1994, 

p. 6–75). Human-assisted genetic 

exchange is a proven technique that has 

created effective migrants in the NRM 

DPS. An example of successful managed 

genetic exchange in the NRM 

population was the release of 10 wolf 

pups and yearlings translocated from 

northwestern Montana to YNP in the 

spring of 1997. Two of those wolves 

become breeders and their genetic 

signature is common throughout YNP 

and the GYA (vonHoldt 2008). Wolves 

could easily be moved again in the 

highly unlikely event that inbreeding or 

other problems ever threaten any 

segment of the NRM wolf population. 

Other future agency-managed genetic 

exchange could include other means of 

introducing novel wolves or their genes 

into a recovery area if it were ever to be 

needed. At this time, such approaches 

remain unnecessary and are highly 

likely to remain unneeded in the future. 

Given the NRM populations’ current 

high genetic diversity, proven 

connectivity, the strong tendency of 

wolves to outbreed (choose mates not 

related to themselves), large area and 

distribution of core refugia, the vast 

amounts of suitable habitat, and future 

management options, including agencymanaged genetic exchange, the NRM 

wolf population will not be threatened 

by lower genetic diversity in the 

foreseeable future. 

Climate Change—While there is much 

debate about the rates at which carbon 

dioxide levels, atmospheric 

temperatures, and ocean temperatures 

will rise, the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 

leading climate scientists commissioned 

by the United Nations, concluded there 

is a general consensus among the 

world’s best scientists that climate 

change is occurring (IPCC 2001, pp. 

2–3; IPCC 2007, p. 4). The twentieth 

century was the warmest in the last 

1,000 years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2–3) 

with global mean surface temperature 

increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius 

(0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). These 

increases in temperature were more 

pronounced over land masses as 

evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees 

Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) 

increase in North America since the 

1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p.96; Cayan 

et al. 2001, p. 411). According to the 

IPCC, warmer temperatures will 

increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2.0 

to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 10–11). The magnitude 

of warming in the NRM has been 

greater, as indicated by an 8-day 

advance in the appearance of spring 

phenological indicators in Edmonton, 

Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al. 

2001, p. 400). The hydrologic regime in 

the NRM also has changed with global 

climate change, and is projected to 

change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 

786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411; Stewart 

et al. 2004, pp. 223–224). Under global 

climate change scenarios, the NRM may 

eventually experience milder, wetter 

winters and warmer, drier summers 

(Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 786). 

Additionally, the pattern of snowmelt 

runoff also may change, with a 

reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan et 

al. 2001, p. 411) and an earlier peak 

(Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224), so 

that a lower proportion of the annual 

discharge will occur during spring and 

summer. 

Even with these changes, climate 

change should not threaten the NRM 

wolf population. Wolves are habitat 

generalists and next to humans are the 

most widely distributed land mammal 

on earth. Wolves live in every habitat 

type in the Northern Hemisphere that 

contains ungulates, and once ranged 

from central Mexico to the Arctic Ocean 

in North America. The NRM DPS is 

roughly in the middle of historic wolf 

distribution in North America. Because 

historic evidence suggests gray wolves 

and their prey survived in hotter, drier 

environments, including some near 

desert conditions, we expect wolves 

could easily adapt to the slightly 

warmer and drier conditions that are 

predicted with climate change, 

including any northward expansion of 

diseases, parasites, new prey, or 

competitors or reductions in species 

currently at or near the southern extent 

of their range. 

Changing climate conditions have the 

potential to impact wolf prey. There is 

new evidence that declining moose 

populations in the southern GYA are 

likely a result of global warming 

(Service 2008), a conclusion that has 

been reached in other parts of the 

southern range of moose in North 

America. However, the extent and rate 

to which most ungulate populations 

will be impacted is difficult to foresee 

with any level of confidence. One 

logical consequence of climate change 

could be a reduction in the number of 

elk, deer, moose, and bison dying over 

winter, thus maintaining a higher 

overall prey base for wolves (Wilmers 

and Getz 2005, p. 574; Wilmers and Post 

2006, p. 405). Furthermore, increased 

over-winter survival would likely result 

in overall increases and more resiliency 

in ungulate populations, thereby 

providing more prey for wolves. 

Catastrophic Events—The habitat 

model/PVA by Carroll et al. (2003, p. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15179 

543) analyzed environmental 

stochasticity and predicted it was 

unlikely to threaten wolf persistence in 

the GYA. We also considered 

catastrophic and stochastic events that 

might reasonably occur in the NRM DPS 

within the foreseeable future (for 

example we did not consider tidal 

waves) to the extent possible. None of 

these factors are thought to pose a 

significant risk to wolf recovery in the 

foreseeable future. With regard to 

wildfires, which humans often view as 

catastrophic events, large mobile species 

such as wolves and their ungulate prey 

usually are not adversely impacted. 

Wildfires in the NRM often lead to an 

increase in ungulate food supplies and 

an increase in ungulate numbers, which 

in turn supports increased wolf 

numbers. Wolves are an exceptionally 

resilient species. 

Impacts to Wolf Pack Social 

Structure—When human-caused 

mortality rates are low, packs contain 

older individuals. Such ‘‘natural’’ pack 

structures are limited to National Parks 

and large, remote wilderness areas. 

These ‘‘natural’’ social structures will 

continue unaltered in those areas after 

wolves are delisted. 

However, wolves in much of the NRM 

DPS constantly interact with livestock 

and people. These areas experience 

higher rates of mortality which alters 

pack structure. We have removed 988 

problem wolves in the NRM since 1987 

and have monitored the effect of 

removing breeders or other pack 

members on wolf packs structure and 

subsequent breeding. Those effects were 

minor and would certainly not affect 

wolf population recovery in the NRM 

(Brainerd et al. 2007). Although defense 

of property laws in Montana and Idaho 

are similar to current nonessential 

experimental regulations, such mortality 

may increase slightly after delisting in 

those States. In addition, regulated 

hunting will be allowed by the States 

which will increase wolf mortality rates. 

Wolf packs frequently have high rates 

of natural turnover (Mech 2007, p. 1482) 

and quickly adapt to changes in pack 

social structure (Brainerd et al. 2007). 

Higher rates of human-caused mortality 

also may simply compensate for some 

forms of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 

2003, p. 185–186). Thus, the potential 

effects caused by natural wolf pack 

dynamics in much of the NRM DPS will 

be moderated by varying degrees by 

conflicts with humans and rates of 

human-caused mortality (Campbell et 

al. 2006, p. 363; Garrott et al. 2005; p. 

7–9). Higher rates of human-caused 

mortality outside protected areas will 

result in different wolf pack size and 

structure than that in protected areas, 

but wolves in many parts of the world, 

including most of North America, 

experience various levels of humancaused mortality and the associated 

disruption in natural processes and wolf 

social structure without ever threatening 

the population (Boitani 2003). 

Therefore, while human caused 

mortality may alter pack structure, we 

have no evidence that indicates this in 

anyway threatens the NRM DPS. 

Summary of Factor E—No other 

manmade and natural factors threaten 

wolf population recovery now or in the 

foreseeable future throughout the 

majority of the NRM DPS. Public 

attitudes toward wolves have improved 

greatly over the past 30 years. We expect 

that, given adequate continued 

management of conflicts, those attitudes 

will continue to support wolf 

restoration. As stated previously, the 

regulatory mechanisms in Wyoming are 

currently insufficient to protect the 

wolves in that State from some of the 

outcomes that occur when the public 

has negative perceptions regarding wolf 

presence. We find this threat to be 

closely tied with all mortality 

management as we discussed 

extensively in Factor D. 

The State wildlife agencies have 

professional education, information, 

and outreach components and will 

continue to present balanced sciencebased information to the public that will 

continue to foster general public 

support for wolf restoration and the 

necessity of conflict resolution to 

maintain public tolerance of wolves. 

We also have determined that wolf 

genetic viability, interbreeding 

coefficients, genetic drift, or changes in 

wolf pack social structure are unlikely 

to threaten the wolf population in the 

NRM DPS in the foreseeable future. But 

in the highly unlikely event that the 

GYA population segment was 

threatened by a loss of genetic diversity, 

that threat could be easily resolved by 

reintroduction or other deliberate 

management actions, as promised by 

Montana and Idaho, if it ever became 

necessary. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

Is the Species Threatened or 

Endangered throughout ‘‘All’’ of its 

Range—As required by the Act, we 

considered the five potential threat 

factors to assess whether the gray wolf 

in the NRM DPS is threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. When 

considering the listing status of the 

species, the first step in the analysis is 

to determine whether the species is in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range. If this is the case, then the species 

is listed in its entirety. 

Human-caused mortality is the most 

significant issue to the long-term 

conservation status of the NRM DPS. 

Therefore, managing this source of 

mortality (i.e., overutilization of wolves 

for commercial, recreational, scientific 

and educational purposes and human 

predation) remains the primary 

challenge to maintaining a recovered 

wolf population into the foreseeable 

future. We have concluded that 

Montana and Idaho will maintain their 

share and distribution of the NRM wolf 

population above recovery levels for the 

foreseeable future. Both States have wolf 

management laws, plans, and 

regulations that adequately regulate 

human-caused mortality. Both States 

have committed to manage for at least 

15 breeding pairs and at least 150 

wolves in mid-winter to ensure the 

population never falls below 10 

breeding pairs and 100 wolves in either 

State. State projections indicate that the 

NRM wolf population in Montana and 

Idaho will likely be managed for around 

673 to 1,002 wolves in 52 to 79 breeding 

pairs. 

As described in more detail in Factor 

D and below, Wyoming’s regulatory 

framework does not provide the 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

assure that Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population would 

be conserved if the protections of the 

Act were removed. In order to constitute 

adequate regulatory mechanisms, 

Wyoming’s regulatory framework needs 

to: Designate and manage wolves as a 

trophy game species statewide; manage 

for at least 15 breeding pairs and at least 

150 wolves in mid-winter in their State 

and at least 7 breeding pairs and at least 

70 wolves in mid-winter outside the 

National Parks; authorize defense of 

property take in a manner that is similar 

to the current regulatory scheme; 

consider all sources of mortality, 

including all hunting and defense of 

property mortality, in its total statewide 

allowable mortality levels; and manage 

the population to maintain high levels 

of genetic diversity and to continue 

ongoing genetic exchange. Until 

Wyoming revises their statutes, 

management plan, and associated 

regulations, and is again Service 

approved, wolves in Wyoming continue 

to require the protections of the Act. 

Regulatory mechanisms in all 

surrounding States are adequate to 

facilitate the maintenance of, and in no 

way threaten, the NRM DPS’s recovered 

status. All wolves in these surrounding 

areas will be regulated by the States as 

at least a game species (some provide 

greater protections). Violation of State 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations will be subject to 

prosecution. 

As long as populations are maintained 

well above minimal recovery levels, 

wolf biology (namely the species’ 

reproductive capacity) and the 

availability of large, secure blocks of 

suitable habitat will maintain strong 

source populations capable of 

withstanding all other foreseeable 

threats. In terms of habitat, the amount 

and distribution of suitable habitat in 

public ownership provides, and will 

continue to provide, large core areas 

that contain high-quality habitat of 

sufficient size to anchor a recovered 

wolf population. Our analysis of landuse practice shows these areas will 

maintain their suitability well into the 

foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. 

Connectivity among the central-Idaho 

and northwest Montana recovery areas 

and with wolves in Canada will provide 

further long-term stability to the NRM 

DPS. Populations in all of the NRM 

DPS, except Wyoming, will also be 

managed for continued genetic 

exchange with the GYA (Groen et al. 

2008). If genetic problems ever 

materialize in any portion of the NRM 

DPS, which we believe is highly 

unlikely in the foreseeable future, they 

will be resolved by agency-managed 

genetic exchange. While disease and 

parasites can temporarily impact 

population stability, as long as 

populations are managed above 

recovery levels, these factors are not 

likely to threaten the wolf population at 

any point in the foreseeable future. 

Natural predation is also likely to 

remain an insignificant factor in 

population dynamics into the 

foreseeable future. Finally, we believe 

that other natural or manmade factors 

are unlikely to threaten the wolf 

population within the foreseeable future 

in all portions of the range with 

adequate regulatory mechanisms. 

A lack of substantial threats to the 

NRM gray wolf population, except in 

Wyoming, indicates that this DPS is 

neither in danger of extinction, nor 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future in any of its range, 

except in Wyoming. Thus, the NRM 

DPS does not merit continued listing as 

threatened or endangered throughout 

‘‘all’’ of its range. Retention of the Act’s 

protections in any significant portions 

of the range that where the gray wolf is 

threatened or endangered ensures all 

significant portions of the range 

maintain adequate protection. 

Is the Species Threatened or 

Endangered in a Significant Portion of 

its Range—Having determined that the 

NRM DPS of gray wolf does not meet 

the definition of threatened or 

endangered in ‘‘all’’ of its range, we 

must next consider whether there are 

any significant portions of its range that 

are in danger of extinction or are likely 

to become endangered in the foreseeable 

future. On March 16, 2007, a formal 

opinion was issued by the Solicitor of 

the Department of the Interior, ‘‘The 

Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction 

Throughout All or a Significant Portion 

of Its Range’’’ (U.S. DOI 2007). We have 

summarized our interpretation of that 

opinion and the underlying statutory 

language below. A portion of a species’ 

range is significant if it is part of the 

current range of the species and is 

important to the conservation of the 

species because it contributes 

meaningfully to the representation, 

resiliency, or redundancy of the species. 

The contribution must be at a level such 

that its loss would result in a decrease 

in the ability to conserve the species. 

The first step in determining whether 

a species is threatened or endangered in 

a significant portion of its range is to 

identify any portions of the range of the 

species 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 either threatened or endangered. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

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 essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

range that are unimportant to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

If we identify any portions that 

warrant further consideration, we then 

determine whether in fact the species is 

threatened or endangered in any 

significant portion of its range. 

Depending on the biology of the species, 

its range, and the threats it faces, it may 

be more efficient for the Service to 

address the significance question first, 

or the status question first. Thus, if the 

Service determines that a portion of the 

range is not significant, the Service need 

not determine whether the species is 

threatened or endangered there; if the 

Service determines that the species is 

not threatened or endangered in a 

portion of its range, the Service need not 

determine if that portion is significant. 

The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ 

‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are 

intended to be indicators of the 

conservation value of portions of the 

range (Shaffer and Stein 2000). 

Resiliency of a species allows the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbance. A species will likely be 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat that is 

distributed throughout the range of the 

species in such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability found within 

the range of the species. It is likely that 

the larger size of a population will help 

contribute to the viability of the species 

overall. Thus, a portion of the range of 

a species may make a meaningful 

contribution to the resiliency of the 

species if the area is relatively large and 

contains particularly high-quality 

habitat or if its location or 

characteristics make it less susceptible 

to certain threats than other portions of 

the range. When evaluating whether or 

how a portion of the range contributes 

to resiliency of the species, it may help 

to evaluate the historical value of the 

portion and how frequently the portion 

is used by the species. In addition, the 

portion may contribute to resiliency for 

other reasons—for instance, it may 

contain an important concentration of 

certain types of habitat that are 

necessary for the species to carry out its 

life-history functions, such as breeding, 

feeding, migration, dispersal, or 

wintering. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. This does not mean that any 

portion that provides redundancy is a 

significant portion of the range of a 

species. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

perturbations in the system act on only 

a few populations. Therefore, each area 

must be examined based on whether 

that area provides an increment of 

redundancy that is important to the 

conservation of the species. 

Adequate representation insures that 

the species’ adaptive capabilities are 

conserved. Specifically, the portion 

should be evaluated to see how it 

contributes to the genetic diversity of 

the species. The loss of genetically 

based diversity may substantially 

reduce the ability of the species to 

respond and adapt to future 

environmental changes. A peripheral 

population may contribute meaningfully 

to representation if there is evidence 

that it provides genetic diversity due to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15181 

its location on the margin of the species’ 

habitat requirements. 

To determine if a portion of the 

species’ range contributes substantially 

to the resiliency of the species, the 

Service considered in this instance: (1) 

To what extent does this portion of the 

range contribute to the total of large 

blocks of high-quality habitat; (2) To 

what extent do the population size and 

characteristics within this portion of the 

range contribute to the ability of the 

species to recover from periodic 

disturbances; (3) To what extent does 

this portion of the range act as a 

refugium of the species; and (4) To what 

extent does this portion contain an 

important concentration of habitats 

necessary for certain life history 

functions? 

To determine if a portion of the 

species’ range contributes substantially 

to the redundancy of the species, the 

Service considered in this instance: (5) 

To what extent does this portion of the 

range contribute to the total [gross area] 

range of the species; (6) To what extent 

does this portion of the range contribute 

to the total population of the species; (7) 

To what extent does this portion of the 

range contribute to the total suitable 

habitat; and (8) To what extent does this 

portion of the range contribute to the 

geographical distribution of the species? 

To determine if a portion of the 

species’ range contributes substantially 

to the representation of the species, the 

Service considered in this instance: (9) 

To what extent does this portion of the 

range contribute to the genetic diversity 

of the species; (10) To what extent does 

this portion of the range contribute to 

the morphological/physiological 

diversity of the species; (11) To what 

extent does this portion of the range 

contribute to the behavioral diversity of 

the species; and (12) To what extent 

does this portion of the range contribute 

to the diversity of ecological settings in 

which the species is found? 

These questions provide for a relative 

ranking of the level of the portion’s 

contribution to the listable entity’s 

(species, subspecies or DPSs) 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy. The above questions are 

tools to identify those factors that are 

important in considering a portion’s 

contribution to resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation, and whether it is 

significant. The Service then reviews 

the results and the justifications to 

decide whether the portion contributes 

substantially to the representation, 

redundancy and resiliency of the 

listable entity (species, subspecies or 

DPS). In general, if the contribution to 

the representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of all or nearly all the 

questions is low, the portion likely does 

not contribute substantially to 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy; if the contribution to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of most or multiple 

questions are high, the portion likely 

contributes substantially to 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy. 

To determine whether the NRM DPS 

is threatened in any significant portion 

of its range, we first considered how the 

concepts of resiliency, representation, 

and redundancy apply to the 

conservation of this particular DPS. A 

number of available documents provide 

insight into this discussion including: 

The originally listed entity (39 FR 1171, 

January 4, 1974; 50 CFR 17.11 in 1975, 

1976, 1977), the recovery plans (Service 

1980; Service 1987), the 1994 

reintroduction EIS (Service 1994), our 

designation of non-essential, 

experimental population areas (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84 (i) & (n)), our 2001/2002 review of 

the recovery goals (Bangs 2002), 

Interagency Annual Reports (Service et 

al. 1989–2008), and numerous 

professional publications (see Service et 

al. 2007, pp. 213–230; Soule et al. 2003, 

p. 1238; Scott et al. 2005, p. 383; 

Vucetich et al. 2006, p. 1383; Carroll et 

al. 2006, pp. 369–371; Waples et al. 

2007, p. 964). 

Based on our 5-factor threats analysis 

above, we readily identified two areas 

within the NRM DPS as warranting 

further consideration to determine if 

they are significant portions of the range 

that may be threatened or endangered. 

These areas include: (1) All portions of 

Wyoming; and (2) unoccupied portions 

of Montana and Idaho as well as the 

portions of Utah, Washington and 

Oregon within the NRM DPS. For each 

of these areas we evaluate whether they 

are significant per the above definition 

and, if significant, we weigh whether 

they are threatened or endangered. If 

any of these areas constitute a 

significant portion of the range that is 

threatened or endangered, we then 

determine the appropriate boundaries 

where the protections of the Act should 

remain in place. 

Wyoming—We have long considered 

Wyoming to be critical to the 

establishment and maintenance of NRM 

wolf population (39 FR 1171, January 4, 

1974; 50 CFR 17.11 in 1975, 1976, 1977; 

Service 1980; Service 1987; Service et 

al. 1989–2008; Service 1994; 59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84 (i) & (n); Bangs 2002; Williams 

2004; 71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; Hall 

2007). The following analysis considers 

all of Wyoming with a focus on 

northwest Wyoming which contains the 

vast majority of the State’s suitable wolf 

habitat. While our proposed rule 

indicated we would consider excluding 

National Parks from the Wyoming 

significant portion of the range (72 FR 

6106, February 8, 2007), we no longer 

believe this is warranted as it would 

excessively subdivide the Yellowstone 

recovery area into units so small as to 

meaningfully reduce their contribution 

to the representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the NRM DPS. 

Northwest Wyoming meaningfully 

affects resiliency in that it contains a 

high percentage of the NRM DPS’ large 

blocks of high quality habitat thereby 

contributing to the NRM DPS’ long-term 

viability. Similarly, northwest Wyoming 

contains a population that is essential to 

the conservation of the NRM 

population. We view this portion of the 

NRM population as sufficiently robust 

to make a high contribution to the 

ability of the NRM DPS to recovery from 

periodic disturbance. Northwest 

Wyoming’s National Parks also serve as 

a refugium protected from certain 

population events (such as human 

caused mortality). Northwest Wyoming 

also contains suitable habitat areas 

which provide all of the species’ life 

history functions. Collectively, this 

information indicates that northwest 

Wyoming would allow the NRM DPS to 

recover from periodic disturbance and, 

thus, meaningfully contributes to the 

resiliency of the NRM DPS. 

In terms of redundancy, we 

considered several factors. First, 

Wyoming includes approximately 25 

percent of the total gross area of the 

NRM DPS. Second, northwest Wyoming 

includes approximately 25 percent of 

the NRM DPS’ current population and a 

third of the minimum population 

recovery goal. Northwest Wyoming also 

includes approximately 17 percent of 

the NRM DPS’ total suitable habitat. 

Finally, northwest Wyoming contains 

the majority and the core of the 

Yellowstone recovery area, one of three 

subpopulations in the NRM DPS. 

Collectively, this information indicates 

that northwest Wyoming provides a 

margin of safety for the species to 

withstand catastrophic events and, thus, 

meaningfully contributes to the 

redundancy of the NRM DPS. 

In terms of representation, suitable 

habitat within northwest Wyoming’s 

National Parks and some surrounding 

areas contain ecological settings that 

differ from the ecological setting of most 

of the rest of NRM DPS. This ecological 

setting results in some unique or 

unusual behavior. For example, the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

presence of bison in these areas result 

in the unique, learned, group hunting 

behavior not required for other prey 

types. Other studies found that similar 

local adaptations to specific prey type 

resulted in genetic differences (Leonard 

et al. 2005). Collectively, this 

information indicates that northwest 

Wyoming’s National Parks and some 

surrounding areas could play a role in 

conserving the species’ adaptive 

capabilities and, thus, contributes to the 

representation of the NRM DPS. 

We have determined that northwest 

Wyoming meaningfully contributes to 

NRM DPS’ resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation at a level such that its 

loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the NRM DPS. Thus, 

this portion of the range constitutes a 

significant portion of the NRM DPS’ 

range as described in the Act. 

If we identify any portion as 

significant, we then determine whether 

in fact the species is threatened or 

endangered in this significant portion of 

its range. Within this portion of the 

range, managing human-caused 

mortality remains the primary challenge 

to maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the foreseeable future. If 

Wyoming’s wolf population is managed 

above recovery levels, the species’ 

biology (specifically its reproductive 

capacity) and the availability of a large, 

secure block of suitable habitat will 

maintain a strong source population 

capable of withstanding all other 

foreseeable threats. Unfortunately, 

Wyoming’s current regulatory 

framework does not provide the 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

assure that Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population would 

be conserved if the protections of the 

Act were removed. 

In 2004, we determined that problems 

with the 2003 Wyoming legislation and 

plan, and inconsistencies between the 

law and management plan did not allow 

us to approve Wyoming’s approach to 

wolf management (Williams 2004). On 

August 1, 2006, we published a 12- 

month finding describing the reasons 

why the 2003 Wyoming State law and 

wolf management plan did not provide 

the necessary regulatory mechanisms to 

assure maintenance of Wyoming’s 

numerical and distributional share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population (71 FR 

43410). In 2007, the Wyoming 

legislature amended State law to 

address our concerns. Following the 

change in State law, the WGFC 

approved a revised wolf management 

plan (Cleveland 2007). This plan was 

then approved by the Service as 

providing adequate regulatory 

protections to conserve Wyoming’s 

portion of a recovered NRM DPS into 

the foreseeable future (Hall 2007). 

Following the July 18, 2008, U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Montana’s preliminary injunction order, 

we reconsidered this approval. 

In its preliminary injunction order, 

the U.S. District Court stated that we 

acted arbitrarily in delisting a wolf 

population that lacked evidence of 

genetic exchange between 

subpopulations. We believe Wyoming’s 

current regulatory framework for 

delisted wolves would further reduce 

the likelihood of natural genetic 

connectivity as wolves are unlikely to 

successfully traverse the 88 percent of 

Wyoming where wolves are considered 

predatory animals. 

The court also stated that we acted 

arbitrarily and capriciously when we 

approved Wyoming’s 2007 statute 

which allows the WGFC to diminish the 

trophy game area (which State law 

restricts to no more than 12 percent of 

Wyoming) if it ‘‘determines the 

diminution does not impede the 

delisting of gray wolves and will 

facilitate Wyoming’s management of 

wolves.’’ Because wolves are unlikely to 

survive where they are classified as 

predatory animals, potential expansion 

of the predatory animal area would 

further limit occupancy in Wyoming 

and opportunities for natural 

connectivity. 

Furthermore, the court stated that we 

acted arbitrarily and capriciously when 

we approved Wyoming’s 2007 statute 

and wolf management plan because it 

determined that the State failed to 

commit to managing for at least 15 

breeding pairs. Specifically, the court 

stated that Wyoming State law intends 

to rely on the National Park Services’ 

ability to maintain 8 breeding pairs of 

wolves to satisfy Wyoming’s obligation 

to preserve at least 15 breeding pairs as 

its share of the required wolf 

population. We have long maintained 

that Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho 

must each manage for at least 15 

breeding pairs and at least 150 wolves 

in mid-winter to ensure the population 

never falls below the minimum recovery 

goal of 10 breeding pairs and 100 

wolves per State. 

Finally, the court raised concerns 

with Wyoming’s depredation control 

law that it viewed as significantly more 

expansive than existing nonessential, 

experimental regulations (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, 

November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 

6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008; 

50 CFR 17.84(i) & (n)). 

As outlined in detail in Factor D 

above, we have determined Wyoming’s 

existing regulatory framework does not 

provide the necessary regulatory 

mechanisms to assure that Wyoming’s 

share of a recovered NRM wolf 

population would be conserved if the 

protections of the Act were removed. 

Revision of Wyoming’s wolf 

management law, plan, and regulation 

are necessary to ensure the long-term 

conservation of Wyoming’s share of a 

recovered NRM wolf population (Gould 

2009). These revisions need to provide 

the foundation for necessary changes to 

the Wyoming gray wolf management 

plan and associated regulations. Until 

Wyoming revises their statutes, 

management plan, and associated 

regulations, and obtains Service 

approval, wolves in Wyoming shall 

remain protected by Act. 

We may consider many factors in 

determining the boundaries of the 

significant portion of its range where the 

DPS remains listed including whether 

there is a biological basis for boundaries 

(e.g., population groupings, genetic 

differences, or differences in ecological 

setting) or if differences in threat 

management result in biological 

differences in status (e.g., International 

or State boundaries where the threats 

might be different on either side of the 

boundary). Significant portion of range 

boundaries may consist of geographical 

features, constructed features (e.g., 

roads), or administrative boundaries. 

The boundaries used to legally define 

the extent of a significant portion of 

range are identified following these 

general principles: (1) Boundaries 

enclose and define the area where 

threats are sufficient to result in a 

determination that a portion of a DPS’ 

range is significant, and is endangered 

or threatened; (2) Boundaries clearly 

define the portion of the range that is 

specified as threatened or endangered, 

and may consist of geographical or 

administrative features or a combination 

of both; and (3) Boundaries do not 

circumscribe the current distribution of 

the species so tightly that opportunities 

for recovery are foreclosed. 

The scale of the boundaries is 

determined case-by-case to be 

appropriate to the size of the portion of 

the listed entities’ range, and the 

availability of unambiguous geographic 

or administrative boundaries. The scale 

at which one defines the range of a 

particular species is fact and context 

dependant. In other words, whether one 

defines the range at a relatively course 

or fine scale depends on the life history 

of the species at issue, the data 

available, and the purpose for which 

one is considering range. 

Our proposed rule (72 FR 6106, 

February 8, 2007) indicated that we 

found the only ‘‘significant’’ portion of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15183 

Wyoming was the 12 percent of the 

State in northwestern Wyoming 

managed as a trophy game area (W.S. 

11–6–302 et seq. and 23–1–101, et seq. 

in House Bill 0213). In its July 18, 2008, 

preliminary injunction order, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Montana 

referred to this area ‘‘small’’ and 

questioned why we had reversed our 

position that Wyoming should designate 

wolves as trophy game statewide. 

Furthermore, the court expressed 

concern over the lack of genetic 

connectivity between wolves in 

Wyoming and wolves in the rest of the 

NRM DPS. 

Our position on both Wyoming’s 2003 

and 2007 regulatory framework was 

based on the ability of the regulatory 

mechanisms to maintain the State’s 

share of a recovered wolf population. In 

2004, we recommended changes to 

Wyoming’s 2003 State law and wolf 

management plan because the trophy 

game area (limited to northwest 

Wyoming’s National Parks and 

wilderness areas) was not sufficient to 

assure the Service that the wolf 

population would remain above 

recovery levels. In our 2004 letter, we 

recommended statewide trophy game 

status. In 2007, Wyoming substantially 

expanded their trophy game area. While 

far short of our stated desire for a 

statewide trophy game area, we 

concluded the expanded area, which 

included 70 percent of the State’s 

suitable wolf habitat, was large enough 

to support Wyoming’s share of the 

minimum number of breeding pairs 

necessary for recovered wolf 

population. 

Following the release of the July 18, 

2008, Montana District Court 

preliminary injunction order, we 

reevaluated the adequacy of Wyoming’s 

regulatory framework including the size 

of the trophy game area. We now believe 

all of Wyoming should be managed as 

a trophy game area. The record 

demonstrates that wolves are unlikely to 

survive where they are classified as 

predatory animals. Thus, the current 

regulatory framework is problematic for 

the reasons outlined below. 

First, the current regulatory 

framework limits natural genetic 

connectivity. The GYA is the most 

isolated core recovery area within the 

NRM DPS (Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 554; 

vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). Wolf 

dispersal patterns indicate that 

dispersing wolves moving into the GYA 

from Idaho or Montana are likely to 

move through the predatory area (Boyd 

et al. 1995). Physical barriers (such as 

high-elevation mountain ranges that are 

difficult to traverse in winter) appear to 

discourage dispersal through the 

National Parks’ northern and western 

boundaries. Limited social openings in 

the National Parks’ wolf packs also 

direct dispersing wolves from Idaho and 

Montana toward the predatory area 

portions of Wyoming. Finally, 

Wyoming’s winter elk feeding grounds 

attract and could potentially hold 

dispersing wolves in the predatory area. 

Thus, we believe dispersal is more 

likely to lead to genetic exchange if 

dispersers have safe passage through the 

predatory area. While natural 

connectivity is not and has never been 

required to achieve our recovery goal, 

we believe it should be encouraged so 

as to minimize the need for agencymanaged genetic exchange. Because 

exact migratory corridors are not 

known, WGFD should be given 

regulatory authority over the entire State 

to adaptively manage this issue as new 

information comes to light over time. 

A statewide trophy game area is also 

advisable given the dispersal 

capabilities of wolves. Wolves have 

large home ranges (518 to 1,295 km2

(200 to 500 mi2)) with average longdistance dispersal events of 97 km (60 

mi) (Boyd and Pletscher 1997, p. 1094; 

Boyd et al. 2007; Thiessen 2007, p. 33), 

unusually long-distance dispersal 

events of 290 km (180 mi) (Jimenez et 

al. 2008d, Figures 2 and 3), and 

dispersal potential of over 1,092 km 

(680 mi). Some of these wolves may 

disperse and return to the core of 

suitable habitat. A statewide trophy 

game status will allow for routine and 

unusual dispersal events without near 

certain mortality (although pack 

establishment in areas of unsuitable 

habitat is extremely unlikely). 

Furthermore, statewide trophy game 

status will allow more flexibility to 

devise a management strategy, including 

regulated harvest that provides for selfsustaining populations above recovery 

goals. For example, having management 

authority over the entire State could 

allow for strategic use of all suitable 

habitat if necessary during years of 

disease outbreak. Such an approach 

could also allow managers to 

strategically shift wolf distribution and 

densities in response to localized 

impacts to native ungulate herds and 

livestock. 

Additionally, we believe statewide 

trophy game status prevents a 

patchwork of different management 

statuses; will be easier for the public to 

understand and, thus, will be easier to 

regulate; is similar to State management 

of other resources like mountain lions 

and blackbears; and is consistent with 

the current regulatory scheme in that 

the entire State is currently 

nonessential, experimental. Finally, 

maintenance of the Act’s protections 

Statewide will assist Service Law 

Enforcement efforts that might 

otherwise be difficult if predatory 

animal status was allowed in portions of 

Wyoming. 

We believe the entire State of 

Wyoming should be managed as a 

trophy game area. Continuation of the 

current regulatory framework in 

Wyoming would meaningfully affect the 

DPS’s resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation, and decrease the ability 

to conserve the species. For the 

purposes of this rule, the entire State 

shall be considered a significant portion 

of the range with the understanding that 

different portions of the range 

contribute different biological benefits. 

This boundary: Encompasses the area 

where threats are sufficient to result in 

a determination that a portion of a DPS’ 

range is significant, and is endangered 

or threatened; clearly defines the 

portion of the range that is specified as 

threatened or endangered; and does not 

circumscribe the current distribution of 

the species so tightly that opportunities 

to maintain recovery are foreclosed. 

Retaining the Act’s protections 

Statewide also is inclusive of the area 

where a lack of threat management 

results in biological differences in status 

(i.e., it covers the State’s entire 

predatory animal area). By identifying 

the entire State as a significant portion 

of the range we are not suggesting 

wolves could or should reoccupy or 

establish packs in unsuitable habitat. 

Unoccupied portions of Montana and 

Idaho as well as the portions of Utah, 

Washington and Oregon within the 

NRM DPS—Finally, we decided to 

analyze the remaining portions of the 

NRM DPS in our significant portion of 

range analysis out of an abundance of 

caution and based on the controversy 

concerning the status of the wolf in this 

area. Specifically, we considered: The 

portion of Montana east of I–15 and 

north of I–90; the portion of Idaho south 

of I–84; and the portions of Oregon, 

Washington, and Utah within the NRM 

DPS. These boundaries are based largely 

upon our understanding of suitable 

habitat and the location of easily 

identifiable and understandable 

manmade markers and boundaries. The 

following provides our analysis of 

whether these portions of the range are 

significant. 

This portion of the range does not 

meaningfully contribute to the 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation of the NRM DPS. In 

terms of resiliency, the area: Does not 

contain any large blocks of high-quality 

habitat; does not contain, nor is it 

capable of containing, a population 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15184 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

substantial enough to contribute to the 

ability of the NRM DPS to recover from 

periodic disturbance; does not act, nor 

is it capable of acting, as a refugium for 

the NRM DPS; and does not contain an 

important concentration of habitats 

necessary to carry out life-history 

functions (a possible exception is the 

ability to traverse these areas which may 

play a role in the conservation of the 

species). In terms of redundancy, the 

area: Makes a moderate contribution to 

the total range of the NRM DPS; does 

not contribute, nor is it capable of 

contributing, meaningfully to the total 

population of the NRM DPS; contains 

only about 8 percent of theoretical 

suitable wolf habitat (as described by 

Oakleaf et al. 2005, p. 561); and is not 

capable of contributing largely to the 

geographic representation of the species. 

In terms of representation, the area: Is 

unlikely to have wolves that are 

genetically, morphologically or 

physiologically unique; is unlikely to 

have wolves that exhibit behavior 

indicative of local adaptations that 

contributes to the overall diversity of 

the NRM DPS; and does not represent a 

unique ecological setting. With only a 

minor contribution the resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

NRM DPS, we determine these areas are 

not a significant portion of range in the 

NRM DPS. 

Most of these areas have been so 

modified by humans that they are no 

longer able to support viable wolf 

populations or persistent breeding pairs. 

To the extant that any of these areas 

contain suitable habitat, they are small, 

fragmented areas where wolf packs are 

unlikely to persist. Only a few wolves 

have established themselves in these 

areas. Most of these have eventually 

become problem wolves requiring 

control. This lack of suitability is why 

wolf recovery was never envisioned for 

these areas (Service 1987; Service 1994). 

To the extant that the ability to 

traverse these areas may play a role in 

the conservation of the species, all 

wolves in these areas will be regulated 

by the States as a game species. 

Violation of game rules will be subject 

to prosecution. We believe this is an 

appropriate level of protection for these 

largely unsuitable habitats and the same 

level of protection recommended for 

southern and eastern Wyoming. 

We have determined that these areas 

are insignificant to maintaining the 

NRM wolf population’s viability as they 

make only minor contributions to the 

species’ representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy. These contributions are not 

at a level that meaningfully impacts the 

ability to conserve the species. To the 

extant that the ability to traverse these 

areas may play a role in the 

conservation of the species, they will be 

appropriately regulated. 

In conclusion, based on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we recognize a DPS of the 

gray wolf (C. lupus) in the NRM. The 

NRM gray wolf DPS encompasses the 

eastern one-third of Washington and 

Oregon, a small part of north-central 

Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming. Recent estimates indicate the 

NRM DPS contains approximately 5 

times more wolves than the minimum 

population recovery goal requires and 

about 3 times more wolves than the 

breeding pair recovery goal requires. 

The end of 2008 will mark the ninth 

consecutive year the population has 

exceeded our numeric and 

distributional recovery goals. The States 

of Montana and Idaho have adopted 

State laws, management plans, and 

regulations that meet the requirements 

of the Act and will conserve a recovered 

wolf population into the foreseeable 

future. However, wolf populations in 

Wyoming continue to face high 

magnitude of threats that would 

materialize imminently in the absence 

of the Act’s protections because of a lack 

of effective regulatory mechanisms in 

the State. We determine that the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

demonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS is 

not threatened or endangered 

throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range (i.e., not 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

of the DPS); and (2) the Wyoming 

portion of the range represents a 

significant portion of range where the 

species remains in danger of extinction 

because of inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms. Thus, this final rule 

removes the Act’s protections 

throughout the NRM DPS except for 

Wyoming. Wolves in Wyoming will 

continue to be regulated as a nonessential, experimental population per 

50 CFR 17.84 (i) and (n). 

Effects of the Rule 

Promulgation of this final rule will 

affect the protections afforded to the 

NRM gray wolf population under the 

Act, except for the significant portion of 

the range (SPR) in Wyoming. Taking, 

interstate commerce, import, and export 

of these wolves are no longer prohibited 

under the Act, except for the SPR in 

Wyoming. Other State and Federal laws 

will still regulate take. In addition, with 

the removal of the Act’s protection in 

most of the NRM DPS, Federal agencies 

are no longer required to consult with 

us under section 7 of the Act to ensure 

that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by them is not likely to 

jeopardize the species’ continued 

existence, except for the SPR in 

Wyoming. No critical habitat has been 

designated for the NRM DPS: Thus, 50 

CFR 17.95 is not modified by this 

regulation. Removing the Act’s 

protections in most of the NRM DPS is 

expected to have positive effects in 

terms of management flexibility to the 

State, Tribal, and local governments. 

Because the SPR in Wyoming shall 

remain protected under the Act, this 

regulation leaves in place the 

nonessential experimental regulations 

in Wyoming designed to reduce the 

regulatory burden. Until Wyoming 

revises their statute, regulations, and 

management plan, and it is again 

Service approved, most wolves in 

Wyoming will continue be regulated by 

the 1994 experimental rule (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR 

17.84(i)). Wolves on Wind River Tribal 

lands will be regulated by the 2005 and 

2008 experimental rule (70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 

2008; 50 CFR 17.84(n)) because the 

Tribe has a Service approved postdelisting wolf management plan. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we also identify the Western Great 

Lakes (WGL) DPS and removed the gray 

wolves in that DPS from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

As the Service is taking these regulatory 

actions with respect to the NRM DPS 

and WGL DPS at the same time, this 

final rule includes regulatory revisions 

under § 17.11(h) that reflect the removal 

of the protections of the Act for both the 

WGL DPS and most of the NRM DPS, 

and reflect that gray wolves in 

Wyoming, an SPR of the NRM DPS 

range, continue to be listed as an 

experimental population. However, only 

that portion of the revised gray wolf 

listing in § 17.11(h) that pertains to the 

NRM DPS is attributable to this final 

rule. 

The separate experimental population 

listing in portions of Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Texas continues 

unchanged. 

Once this rule goes into effect, if a 

NRM wolf goes beyond the NRM DPS 

boundary, it attains the listing status of 

the area it has entered. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in 

the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to 

implement a system, in cooperation 

with the States, to monitor for not less 

than 5 years, the status of all species 

that have recovered and been removed 

from the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 

17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this 

post-delisting monitoring is to verify 

that a recovered species remains secure 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15185 

from risk of extinction after it no longer 

has the protections of the Act. Should 

relisting be required, we may make use 

of the emergency listing authorities 

under section 4(b)(7) of the Act to 

prevent a significant risk to the wellbeing of any recovered species. 

Monitoring Techniques—The NRM 

area was intensively monitored for 

wolves even before wolves were 

documented in Montana in the mid1980s (Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 

1982, p. 379–381; Kaminski and Hansen 

1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, State, 

and Tribal agencies, universities, and 

special interest groups assisted in those 

various efforts. Since 1979, wolves have 

been monitored using standard 

techniques including collecting, 

evaluating, and following-up on 

suspected observations of wolves or 

wolf signs by natural resource agencies 

or the public; howling or snow tracking 

surveys conducted by the Service, our 

university and agency cooperators, 

volunteers, or interested special interest 

groups; and by capturing, radiocollaring, and monitoring wolves. We 

only consider wolves and wolf packs as 

confirmed when Federal, State, or Tribal 

agency verification is made by field staff 

that can reliably identify wolves and 

wolf signs. 

The wolf monitoring system works in 

a hierarchical nature. Typically we 

receive a report (either directly or 

passed along by another agency) that 

wolves or their signs were observed. We 

make no judgment whether the report 

seems credible or not and normally just 

note the general location of that 

observation. Unless breeding results, 

reports of single animals are not 

important unless tied to other reports or 

unusual observations that elicit concern 

(e.g., a wolf reported feeding on a 

livestock carcass). Lone wolves can 

wander long distances over a short 

period of time (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

pp. 14–15) and may be almost 

impossible to find again or confirm. 

However, the patterns and clusters of 

those individual reports are very 

informative and critical to subsequent 

agency decisions about where to focus 

agency searches for wolf pack activity. 

When we receive multiple reports of 

multiple individuals that indicate 

possible territoriality and pair bonding 

(the early stage of pack formation), or a 

report of multiple wolves that seems 

highly credible (usually made by a 

biologist or experienced outdoorsperson), we typically notify the nearest 

Federal, State, or Tribal natural 

resource/land management agency and 

ask them to be on the alert for possible 

wolf activity during the normal course 

of their field activities. Once they locate 

areas of suspected wolf activity, we may 

ask experienced field biologists to 

search the area for wolf signs (tracks, 

howling, scats, ungulate kills). 

Depending on the type of activity 

confirmed, field crews may decide to 

capture and radio-collar the wolves. 

Radio-collared wolves are then 

relocated from the air 1 to 4 times per 

month dependent on a host of factors 

including funding, personnel, aircraft 

availability, weather, and other 

priorities. At the end of the year, we 

compile agency-confirmed wolf 

observations to estimate the number and 

location of adult wolves and pups that 

were likely alive on December 31 of that 

year. These data are then summarized 

by packs to indicate overall population 

size, composition, and distribution. This 

level of wildlife monitoring is intensive 

and the results are relatively accurate 

estimates of wolf population 

distribution and structure (Service et al. 

2009, Table 1–4, Figure 1–4). This 

monitoring strategy has been used to 

estimate the NRM wolf population for 

over 20 years. 

Montana and Idaho, as well as 

Washington, Oregon and Utah, 

committed to continue monitoring wolf 

populations, according to their State 

wolf management plans (See State plans 

in Factor D) or in other cooperative 

agreements, using similar techniques as 

the Service and its cooperators (which 

has included the States, Tribes, and 

USDA–WS—the same agencies that will 

be managing and monitoring wolves 

post-delisting) have used. Montana and 

Idaho have committed to continue to 

conduct wolf population monitoring 

through the post-delisting monitoring 

period (Montana 2003, p. 63, 78; Idaho 

2002, p. 35). Montana and Idaho also 

have committed to publish the results of 

their monitoring efforts in annual wolf 

reports as has been done since 1989 by 

the Service and its cooperators (Service 

et al. 1989–2009). The Service and the 

National Park Service will continue to 

monitor wolves in Wyoming. Other 

States and Tribes within the DPS 

adjacent to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming also have participated in this 

interagency cooperative wolf monitoring 

system for at least the past decade, and 

their plans commit them to continue to 

report wolf activity in their State and 

coordinate those observations with 

other States. The annual reports also 

have documented all aspects of the wolf 

management program including staffing 

and funding, legal issues, population 

monitoring, control to reduce livestock 

and pet damage, research (predator-prey 

interactions, livestock/wolf conflict 

prevention, disease and health 

monitoring, publications, etc.) and 

public outreach. 

Service Review of the Post-Delisting 

Status of the Wolf Population—To 

ascertain wolf population distribution 

and structure and to analyze if the wolf 

population might require a Service-led 

status review (to determine whether it 

should again be listed under the Act), 

we intend to review the State and any 

Tribal annual wolf reports for at least 5 

years after delisting. The status of the 

NRM wolf population will be estimated 

by estimating the numbers of packs, 

breeding pairs, and total numbers of 

wolves in mid-winter by State and by 

recovery area throughout the postdelisting monitoring period (Service et 

al. 2009, Table 4, Figure 1). By 

evaluating the techniques used and the 

results of those wolf monitoring efforts, 

the Service can decide whether further 

action, including relisting is warranted. 

In addition, the States and Tribes are 

investigating other, perhaps more 

accurate and less expensive, ways to 

help estimate and describe wolf pack 

distribution and abundance (Service et 

al. 2009, Figure 1, Table 4; Kunkel et al. 

2005; Mitchell et al. 2008). 

Other survey methods and data can 

become the ‘biological equivalents’ of 

the breeding pair definition currently 

used to measure recovery (Mitchell et 

al. 2008). Those State and Tribal 

investigations also include alternative 

ways to estimate the status of the wolf 

population and the numbers of breeding 

pairs that are as accurate, but less 

expensive, than those that are currently 

used (Mitchell et al. 2008). Although 

not compelled by the Act, the State will 

likely continue to publish their annual 

wolf population estimates, in 

cooperation with National Parks and 

Tribes, after the mandatory wolf 

population monitoring required by the 

Act is over because of mandatory 

reporting requirements in Federal 

funding and grant programs and the 

high local and national public and 

scientific interest in NRM wolves. 

We fully recognize and anticipate that 

State and Tribal laws regarding wolves 

and State and Tribal management will 

change through time as new knowledge 

becomes available as the State and 

Tribes gain additional experience at 

wolf management and conservation. We 

will base any analysis of whether a 

status review and relisting are 

warranted upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

wolf distribution, abundance, and 

threats in the NRM DPS. For the postdelisting monitoring period, the best 

source of that information will be the 

State’s annual or other wolf reports and 

publications. We intend to post those 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15186 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

annual State wolf reports and our 

annual review and comment on the 

status of the wolf population in the 

NRM DPS on our website (http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by 

approximately April 1 of each following 

year. During our annual analysis of the 

State’s annual reports (which will 

continue for at least 5 years), we also 

intend to comment on any threats that 

may have increased during the previous 

year, such as significant changes in a 

State regulatory framework, habitat, 

diseases, decreases in prey abundance, 

increases in wolf-livestock conflict, or 

other natural and man-caused factors. 

Our analysis and response for postdelisting monitoring is to track changes 

in wolf abundance, distribution, and 

threats to the population. Three 

scenarios could lead us to initiate a 

status review and analysis of threats to 

determine if relisting was warranted 

including: (1) If the wolf population 

falls below the minimum NRM wolf 

population recovery level of 10 breeding 

pairs of wolves and 100 wolves in either 

Montana or Idaho at the end of the year; 

(2) if the wolf population segment in 

Montana or Idaho falls below 15 

breeding pairs or 150 wolves at the end 

of the year in any one of those States for 

3 consecutive years; or (3) if a change 

in State law or management objectives 

would significantly increase the threat 

to the wolf population. All such reviews 

would be made available for public 

review and comment, including peer 

review by select species experts. 

Additionally, if any of these scenarios 

occurred during the mandatory 5-year 

post-delisting monitoring period, the 

post-delisting monitoring period would 

be extended 5 additional years from that 

point in that State. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this rule under Executive Order 12866 

(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have 

an annual effect of $100 million or more 

on the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government; (b) Whether the rule will 

create inconsistencies with other 

Federal agencies’ actions; (c) Whether 

the rule will materially affect 

entitlements, grants, user fees, loan 

programs, or the rights and obligations 

of their recipients; (d) Whether the rule 

raises novel legal or policy issues. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) 

define a collection of information as the 

obtaining of information by or for an 

agency by means of identical questions 

posed to, or identical reporting, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements imposed on, 10 or more 

persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. For purposes of this definition, 

employees of the Federal government 

are not included. The Service may not 

conduct or sponsor, and you are not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

This rule does not contain any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. As proposed under the 

Post-Delisting Monitoring section above, 

populations will be monitored by the 

States and Tribes in accordance with 

their Wolf Management Plans. We do 

not anticipate a need to request data or 

other information from 10 or more 

persons during any 12-month period to 

satisfy monitoring information needs. If 

it becomes necessary to collect 

information from 10 or more nonFederal individuals, groups, or 

organizations per year, we will first 

obtain information collection approval 

from OMB. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service has determined that 

Environmental Assessments and EIS, as 

defined under the authority of the 

NEPA, need not be prepared in 

connection with actions adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A 

notice outlining the Service’s reasons 

for this determination was published in 

the Federal Register on October 25, 

1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this 

final rule is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

coordinated the proposed rule and this 

final rule with the affected Tribes. 

Throughout several years of 

development of earlier related rules and 

the proposed rule, we have endeavored 

to consult with Native American tribes 

and Native American organizations in 

order to both (1) provide them with a 

complete understanding of the proposed 

changes, and (2) to understand their 

concerns with those changes. We have 

fully considered their comments during 

the development of this final rule. If 

requested, we will conduct additional 

consultations with Native American 

tribes and multi-tribal organizations 

subsequent to this final rule in order to 

facilitate the transition to State and 

tribal management of gray wolves 

within the NRM DPS. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES

above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– 

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h), the entry for ‘‘Wolf, 

gray’’ under MAMMALS in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 15187 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray .......... Canis lupus ...... Holarctic ........... U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) 

States, except: (1) Where listed as an experimental population below; (2) Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern 

North Dakota (that portion 

north and east of the Missouri 

River upstream to Lake 

Sakakawea and east of the 

centerline of Highway 83 from 

Lake Sakakawea to the Canadian border), eastern South 

Dakota (that portion north and 

east of the Missouri River), 

northern Iowa, northern Illinois, and northern Indiana 

(those portions of IA, IL, and 

IN north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80), and 

northwestern Ohio (that portion north of the centerline of 

Interstate Highway 80 and 

west of the Maumee River at 

Toledo); (3) MT, ID, WY (however, see experimental population designation below), 

eastern WA (that portion of 

WA east of the centerline of 

Highway 97 and Highway 17 

north of Mesa and that portion 

of WA east of the centerline of 

Highway 395 south of Mesa), 

eastern OR (portion of OR 

east of the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 

north of Burns Junction and 

that portion of OR east of the 

centerline of Highway 95 

south of Burns Junction), and 

north central UT (that portion 

of UT east of the centerline of 

Highway 84 and north of Highway 80). Mexico.

E 1, 6, 13, 15, 

35 

N/A N/A 

......do ................. ......do ............... ......do ............... U.S.A. (portions of AZ, NM, and 

TX—see § 17.84(k)).

XN 631 N/A 17.84(k) 

Wolf, gray 

[Northern 

Rocky Mountain DPS].

Canis lupus ...... U.S.A. (MT, ID, 

WY, eastern 

WA, eastern 

OR, and north 

central UT).

U.S.A. (WY—see § 17.84(i) and 

§ 17.84(n)).

XN 561, 562 N/A 17.84(i). 

17.84(n). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (i)(7)(i) and (ii) 

and removing paragraph (i)(7)(iii); 

■ b. Revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (n)(1); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (n)(9)(i) and (ii) 

and removing paragraph (n)(9)(iii). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) The nonessential experimental 

population area includes all of 

Wyoming. 

(ii) All wolves found in the wild 

within the boundaries of this paragraph 

(i)(7) will be considered nonessential 

experimental animals. In the 

conterminous United States, a wolf that 

is outside an experimental area (as 

defined in paragraph (i)(7) of this 

section) would take on the status for 

wolves in the area in which it is found 

unless it is marked or otherwise known 

to be an experimental animal; such a 

wolf may be captured for examination 

and genetic testing by the Service or 

Service-designated agency. Disposition 

of the captured animal may take any of 

the following courses: 

(A) If the animal was not involved in 

conflicts with humans and is 

determined likely to be an experimental 

wolf, it may be returned to the 

reintroduction area. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
15188 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) If the animal is determined likely 

to be an experimental wolf and was 

involved in conflicts with humans as 

identified in the management plan for 

the closest experimental area, it may be 

relocated, placed in captivity, or killed. 

(C) If the animal is determined not 

likely to be an experimental animal, it 

will be managed according to any 

Service-approved plans for that area or 

will be marked and released near its 

point of capture. 

(D) If the animal is determined not to 

be a wild gray wolf or if the Service or 

agencies designated by the Service 

determine the animal shows physical or 

behavioral evidence of hybridization 

with other canids, such as domestic 

dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal 

raised in captivity, it may be returned to 

captivity or killed. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(1) The gray wolves (wolf) identified 

in paragraph (n)(9)(i) of this section are 

a nonessential experimental 

population. * * * 

* * * * * 

(9) * * * 

(i) The nonessential experimental 

population area includes all of 

Wyoming. 

(ii) All wolves found in the wild 

within the boundaries of this 

experimental area are considered 

nonessential experimental animals. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 10, 2009. 

Rowan W. Gould, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5991 Filed 4–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2