2009 wolf delisting rule

8/7/2019 2009 Wolf delisting rule

1/66

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

17.40 [Amended]

3. Amend 17.40 by removing andreserving paragraph (d).

17.95 [Amended]

4. Amend 17.95(a) by removing thecritical habitat entry for Gray Wolf(Canis lupus).

Dated: March 10, 2009.

Rowan W. Gould,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService.

[FR Doc. E95981 Filed 4109; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 431055P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWSR6ES20080008; 9222011130000; ABC Code: C6]

RIN 1018AW37

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Final Rule To Identify theNorthern Rocky Mountain Populationof Gray Wolf as a Distinct PopulationSegment and To Revise the List ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: Under the authority of theEndangered Species Act of 1973, asamended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), identify adistinct population segment (DPS) of thegray wolf (Canis lupus) in the NorthernRocky Mountains (NRM) of the UnitedStates and revise the List of Endangeredand Threatened Wildlife by removinggray wolves within NRM DPSboundaries, except in Wyoming. TheNRM gray wolf DPS encompasses theeastern one-third of Washington andOregon, a small part of north-centralUtah, and all of Montana, Idaho, andWyoming. Our current estimate for 2008indicates the NRM DPS containsapproximately 1,639 wolves (491 in

Montana; 846 in Idaho; 302 inWyoming) in 95 breeding pairs (34 inMontana; 39 in Idaho; 22 in Wyoming).These numbers are about 5 times higherthan the minimum population recoverygoal and 3 times higher than theminimum breeding pair recovery goal.The end of 2008 will mark the ninthconsecutive year the population hasexceeded our numeric anddistributional recovery goals.

The States of Montana and Idaho haveadopted State laws, management plans,and regulations that meet the

requirements of the Act and willconserve a recovered wolf populationinto the foreseeable future. In ourproposed rule (72 FR 6106, February 8,2007), we noted that removing the Actsprotections in Wyoming was dependantupon the States wolf law (W.S. 116302 et seq. and 231101, et seq. inHouse Bill 0213) and wolf management

plan adequately conserving Wyomingsportion of a recovered NRM wolfpopulation. In light of the July 18, 2008,U.S. District Court order, wereexamined Wyoming law, itsmanagement plans and implementingregulations, and now determine they arenot adequate regulatory mechanisms forthe purposes of the Act.

We determine that the best scientificand commercial data availabledemonstrates that (1) the NRM DPS isnot threatened or endangeredthroughout all of its range (i.e., notthreatened or endangered throughout all

of the DPS); and (2) the Wyomingportion of the range represents asignificant portion of range where thespecies remains in danger of extinctionbecause of inadequate regulatorymechanisms. Thus, this final ruleremoves the Acts protectionsthroughout the NRM DPS except forWyoming. Wolves in Wyoming willcontinue to be regulated as a non-essential, experimental population per50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).DATES: This rule becomes effective onMay 4, 2009.ADDRESSES: This final rule is available

on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments andmaterials received, as well as supportingdocumentation used in preparation ofthis final rule, are available forinspection, by appointment, duringnormal business hours, at our Montanaoffice, 585 Shepard Way, Helena,Montana 59601. Call (406) 4495225,extension 204 to make arrangements.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray WolfRecovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, at our Helena office(see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 4495225, extension 204. Individuals whoare hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal RelayService at 18008778337 for TTYassistance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Gray wolves (C. lupus) are the largestwild members of the dog family(Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from1880 kilograms (kg) (40175 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 (130lb). Females weigh slightly less thanmales. Wolves fur color is frequently agrizzled gray, but it can vary from purewhite to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002,p. 821).

Gray wolves have a circumpolar rangeincluding North America, Europe, and

Asia. As Europeans began settling theUnited States, they poisoned, trapped,and shot wolves, causing this oncewidespread species to be eradicatedfrom most of its range in the 48conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp.3134; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolfpopulations were eliminated fromMontana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as wellas adjacent southwestern Canada by the1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p.414).

Wolves primarily prey on mediumand large mammals. Wolves normallylive in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the

NRM, pack sizes average about 10wolves in protected areas, but a fewcomplex packs have been substantiallybigger in some areas of YellowstoneNational Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006,p. 243; Service et al. 2008, Tables 13).Packs typically occupy large distinctterritories from 518 to 1,295 squarekilometers (km2) (200 to 500 squaremiles (mi2)) and defend these areas fromother wolves or packs. Once a given areais occupied by resident wolf packs, itbecomes saturated and wolf numbersbecome regulated by the amount ofavailable prey, intra-species conflict,other forms of mortality, and dispersal.

Dispersing wolves may cover large areas(See Defining the Boundaries of theNRM DPS) as they try to join otherpacks or attempt to form their own packin unoccupied habitat (Mech andBoitani 2003, pp. 1117).

Typically, only the top-ranking(alpha) male and female in each packbreed and produce pups (Packard 2003,p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, pp. 2434;Service et al. 2008, Tables 13). Femalesand males typically begin breeding as 2-year olds and may annually produceyoung until they are over 10 years old.Litters are typically born in April and

range from 1 to 11 pups, but averagearound 5 pups (Service et al. 19892007, Tables 13). Most years, four ofthese five pups survive until winter(Service et al. 19892008, Tables 13).Wolves can live 13 years (Holyan et al.2005, p. 446), but the average lifespanin the NRM is less than 4 years (Smithet al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production andsurvival can increase when wolf densityis lower and food availability per wolfincreases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186).Pack social structure is very adaptableand resilient. Breeding members can be

VerDate Nov2008 16:49 Apr 01, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR2.SGM 02APR2


2/66

15124 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 62 / Thursday, April 2, 2009 / Rules and Regulations

quickly replaced either from within oroutside the pack and pups can be rearedby another pack member should theirparents die (Packard 2003, p. 38;Brainerd et al. 2008; Mech 2006, p.1482). Consequently, wolf populationscan rapidly recover from severedisruptions, such as very high levels ofhuman-caused mortality or disease.

After severe declines, wolf populationscan more than double in just 2 years ifmortality is reduced; increases of nearly100 percent per year have beendocumented in low-density suitablehabitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181183;Service et al. 2008, Table 4).

For detailed information on thebiology of this species see the Biologyand Ecology of Gray Wolves section ofthe April 1, 2003, final rule to reclassifyand remove the gray wolf from the listof endangered and threatened wildlifein portions of the conterminous U.S.(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR

15804).Previous Federal Actions

In 1974, we listed two subspecies ofgray wolf as endangered: The NRM graywolf (C. l. irremotus) and the easterntimber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the GreatLakes region (39 FR 1171, January 4,1974). We listed a third gray wolfsubspecies, the Mexican wolf (C. l.baileyi) as endangered on April 28,1976, (41 FR 17740) in Mexico and thesouthwestern U.S. On June 14, 1976 (41FR 24064), we listed the Texas gray wolfsubspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) asendangered in Texas and Mexico.

In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR9607, March 9, 1978) relisting the graywolf as endangered at the species level(C. lupus) throughout the conterminous48 States and Mexico, except forMinnesota, where the gray wolf wasreclassified to threatened. At that time,we designated critical habitat inMinnesota and Isle Royale, Michigan. Inthe NRM, we completed a recovery planin 1980 and revised in 1987. In theGreat Lakes Region, we completed arecovery plan in 1978 and revised in1992. In the Southwest, we completed arecovery plan in 1982.

On November 22, 1994, we designatedportions of Idaho, Montana, andWyoming as two nonessentialexperimental population areas for thegray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act,including the Yellowstone ExperimentalPopulation Area (59 FR 60252,November 22, 1994) and the CentralIdaho Experimental Population Area (59FR 60266, November 22, 1994). Thesedesignations assisted us in initiatinggray wolf reintroduction projects incentral Idaho and in the GreaterYellowstone Area (GYA). In 2005 and

2008, we revised these regulations toprovide increased managementflexibility for this recovered wolfpopulation in States with Service-approved post-delisting wolfmanagement plans (70 FR 1286, January6, 2005; 73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008;50 CFR 17.84(n)).

The NRM wolf population achieved

its numerical and distributionalrecovery goals at the end of 2000(Service et al. 2008, Table 4). Thetemporal portion of the recovery goalwas achieved in 2002 when thenumerical and distributional recoverygoals were exceeded for the 3rdsuccessive year (Service et al. 2008,Table 4). To meet the Acts requirementsIdaho, Montana, and Wyoming neededto develop post-delisting wolfmanagement plans to ensure thatadequate regulatory mechanisms wouldexist should the Acts protections beremoved. In 2004, we determined that

Montanas and Idahos laws and wolfmanagement plans were adequate toassure that their shares of the NRM wolfpopulation would be maintained aboverecovery levels. However, we found the2003 Wyoming legislation and planinadequate to conserve Wyomingsshare of a recovered NRM gray wolfpopulation (Williams 2004). Wyomingchallenged this determination but theFederal district court in Wyomingdismissed the case (360 F. Supp 2nd1214, D. Wyoming 2005). Wyomingappealed that decision and on April 3,2006, the Tenth Circuit Court ofAppeals 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 WyomingGame and Fish Commission (WGFC) torevise the listing status for the gray wolfby recognizing a NRM DPS and toremove it from the Federal List ofEndangered and Threatened Species(Freudenthal 2005). On August 1, 2006,we announced a 12-month finding thatthe petitioned action (delisting in all ofMontana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was notwarranted because the 2003 WyomingState law and wolf management plan

did not provide the necessary regulatorymechanisms to ensure that Wyomingsnumerical and distributional share of arecovered NRM wolf population wouldbe conserved (71 FR 43410). Wyomingchallenged this finding in FederalDistrict Court. On February 27, 2008,Federal District Judge issued an orderdismissing the case (Wyoming U.S.District Court Case Number 2:06CV00245).

On February 8, 2007, we proposed toidentify the NRM DPS of the gray wolfand to delist all or most portions of the

NRM DPS (72 FR 6106). Specifically, weproposed to delist wolves in Montana,Idaho, and Wyoming, and parts ofWashington, Oregon, and Utah. Theproposal noted that the Actsprotections would be retained insignificant portions of the range inWyoming in the final rule if adequateregulatory mechanisms were not

developed to conserve Wyomingsportion of a recovered wolf populationinto the foreseeable future. Under thisscenario, wolves in portions ofWyoming would continue to beregulated under the Act as a non-essential, experimental population per50 CFR 17.84(i) and (n).

On July 6, 2007, the Service extendedthe comment period in order to considera 2007 revised Wyoming wolfmanagement plan and State law that webelieved, if implemented, could allowthe wolves in all of Wyoming to beremoved from the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 36939).On November 16, 2007, the WGFCunanimously approved the 2007Wyoming Plan (Cleveland 2007, p. 1).We then determined this plan providedadequate regulatory protections toconserve Wyomings portion of arecovered wolf population into theforeseeable future (Hall 2007, p. 2). OnFebruary 27, 2008, we issued a final rulerecognizing the NRM DPS and removingall of this DPS from the List ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlife(73 FR 10514). This rule determinedthat Wyomings regulatory mechanismswere adequate.

On April 28, 2008, 12 parties filed alawsuit challenging the identificationand delisting of the NRM DPS. Theplaintiffs also moved to preliminarilyenjoin the delisting. On July 18, 2008,the U.S. District Court for the District ofMontana granted the plaintiffs motionfor a preliminary injunction andenjoined the Services implementationof the final delisting rule for the NRMDPS of the gray wolf. The court statedthat we acted arbitrarily in delisting awolf population that lacked evidence ofgenetic exchange betweensubpopulations. The court also stated

that we acted arbitrarily andcapriciously when we approvedWyomings 2007 statute and wolfmanagement plan because the Statefailed to commit to managing for at least15 breeding pairs and Wyomings 2007statute allowed the WGFC to diminishthe trophy game area if it determinesthe diminution does not impede thedelisting of gray wolves and willfacilitate Wyomings management ofwolves. The courts preliminaryinjunction order concluded that thePlaintiffs were likely to prevail on the



3/66


merits of their claims. In light of thedistrict court order, on September 22,2008, we asked the court to vacate thefinal rule and remand it to us. OnOctober 14, 2008, the court vacated thefinal delisting rule and remanded itback to the Service for furtherconsideration.

Similarly, on February 8, 2007, we

recognized a Western Great Lakes(WGL) DPS and removed it from the listof the List of Endangered andThreatened Wildlife (72 FR 6052).Several groups challenged this rule incourt, arguing that the Service may notidentify a DPS within a broader pre-existing listed entity for the purpose ofdelisting the DPS (Humane Society ofthe United States v. Kempthorne, CivilAction No. 070677 (PLF) (D.D.C.)). OnSeptember 29, 2008, the court vacatedthe WGL DPS final rule and remandedit to the Service. The court found thatthe Service had made that decision

based on its interpretation that the plainmeaning of the Act authorizes theService to create and delist a DPSwithin an already-listed entity. Thecourt disagreed, and concluded that theAct is ambiguous as to whether theService has this authority. The courtaccordingly remanded the final rule sothat the Service can provide a reasonedexplanation of how its interpretation isconsistent with the text, structure,legislative history, judicialinterpretations, and policy objectives ofthe Act.

Given the above court rulings, onOctober 28, 2008 (73 FR 63926), we

reopened the comment period on ourFebruary 8, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR6106). Specifically, we soughtinformation, data, and comments fromthe public regarding the 2007 proposalwith an emphasis on new informationrelevant to this action, the issues raisedby the Montana District Court, and theissues raised by the September 29, 2008,ruling of the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia with respect to theWGL gray wolf DPS. The notice alsoasked for public comment on whatportions of Wyoming need to bemanaged as a trophy game area and

what portions of Wyoming constitute asignificant portion of the NRM DPSsrange. After further analysis, wedetermined that Wyomings regulatoryframework did not meet the

requirements of the Act. On January 15,2009 Wyomings Governor was notifiedthat Wyoming no longer had a Service-approved wolf management plan (Gould2009). Wolf management in all ofWyoming (except the Wind River TribalLands because the tribe had a Service-approved plan) again becameimmediately under the less flexible

provisions of the 1994 experimentalpopulation rules [17.84 (i)].

We are required to rely upon the bestscientific information currentlyavailable. Therefore, this final rulereflects new data and informationprimarily concerning wolf populationnumbers, livestock depredations andwolf control, and genetic exchange thatwere received after the 2008 publiccomment period. This new data andinformation are consistent with and didnot change our conclusions stated in thepreamble to the proposed rule and inthe notice for the reopened comment

period.For detailed information on previousFederal actions also see the 2003Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804,April 1, 2003), the Advanced Notice ofProposed Rulemaking (ANPR) (71 FR6634, February 8, 2006), the 12-monthfinding on Wyomings petition to delist(71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006), and theFebruary 8, 2007, proposed rule todesignate the NRM population of graywolf as a DPS and remove this DPS fromthe List of Endangered and ThreatenedWildlife (72 FR 6106).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

Policy OverviewPursuant to the Act, we consider if

information is sufficient to indicate thatlisting, reclassifying, or delisting anyspecies, subspecies, or, for vertebrates,any DPS of these taxa may be warranted.To interpret and implement the DPSprovision of the Act and congressionalguidance, the Service and the NationalMarine Fisheries Service published apolicy regarding the recognition ofdistinct vertebrate population segmentsunder the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7,1996). Under this policy, the Serviceconsiders two factors to determine

whether the population segment is avalid DPS(1) discreteness of thepopulation segment in relation to theremainder of the taxon, and (2) thesignificance of the population segment

to the taxon to which it belongs. If apopulation meets both tests, it is a DPS,and the Service then evaluates thepopulation segments conservationstatus according to the standards insection 4 of the Act for listing, delisting,or reclassification (i.e., is the DPSendangered or threatened).

Defining the Boundaries of the NRMDPS

We defined the geographic boundariesfor the area to be evaluated for DPSstatus based on discreteness andsignificance as defined by our DPSpolicy. The DPS policy allows anartificial (e.g., State line) or manmade(e.g., road or highway) boundary to beused as a boundary of convenience forclearly identifying the geographic areafor a DPS. The NRM DPS includes allof Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, theeastern third of Washington and Oregon,and a small part of north central Utah.

Specifically, the DPS includes thatportion of Washington east of Highway97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa andthat portion of Washington east ofHighway 395 south of Mesa. It includesthat portion of Oregon east of Highway395 and Highway 78 north of BurnsJunction and that portion of Oregon eastof Highway 95 south of Burns Junction.Finally, the DPS includes that portion ofUtah east of Highway 84 and north ofHighway 80. The centers of these roadsare deemed the boundary of the DPS(See Figure 1).

This DPS is consistent with over 30

years of recovery efforts in the NRMs inthat: (1) The DPS approximates the U.S.historic range of the NRM gray wolfsubspecies (C. l. irremotus) (Service1980, p. 3; Service 1987, p. 2) whichwas the originally listed entity in 1974(39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974); (2) theDPS boundaries are inclusive of theareas focused on by both NRM recoveryplans (Service 1980, pp. 78; Service1987, p. 23) and the 1994 environmentalimpact statement (EIS) (Service 1994,Ch. 1 p. 3); and (3) the DPS is inclusiveof the entire Central-Idaho andYellowstone Non-essential

Experimental Population areas (59 FR60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR17.84 (i) & (n)).BILLING CODE 431055P



4/66


One factor we considered in definingthe boundaries of the NRM DPS was thecurrent distribution of known wolfpacks in 2007 (Service et al. 2008,Figure 1) (except four packs innorthwestern Wyoming that did notpersist). We also examined the annualdistribution of wolf packs from 2002(the first year the population exceededthe recovery goal) through 2008 (Serviceet al. 20032009, Figure 1; Bangs et al.in press). Because outer distribution

changed little in these years, we usedthe 2004 data because it had alreadybeen analyzed in the February 8, 2006ANPR (71 FR 6634).

Dispersal distances also played a keyrole in determining the boundaries forthe DPS. We examined the knowndispersal distances of over 200 markeddispersing wolves from the NRM from1993 through 2005 (Boyd et al. 2007;Jimenez et al. 2008d). These dataindicate that the average dispersal

distance of wolves from the NRM wasabout 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd andPletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd et al.2007; Thiessen 2007, p. 33; Jimenez etal. 2008d). We determined that 290 km(180 mi), three times the averagedispersal distance, was a breakpoint inour data for unusually long-distancedispersal out from existing wolf packterritories (Jimenez et al. 2008, Figures2 and 3). Only 11 wolves (none of whichsubsequently bred) have dispersed



5/66


farther outside the core population areasand remained in the U.S. None of thesewolves returned to the core populationin Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Onlydispersal from the NRM packs to areaswithin the U.S. was considered in thesecalculations because we were trying todetermine the appropriate DPSboundaries within the U.S. Dispersers to

Canada were not considered in ourcalculation of average dispersaldifference because the distribution ofsuitable habitat and level of humanpersecution in Canada is significantlydifferent than in the U.S., potentiallyaffecting wolf dispersal patterns. Weplotted average dispersal distance andthree times the average dispersaldistance from existing wolf packterritories in the NRM. The resultingmap indicated a wide area where wolfdispersal was common enough tosupport intermittent additional packestablishment from the core wolf

population given the availability ofpatches of nearby suitable habitat. Ourspecific data on wolf dispersal in theNRM may not be applicable to otherareas of North America (Mech andBoitani 2003, pp. 1316).

We also examined suitable wolfhabitat in Montana, Idaho, andWyoming (Oakleafet al. 2005, pp. 555558) and throughout the western U.S.(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538; Carroll et al.2006, pp. 2730) by comparing thebiological and physical characteristicsof areas currently occupied by wolfpacks with the characteristics of

adjacent areas that remain unoccupiedby wolf packs. The basic findings andpredictions of those models (Oakleafetal. 2005, p. 559; Carroll et al. 2003, p.541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) weresimilar in many respects. Suitable wolfhabitat in the NRM DPS is typicallycharacterized by public land,mountainous forested habitat, abundantyear-round wild ungulate populations,lower road density, lower numbers ofdomestic livestock that were onlypresent seasonally, few domestic sheep(Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and lowhuman populations (see Factor A). The

models indicate that a large block ofsuitable wolf habitat exists in centralIdaho and the GYA, and to a smallerextent in northwestern Montana. Thesefindings support the recommendationsof the 1987 wolf recovery plan (Service1987) that identified those three areas asthe most likely locations to support arecovered wolf population and areconsistent with the actual distributionof all wolf breeding pairs in the NRMsince 1986 (Bangs et al. 1998, Figure 1;Service et al. 19992009, Figures 14,Tables 13). The models indicate little

habitat is suitable for pack persistencewithin the portion of the NRM DPS ineastern Montana, southern Idaho,eastern Wyoming, Washington, Oregon,or northcentral Utah althoughdispersing wolves may utilize theseareas (See Factor A).

Unsuitable habitat also was importantin determining the boundaries of our

DPS. Model predictions by Oakleafet al.(2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. (2003,pp. 540541; 2006, p. 27) and ourobservations during the past 20 years(Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al.2008, Figures 14, Table 4) indicate thatnon-forested rangeland and croplandsassociated with intensive agriculturaluse (prairie and high desert) precludewolf pack establishment andpersistence. This unsuitability is due tohigh rates of wolf mortality, highdensities of livestock compared to wildungulates, chronic conflict withlivestock and pets, local cultural

intolerance of large predators, and wolfbehavioral characteristics that makethem vulnerable to human-causedmortality in open landscapes (SeeFactor A). We looked at the distributionof large expanses of unsuitable habitatthat would form a broad boundaryseparating the NRM population fromboth the southwestern and Midwesternwolf populations and from the core ofany other possible wolf population thatmight develop in the foreseeable futurein the western U.S.

We included the eastern parts ofWashington and Oregon and a smallportion of north central Utah within the

NRM DPS, because(1) these areas arewithin 97 to 300 km (60 to 190 mi) fromthe core wolf population wheredispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersingwolves have been documented in theseareas more than once in recent times(Boyd et al. 2007; Jimenez et al. 2008d);(3) these areas contain some suitablehabitat (see Factor A); (4) the potentialfor connectivity exists between therelatively small and fragmented patchesof suitable habitat in these areas withlarger blocks of suitable habitat in theNRM DPS; and (5) most of the area lieswithin 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 wolfbreeding pairs establish in these areas,habitat suitability models indicate thesenearby areas would likely be moreconnected to the core populations incentral Idaho and northwesternWyoming than to any future wolfpopulations that might becomeestablished in other large blocks ofpotentially suitable habitat fartherbeyond the NRM DPS boundary. As

noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitablehabitat would isolate any wolf breedingpairs within the DPS from other largepatches of suitable habitat to the west orsouth (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541).

Although we have received reports ofindividual and wolf packs in the NorthCascades of Washington (Almack andFitkin 1998, pp. 713), agency efforts to

confirm them have been unsuccessfuland to date no individual wolves orpacks have been confirmed there (Boydand Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd et al.2007). However, a wolf pack (2 adultsand 6 pups) was discovered near Twisp,Washington (just east of the NorthCascades), in July 2008. Their territoryis west of the NRM DPS boundary.Genetic analysis indicated the twoadults did not come from the wolfpopulation in the NRM DPS. Instead,they likely originated from southcentralBritish Columbia (Allen 2008). Thisconfirms the appropriateness of our

western DPS boundary and ourconclusion that intervening unsuitablehabitat makes it unlikely that wolveshave or will disperse between the NorthCascades and the NRM population.However, if additional wolves disperseinto the North Cascades, they willremain protected by the Act asendangered because it is outside of theNRM DPS.

We include all of Wyoming, Montana,and Idaho in the NRM DPS because (1)their State regulatory frameworks applyStatewide; and (2) expanding the DPSbeyond a 300 km (190 mi) band of likelydispersal distances to include extreme

eastern Montana and Wyoming addsonly areas unsuitable habitat for packpersistence and does not effect thedistinctness of the NRM DPS. DPSboundaries that include all of Wyoming,Montana, and Idaho are also consistentwith the 1994 designations of theCentral-Idaho and Yellowstone Non-essential Experimental Population areas(59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59FR 60266, November 22, 1994; 50 CFR17.84 (i) & (n)). Although including allof Wyoming in the NRM DPS results inincluding portions of the Sierra Madre,the Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges, we

do not consider these areas to besuitable wolf habitat for packpersistence because of their size, shape,and distance from a strong source ofdispersing wolves. Oakleafet al. (2006,pp. 558559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not toanalyze these areas of southeastWyoming because they are fairlyintensively used by livestock and aresurrounded with, and interspersed by,private land, making pack establishmentand persistence unlikely. While Carrollet al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32)optimistically predicted these areas



6/66


were suitable habitat, the modelpredicted that under current conditionsthese areas were largely sink habitat(i.e., a habitat in which the speciesmortality exceeds reproductive success)and that by 2025 (within the foreseeablefuture) they were likely to be ranked aslow occupancy because of humanpopulation growth and road

development.We chose not to extend the NRM DPS

boundary east beyond Montana andWyoming, because those adjacentportions of North Dakota, South Dakota,and Nebraska are far outside thepredicted routine dispersal range ofNRM wolves. Given the availableinformation on potentially suitablehabitat, expansion of the DPS to includeColorado or larger portions of Utah tothe south and west would haveincluded large areas of potentiallysuitable but unoccupied habitat in thoseStates (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541). Given

the current distribution of the NRM wolfpopulation to suitable habitat, weconcluded that a smaller DPScontaining occupied suitable habitat,the adjacent areas of largely unsuitablehabitat where routine wolf dispersalcould be expected, and that was distinctfrom other large contiguous blocks ofpotentially suitable habitat to the westand south was more biologicallyappropriate. This DPS is also reflectiveof areas of recovery focus over the last30 years (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974;Service 1980; Service 1987; Service1994; 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 theRecognition of Distinct VertebratePopulation Segments, a populationsegment of a vertebrate taxon may beconsidered discrete if it satisfies eitherone of the following conditions(1) ismarkedly separated from otherpopulations of the same taxon as aconsequence of physical, physiological,ecological, or behavioral factors(quantitative measures of genetic ormorphological discontinuity may

provide evidence of this separation); or(2) is delimited by internationalgovernmental boundaries within whichdifferences in control of exploitation,management of habitat, conservationstatus, or regulatory mechanisms existthat are significant in light of section4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

Markedly Separated from OtherPopulations of the TaxonThe easternedge of the NRM DPS (Figure 1) is about644 km (400 mi) from the western edgeof the area currently occupied by theWGL wolf population (eastern

Minnesota) and is separated from it byhundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat(see Factor A). The southern edge of theNRM DPS boundary is about 724 km(450 mi) from the nonessentialexperimental populations of wolves inthe southwestern U.S. with vastamounts of unoccupied marginal orunsuitable habitat separating them.

While one dispersing wolf wasconfirmed east and two south of theDPS boundary, no wolf packs have everbeen found there. No wolves from otherU.S. wolf populations are known tohave dispersed as far as the NRM DPS.

Until recently, no wild wolves hadbeen confirmed west of the DPSboundary (although we occasionally gotunconfirmed reports and 2 wolves werekilled close to that boundary). Then, inJuly 2008, a wolf pack (2 adults and 6pups) was discovered near Twisp,Washington (just east of the NorthCascades and west of the DPS

boundaries). These wolves did notoriginate from the NRM DPS; insteadthey likely originated from southcentralBritish Columbia (Allen 2008). Thepacks territory is outside the NRM DPSand remains discrete from the NRM graywolf population. The pack is beingmonitored via radio telemetry byWashington Department of Fish andWildlife. Should this pack persist andother wolves follow, they would remainseparated from the NRM DPS byunsuitable wolf habitat.

Although wolves can disperse over1,092 km (680 mi) (with actual traveldistances exceeding 10,000 km (6,000

mi)) (Fritts 1983, pp. 166167; MissouriDepartment of Conservation 2001, pp.12; Ream et al. 1991, pp. 351352;Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boydet al. 2007; Wabakken et al. 2007, p.1631), the average dispersal of NRMwolves is about 97 km (60 mi) (Boydand Pletscher 1999, p. 1100; Boyd et al.2007; Jimenez 2008d; Thiessen 2007, p.72). Only 11 of over 200 confirmedNRM wolf dispersal events from 1992through 2005 have been over 300 km(190 mi) and outside the corepopulation (Boyd and Pletscher. 1999,p. 1094; Boyd et al. 2007). Undoubtedly

many other dispersal events haveoccurred but not been detected becauseonly 30 percent of the NRM wolfpopulation has been radio-collared. Allbut three of these known U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within theproposed DPS. None of them foundmates or survived long enough to formpacks or breed in the U.S. (Boyd et al.2007; Jimenez 2008d).

The first wolf confirmed to havedispersed (within the U.S.) beyond theboundary of the NRM DPS was killed bya 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 canidwas taken near Walden in northernColorado, suggesting another dispersingwolf had traveled into Colorado. Thesubsequent status or location of thatanimal is unknown. On March 7, 2009,a dispersing wolf from the Yellowstone

area was located by GPS radio-telemetrynear Vail, Colorado. Finally, in spring2006, the carcass of a male black wolfwas found along Interstate 90 in westernSouth Dakota. Genetic testing confirmedit was a wolf that had dispersed fromthe Yellowstone area.

No other unusual wolf dispersalevents were documented in the NRMDPS in 2008. A radio-collared wolf fromcentral Idaho continues to live in theGYA. It formed a new pack and bred in2009. A report of a pack of wolves innortheastern Utah east of Flaming GorgeReservoir (outside the NRM DPS) was

investigated in spring 2008. Theexistence of this pack was notconfirmed. A report of a wolf pack withpups in northeastern Oregon (inside theNRM DPS) was investigated in August2008. The existence of this pack was notconfirmed. A photograph of a blackwolf-like canid taken in late 2008 in thecentral Cascade Range in Oregon(outside the NRM DPS) but its originand fate remain unknown.

We expect that occasional lonewolves will continue to dispersebetween and beyond the currentlyoccupied wolf habitat areas in Montana,Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as into

States adjacent to the NRM DPS.However, pack development andpersistence outside the NRM DPS isunlikely because wolves disperse asindividuals that typically have lowsurvival (Pletscher et al. 1997, p. 459)and suitable habitat is limited anddistant (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541) fromthe NRM wolf population.

No connectivity currently existsbetween the NRM wolf population andany other U.S. wolf packs orpopulations. While it is theoreticallypossible that a lone wolf might travelbetween the NRM wolf population and

other U.S. packs or populations, suchmovement has never been documentedand is likely to be rare because of boththe distance and the intervening areas ofunsuitable habitat.

Furthermore, the DPS policy does notrequire complete separation of one DPSfrom other U.S. packs or populations,but instead requires markedseparation. Thus, if occasionalindividual wolves or packs disperseamong populations, the NRM DPS couldstill display the required discreteness.Based on the information presented



7/66


above, we have determined that NRMgray wolves are markedly separatedfrom all other gray wolf populations inthe U.S.

Differences Among U.S. andCanadian Wolf PopulationsThe DPSpolicy allows us to use internationalborders to delineate the boundaries of aDPS if there are differences in control of

exploitation, conservation status, orregulatory mechanisms between thecountries. Significant differences existin management between U.S. andCanadian wolf populations. About52,000 to 60,000 wolves occur inCanada, where suitable habitat isabundant (Boitani 2003, p. 322).Because of this abundance, wolves inCanada are not protected by Federallaws and are only minimally protectedin most Canadian provinces (Pletscheret al. 1991, p. 546). In the U.S., unlikeCanada, Federal protection andintensive management has been

necessary to recover the wolf (Carbyn1983). If delisted, States in the NRMwould carefully monitor and manage toretain populations at or above therecovery goal (see Factor D). Therefore,we will continue to use the U.S.-Canadaborder to mark the northern boundary ofthe DPS due to the difference in controlof exploitation, conservation status, andregulatory mechanisms between the twocountries.

Analysis for Significance

If we determine a population segmentis discrete, we next consider availablescientific evidence of its significance to

the taxon to which it belongs. Our DPSpolicy states that this consideration mayinclude, but is not limited to, thefollowing factors: (1) Persistence of thediscrete population segment in anecological setting unusual or unique forthe taxon; (2) evidence that loss of thediscrete population segment wouldresult in a significant gap in the rangeof the taxon; (3) evidence that thediscrete population segment representsthe only surviving natural occurrence ofa taxon that may be more abundantelsewhere as an introduced populationoutside its historic range; and/or (4)

evidence that the discrete populationsegment differs markedly from otherpopulations of the species in its geneticcharacteristics. Below we addressfactors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do notapply to the NRM DPS and thus are notincluded in our analysis forsignificance.

Unusual or Unique EcologicalSettingWithin the range of holarcticspecies, the NRM has amongst thehighest diversity of large predators andnative ungulate prey species, resultingin complex ecological interaction

between the ungulate prey, predator andscavenger groups, and vegetation (Smithet al. 2003, p. 331). In the NRM DPS,gray wolves share habitats with blackbears (Ursus americanus), grizzly bears(U. arctos horribilis), cougars (Felisconcolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis),wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes (Canislatrans), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), badgers

(Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus),fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten(Martes americana). The unique anddiverse assemblage of native preyinclude elk (Cervus canadensis), muledeer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),moose (Alces alces), woodland caribou(Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep (Oviscanadensis), mountain goats (Oreamnosamericanus), pronghorn antelope(Antilocapra americana), bison (Bisonbison) (only in the GYA), and beaver(Castor canadensis). This complexityleads to dramatic and unique ecological

cascades in pristine areas, such as inYNP. While these effects likely stilloccur at varying degrees elsewhere theyare increasingly modified and subtle themore an area is affected by humans(Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334338; Robbins2004, pp. 8081; Campbell et al. 2006,pp. 747753; Hebblewhite et al. 2005, p.2135; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245). Forexample, wolves appear to be changingelk behavior and elk relationships andcompetition with other native ungulatesin YNP. These complex interactionsmay increase streamside willowproduction and survival (Ripple and

Beschta 2004, p. 755), that in turn canaffect beaver and nesting by riparianbirds (Nievelt 2001, p. 1). Thissuspected pattern of wolf-causedchanges also may be occurring withscavengers, whereby wolf predation isproviding a year-round source of foodfor a diverse variety of carrion feeders(Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996; Wilmersand Getz 2005, p. 571). The wolfpopulation in the NRM has extendedthe southern range of the contiguousgray wolf population in western NorthAmerica nearly 400 miles (640 km) intoa much more diverse, ecologicallycomplex, and unique assemblage ofspecies than is found elsewhere withinoccupied wolf habitat in most of thenorthern hemisphere.

Significant Gap in the Range of theTaxonWolves once lived throughoutmost of North America. Wolves havebeen extirpated from most of thesouthern portions of their historic NorthAmerican range. The loss of the NRMwolf population would represent asignificant gap in the species holarcticrange in that this loss would create a 15-degree latitudinal or over 1,600 km

(1,000 mi) gap across the RockyMountains between the Mexican wolfand wolves in Canada. If this potentialgap were realized, substantial cascadingecological impacts would occur in theNRM, most noticeably in the mostpristine and wildest areas (Smith et al.2003, pp. 334338; Robbins 2004, pp.8081; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747

753; Hebblewhite and Smith in press,pp. 16).

Given the wolfs historic occupancy ofthe conterminous U.S. and the portionof the historic range the conterminousU.S. represents, recovery in portions ofthe lower 48 States has long beenviewed as important to the taxon (39 FR1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607,March 9, 1978). The NRM DPS issignificant in achieving this objective, asit is 1 of only 3 populations of wolvesin the lower 48 States and currentlyconstitutes nearly 25 percent of allwolves in the lower 48 States.

We conclude, based on our analysis ofthe best available scientific information,that the NRM DPS is significant to thetaxon in that NRM wolves exist in aunique ecological setting and their losswould represent a significant gap in therange of the taxon. Therefore, the NRMDPS meets the criterion of significanceunder our DPS policy. Because the NRMgray wolf population is both discreteand significant, it is a valid DPS.

Agencys Past Practice and History ofUsing DPSs

Of the over 370 native vertebratespecies listed under the Act, 77 are

listed as less than an entire taxonomicspecies or subspecies (henceforthreferred to as populations) under one ofseveral authorities including the DPSlanguage in the definition of species.Of these 77 listed populations 32predate the 1996 DPS policy (61 FR4722); therefore, the final listingdeterminations for these populationsdid not include formal DPS analyses perthe 1996 DPS policy. Specifically, the77 populations encompass 51 differentspecies or subspecies. During thehistory of the Act, the Service andNMFS have taken actions with respect

to populations in 98 listing,reclassification, and delisting actions.The majority of those actions identifieda classification other than ataxonomically recognized species orsubspecies at the time of listing. Inseveral instances, however, the agencieshave identified a DPS and, asappropriate, revised the list ofThreatened and Endangered Wildlife ina single action. For example, we (1)established a DPS of the grizzly bear(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the GreaterYellowstone Area and surrounding area,



8/66


within the existing listing of the grizzlybear in the lower 48 States, andremoved this DPS from the List ofThreatened and Endangered Wildlife(March 29, 2007; 72 FR 14865); (2)established two DPSs of the Columbianwhite-tailed deer (Odocoileusvirginianus leucurus): The DouglasCounty DPS and the Columbia River

DPS; and removed the Douglas CountyDPS from the List of Threatened andEndangered Wildlife (July 24, 2003; 68FR 43647); (3) removed the brownpelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) in theSoutheastern United States from the Listof Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand continued to identify the brownpelican as endangered throughout theremainder of its range (February 4, 1985;50 FR 4938); (4) identified the Americancrocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Floridaas a DPS within the existing endangeredlisting of the American crocodile in theUnited States and reclassified the

Florida DPS from endangered tothreatened (March 20, 2007; 71 FR13027); and (5) amended the List ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants by revising the entry for thegray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) toremove the eastern North Pacificpopulation from the List while retainingthe western North Pacific population asendangered (June 16, 1994; 59 FR31094)). We also proposed in 2000 toidentify four DPSs within the existinglisting of the gray wolf in the lower 48States and to reclassify three of the DPSsfrom endangered to threatened (July 13,2000; 65 FR 43450). As described above

under Previous Federal Action, thefinal rule we issued in 2003 identifiedthree gray wolf DPSs and reclassifiedtwo of the DPSs from endangered tothreatened (April 1, 2003; 68 FR 15804).Although courts subsequentlyinvalidated these DPSs, they did notquestion the Services authority toidentify and reclassify DPSs within alarger pre-existing listing. Identifyingand delisting the Western Great LakesDPS of gray wolves is consistent withthe Services past practice and does notrepresent a change in agency position.

Recovery

Recovery Planning and the Selectionof Recovery CriteriaShortly afterlisting we formed the interagency wolfrecovery team to complete a recoveryplan for the NRM population (Service1980, p. i; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 111). TheNRM Wolf Recovery Plan (recoveryplan) was approved in 1980 (Service1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service1987, p. i). Recovery plans are notregulatory documents and are insteadintended to provide guidance to theService, States, and other partners on

methods of minimizing threats to listedspecies and on criteria that may be usedto determine when recovery is achieved.There are many paths to accomplishingrecovery of a species and recovery maybe achieved without all criteria beingfully met. For example, one or morecriteria may have been exceeded whileother criteria may not have been

accomplished. In that instance, theService may judge that the threats havebeen minimized sufficiently, and thespecies is robust enough to reclassifyfrom endangered to threatened or todelist. In other cases, recoveryopportunities may have been recognizedthat were not known at the time therecovery plan was finalized. Theseopportunities may be used instead ofmethods identified in the recovery plan.Likewise, information on the speciesmay be learned that was not known atthe time the recovery plan wasfinalized. The new information may

change the extent that criteria need to bemet for recognizing recovery of thespecies. Recovery of a species is adynamic process requiring adaptivemanagement that may, or may not, fullyfollow the guidance provided in arecovery plan.

The 1980 recovery plans objectivewas to re-establish and maintain viablepopulations of the NRM wolf (C. l.irremotus) in its former range wherefeasible (Service 1980, p. iii) but therewere no recovery goals. The 1980 plancovered an area similar to the NRMDPS, as it was once believed to be the

range of the NRM wolf subspecies. Itrecommended that recovery actions befocused on the large areas of public landin northwestern Montana, central Idaho,and the GYA. The revised recovery plan(Service 1987, p. 57) concluded that thesubspecies designations may no longerbe valid and simply referred to graywolves in the NRMs. Consistent withthe 1980 plan it also recommendedfocusing recovery actions on the largeblocks on public land in the NRM. The1987 plan specified a recovery criterionof a minimum of 10 breeding pairs ofwolves (defined as 2 wolves of opposite

sex and adequate age, capable ofproducing offspring) for a minimum of3 successive years in each of 3 distinctrecovery areas including: (1)Northwestern Montana (GlacierNational Park; the Great Bear, BobMarshall, and Lincoln ScapegoatWilderness Areas; and adjacent publicand private lands); (2) central Idaho(Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, FrankChurch River of No Return, andSawtooth Wilderness Areas; andadjacent, mostly Federal, lands); and (3)the YNP area (including the Absaroka-

Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie,and Teton Wilderness Areas; andadjacent public and private lands). Thatplan recommended that wolfestablishment not be promoted outsidethese distinct recovery areas, but thatconnectivity between them be somehowencouraged. However, no attempts weremade to prevent wolf pack

establishment outside of the recoveryareas unless chronic conflict requiredresolution (Service 1994, p. 115, 16;Service 1999, p. 2).

The 1994 EIS on wolf reintroductionreviewed wolf recovery in the NRM andthe adequacy of the recovery goalsbecause we were concerned that the1987 goals might be insufficient (Service1994, pp. 6:6878). We wereparticularly concerned about the 1987definition of a breeding pair, since anymale and female wolf are capable ofproducing offspring and lone wolvesmay not have territories. We also

believed the relatively small hardrecovery areas greatly reduced theamount of area that could be used bywolves and would almost certainlyeliminate the opportunity formeaningful natural demographic andgenetic connectivity. The Serviceconducted a thorough literature reviewof wolf population viability analysis andminimum viable populations, reviewedthe recovery goals for other wolfpopulations, surveyed the opinions ofthe top 43 wolf experts in NorthAmerica, of which 25 responded, andincorporated our own expertise into a

review of the NRM wolf recovery goal.We published our analysis in theServices EIS and in a peer-reviewedpaper (Service 1994, Appendix 8 & 9;Fritts and Carbyn 1995, pp. 2638). Ouranalysis concluded that the 1987recovery goal was, at best, a minimumrecovery goal, and that modificationswere warranted on the basis of morerecent information about wolfdistribution, connectivity, and numbers.We also concluded Data on survival ofactual wolf populations suggest greaterresiliency than indicated by theory andtheoretical treatments of population

viability have created unnecessarydilemmas for wolf recovery programs byoverstating the required populationsize (Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26).Based on our analysis, we redefined abreeding pair as an adult male and anadult female wolf that have produced atleast 2 pups that survived untilDecember 31 of the year of their birth,during the previous breeding season.We also concluded that Thirty or morebreeding pair comprising some 300+wolves in a metapopulation (apopulation that exists as partially



9/66


isolated sets of subpopulations) withgenetic exchange betweensubpopulations should have a highprobability of long-term persistencebecause it would contain enoughindividuals in successfully reproducingpacks that were distributed over distinctbut somewhat connected large areas, tobe viable for the long-term (Service1994, p. 6:75). We explicitly stated therequired genetic exchange could occurby natural means or by human-assistedmigration management and thatdispersal of wolves between recoveryareas was evidence of that geneticexchange (Service et al. 1994, Appendix8, 9). In defining a Recovered WolfPopulation we found in the northernRockies a recovered wolf population is10 breeding pairs of wolves in each of3 areas for 3 successive years with somelevel of movement between areas(Service 1994, p. 67). We furtherdetermined that a metapopulation ofthis size and distribution among thethree areas of core suitable habitat in theNRM DPS would result in a wolfpopulation that would fully achieve ourrecovery objectives.

Since 1994, we have believedmovement of individuals between themetapopulation segements could occureither naturally or by human-assistedmigration management (Service 1994, p.767). Specifically, we stated Theimportance of movement of individualsbetween sub-populations cannot beoveremphasized. The dispersal ability of

wolves makes such movement likely,unless wolves were heavily exploitedbetween recovery areas, as couldhappen in the more developed corridorbetween central Idaho and YNP.Intensive migration management mightbecome necessary if 1 of the 3 sub-populations should develop genetic ordemographic problems. (We saw) noreason why migration managementshould be viewed negatively. It will bea necessity in other wolf recoveryprograms. Some, however, may viewsuch management intervention asunnatural (Service 1994, p. 767).Furthermore, we found that the 1987wolf recovery plans population goal of10 breeding pairs of wolves in 3separate recovery areas for 3consecutive years (was) reasonablysound and would maintain a viable wolfpopulation into the foreseeable future.The goal is somewhat conservative,however, and should be consideredminimal. The addition of a few extrapairs would add security to thepopulation and should be considered inthe post-EIS management planning.That could always be done as a periodic

infusion if deemed necessary (Service1994, p. 675).

We conducted another review of whatconstitutes a recovered wolf populationin late 2001 and early 2002 to reevaluateand update our 1994 analysis andconclusions (Service 1994, Appendix 9).We attempted to survey the same 43experts we had contacted in 1994 aswell as 43 other biologists from NorthAmerica and Europe who wererecognized experts about wolves and/orconservation biology. In total 53 peopleprovided their expert opinion regardinga wide range of issues related to theNRM recovery goal. We also reviewed awide range of literature, including wolfpopulation viability analysis from otherareas (Bangs 2002, pp. 19). Despitevaried professional opinions and a greatdiversity of suggestions, expertsoverwhelmingly thought the recoverygoal derived in our 1994 analysis wasmore biologically appropriate than the

1987 recovery plans criteria forrecovery and represented a viable andrecovered wolf population. Reviewersalso thought genetic exchange, eithernatural or human-facilitated, wasimportant to maintaining themetapopulation configuration and wolfpopulation viability. Reviewers alsothought the proven ability of a breedingpair to show successful reproductionwas a necessary component of abiologically meaningful breeding pairdefinition. Reviewers recommendedother concepts/numbers for recoverygoals, but most were slight

modifications to those we recommendedin our 1994 analysis. While expertsstrongly (78 percent) supported that our1994 conclusions represented a viablewolf population, they also tended tobelieve that wolf population viabilitywas enhanced by higher rather thanlower population levels and longer thanshorter demonstrated time frames. Fivehundred wolves and five years werecommon minority recommendations. Aslight majority indicated that even the1987 recovery goal of only 10 breedingpairs (defined as a male and femalecapable of breeding) in each of three

distinct recovery areas may be viable,given the persistent of other small wolfpopulations in other parts of the world.The results of previous populationviability analysis for other wolfpopulations varied widely, and as wehad concluded in our 1994 analysis,reviewers in 2002 concluded theoreticalresults were strongly dependent on thevariables and assumptions used in suchmodels and conclusions often predicteddifferent outcomes than actual empiricaldata had conclusively demonstrated.Based on that review, we reaffirmed our

more relevant and stringent 1994definition of wolf breeding pairs,population viability, and recovery(Service 1994, p. 6:75; Bangs 2002, p.19).

The 2002 reevaluation of the 1994wolf recovery goal by a broaderspectrum of experts in wolfconservation also repeatedly recognizedconnectivity among the core recoveryareas as critical, but this connectivitycould be achieved through naturallydispersing wolves and/or by human-assisted migration management.Specifically, we stated Connectivitywas the single issue brought up mostoften by reviewers. Many commentedthat wolves are unusually gooddispersers and movement between corerecovery areas was probably not going tobe a significant wolf conservation issuein the NRM. Several believed thatwolves would soon colonizeneighboring states. Nearly everyone

commented that the interchange ofindividuals between the sections of themetapopulation and more importantlymaintenance of connection to theCanadian population. Several commentsemphasized the importance ofmaintaining some minimum number ofwolves in northwestern Montana tomaintain the connection to theCanadian population. Other reviewersnoted that such connectivity could beeasily maintained by managementactions (such as translocation) ratherthan natural dispersal. Movement intothe GYA was mentioned as a specific

concern by some because that was theonly recovery area where wolfmovement from other recovery areasappeared it could be a concern, and itwas the southern-most tip of a muchlarger connected North American wolfpopulation. A majority believed theServices proposal defined a viable wolfpopulation but others believed it neededto be improved by providing ameasurable definition of connectivity.Others believed that documentingsuccessful reproduction was animportant measure of populationviability and liked the concept used in

the 1994 EIS definition. The importanceof future wolf management (state ortribal management), primarily inmaintaining human-caused mortalitybelow a level that would causeextirpation and management that wouldfoster some connectivity (either naturalor man-induced) were the most criticalcomponents of determining long-termpopulation viability * * * The true testof wolf population viability will bedetermined by subsequent managementpractices. Past management practicessuch as (1) reintroduction of wolves



10/66


from two Canadian sources (Alberta andBritish Columbia) and from numerouspacks in each area, (2) subsequentmanagement relocations between allthree recovery areas, (3) the naturaldispersal capabilities of wolves andproximity of core recovery areas to oneanother, (4) documented routineinterchange with Canadian wolf

populations and between Idaho andnorthwestern Montana, (5) a youngpopulation age structure with successfulpup production and survival, and (6)the establishment of wolf populations inand around core refugia (central IdahoWilderness, YNP, Glacier National Parkand associated public lands to theseareas) have produced a robust andviable wolf population that currentlyhas very high genetic and demographicdiversity that occupies core refugia inthe highest quality wolf habitat in theNRM of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.Maintenance of those conditions in the

wolf population will depend solely onlong-term future management to (1)regulate human-caused mortality and (2)maintain genetic connectivity amongpopulation segments, including Canada,either through deliberate relocation ofwolves and/or encouraging sufficientnatural dispersal (Bangs 2002, pp. 34,89).

Development of the Services recoverygoal clearly recognized that the key towolf recovery was establishing a viabledemographically and genetically diversewolf population in the core recoveryareas of the NRM. We would ensure itsfuture connectivity by promoting

natural dispersal and geneticconnectivity between the core recoverysegments and/or by human-assistmigration management in the unlikelyevent it was ever required (Fritts andCarbyn 1995; Groen et al. 2008).

We measure the wolf recovery goal bythe number of breeding pairs as well asby the number of wolves because wolfpopulations are maintained by packsthat successfully raise pups. We usebreeding pairs (packs that have at leastan adult male and an adult female andthat raised at least 2 pups untilDecember 31) to describe successfully

reproducing packs (Service 1994, p.6:67; Bangs 2002, pp. 78; Mitchell et al.2008). The breeding pair metricincludes most of the importantbiological concepts in wolfconservation. Specifically, we thought itwas important for breeding pairs tohave: Both male and female membertogether going into the Februarybreeding season; successful occupationof a distinct territory (generally 5001,300 km2 (200500 mi2) and almostalways in suitable habitat); enough pupsto replace two adults; off-spring that

become yearling dispersers; at least 4wolves following the point in the yearwith the highest mortality rates(summer and fall); all social structuresand age classes represented within awolf population; and adults that canraise and mentor younger wolves.

Often we do not know if a specificpack actually contains an adult male,

adult female, and two pups in winter;however, group size has proven to havea strong correlation with breeding pairstatus (Mitchell et al. 2008). Researchindicates a pack size of around 9equates to one breeding pair (large packshave complex age classespups,yearlings and older adults). In thefuture, the States may be able to usepack size in winter as a surrogate tohelp reliably identify each packscontribution toward meeting ourbreeding pair recovery criteria and tobetter predict the effect of managing forcertain pack sizes on wolf population

recovery.We also have determined that anessential part of achieving recovery is anequitable distribution of wolf breedingpairs and individual wolves among thethree States and the three recoveryzones. Like peer reviewers in 1994 and2002, we concluded that NRM wolfrecovery and long-term wolf populationviability is dependent on its distributionas well as maintaining the minimumnumbers of breeding pairs and wolves.While uniform distribution is notnecessary, a well-distributed populationwith no one State/recovery areamaintaining a disproportionately low

number of packs or number ofindividual wolves is needed to maintainwolf distribution in and adjacent to corerecovery areas and other suitable habitatthroughout the NRM and to facilitatenatural connectivity.

Following the 2002 review of ourrecovery criteria, we began to use States,in addition to recovery areas, to measureprogress toward recovery goals (Serviceet al. 20032009, Table 4). BecauseMontana, Idaho, and Wyoming eachcontain the vast majority of one of theoriginal three core recovery areas, wedetermined the metapopulation

structure would be best conserved byequally dividing the overall recoverygoal between the three States. Thisapproach made each Statesresponsibility for wolf conservation fair,consistent, and clear. It avoided anypossible confusion that one State mightassume the responsibility formaintaining the required number ofwolves and wolf breeding pairs in ashared recovery area that was theresponsibility of the adjacent State.State regulatory authorities andtraditional management of resident

game populations occur on a State-by-State basis. Management by State wouldstill maintain a robust wolf populationin each core recovery area because theyeach contain manmade or naturalrefugia from human-caused mortality(e.g., National Parks, wilderness areas,and remote Federal lands) thatguarantee those areas remain the

stronghold for wolf breeding pairs andsource of dispersing wolves in eachState. Recovery targets by State promoteconnectivity and genetic exchangebetween the metapopulation segmentsby avoiding management that focusessolely on wolf breeding pairs inrelatively distinct core recovery areasand promote a minimum level ofpotential natural dispersal to and fromeach population segment. This approachalso will increase the numbers ofpotential wolf breeding pairs in theGYA because it is shared by all threeStates. A large and well-distributed

population within the GYA is especiallyimportant because it is the most isolatedrecovery segment within the NRM DPS(Oakleafet al. 2005, p. 554; vonHoldt etal. 2007, p. 19).

The numerical component of therecovery goal represents the minimumnumber of breeding pairs and individualwolves needed to achieve and maintainrecovery. To ensure that the NRM wolfpopulation always exceeds the recoverygoal of 30 breeding pairs and 300wolves, wolves in each State shall bemanaged for at least 15 breeding pairsand at least 150 wolves in mid-winter.This and other steps, including human-

assisted migration management ifrequired (discussed below), willmaintain the NRM DPSs currentmetapopulation structure. Furtherbuffering our minimum recovery goal isthe fact that Service data since 1986indicate that, within the NRM DPS, eachbreeding pair has corresponded to 14wolves in the overall NRM wolfpopulation in mid-winter (includingmany wolves that travel outside theserecognized breeding pairs) (Service etal. 2008, Table 4). Thus, managing for15 breeding pairs per State will result insubstantially more than 150 wolves in

each State (>600 in the NRM).Additionally, because the recovery goalcomponents are measured in mid-winterwhen the wolf population is near itsannual low point, the average annualwolf population will be much higherthan these minimal goals.

We further improved, providedadditional safety margins, and assuredthat the minimum recovery criteriawould always be exceeded in our 2009post-delisting monitoring plan. Threescenarios could lead us to initiate astatus review and analysis of threats to



11/66


determine if relisting is warrantedincluding: (1) If the wolf population forany one State falls below the minimumNRM wolf population recovery level of10 breeding pairs of wolves and 100wolves in either Montana, Idaho, andWyoming at the end of the year; (2) ifthe portion of the wolf population inMontana, Idaho, or Wyoming falls

below 15 breeding pairs or 150 wolvesat the end of the year in any one of thoseStates for 3 consecutive years; or (3) ifa change in State law or managementobjectives would significantly increasethe threat to the wolf population.Overall, we believe the NRM wolfpopulation will be managed for over1,000 wolves including over 300 wolvesand 30 breeding pairs in the GYA (in2008 there were 35 breeding pairs and449 wolves in the GYA). This farexceeds post-delisting managementtargets of at least 45 breeding pairs andmore than 450 wolves in the NRM. The

NRM wolf population: (1) Has at leastthis number of reproductivelysuccessful packs and this number ofindividual wolves each winter (near thelow point in the annual cycle of a wolfpopulation); (2) is equitably distributedwithin the 250,000 km2 (100,000 mi2)area containing 3 areas of large corerefugia (National Parks, wildernessareas, large blocks of remote securepublic land) and at least 170,228 km2(65,725 mi2) of suitable wolf habitat;and (3) is genetically diverse and hasdemonstrated successful geneticexchange through natural dispersal andhuman-assisted migration management

between all three core refugia. Ittherefore no longer needs theprotections of the Act and is a viableand fully recovered wolf population.

Our recovery and post-delistingmanagement goals were designed toprovide the NRM gray wolf populationwith sufficient representation,resilience, and redundancy for theirlong-term conservation. We haveexpended considerable effort todevelop, repeatedly reevaluate, andwhen necessary modify, the recoverygoals (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994,Appendix 8 and 9; Fritts and Carbyn

1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR10514, February 27, 2008; and this finalrule). After evaluating all availableinformation, we conclude the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable continues to support theability of these recovery goals to ensurethe population does not again become indanger of extinction.

Genetic Diversity Relative to ourRecovery CriteriaCurrently, geneticdiversity throughout the NRM is veryhigh (Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1084;Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 226; vonHoldt

et al. 2007, p. 19). Wolves innorthwestern Montana and both thereintroduced populations are asgenetically diverse as their sourcepopulations in Canada; thus, inadequategenetic diversity is not a wolfconservation issue in the NRM at thistime (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1089;vonHoldt et al. 2007, p. 19). Genetic

connectivity resulting from naturaldispersal alone, even in the GYA,appears adequate to prevent geneticdrift and inbreeding depression thatcould threaten the wolf population. Asa result, there is currently no need formanagement activities designed tofurther increase genetic diversityanywhere in the NRM DPS. However,should genetic problems evermaterialize, an outcome we view asextremely unlikely, the States willutilize agency assisted geneticmanagement to address the issue.Because genetic changes happen very

slowly, the States would have manyyears, perhaps decades, to design andimplement appropriate remedialactions. In short, the NRM wolfpopulation is not now and will not everbe threatened by genetic diversityissues. This issue is discussed further inour response to comments and in FactorE below.

Recovery and Genetics issues raisedby the July 18, 2008 federal courtinjunctionThe July 18, 2008, U.S.District Court for the District of Montanapreliminary injunction order heavilycited vonHoldt et al. (2007). This studyconcluded if the YNP wolf population

remains relatively constant at 170individuals (estimated to be YNPscarrying capacity), the population willdemonstrate substantial inbreedingeffects within 60 years, resulting in anincrease in juvenile mortality from anaverage of 23 to 40%, an effectequivalent to losing an additional pupin each litter. The court also citedprevious Service statements that call forgenetic exchange among recoveryareas. The court further stated thatdispersal of wolves between the GYAand the northwestern Montana andcentral Idaho core recovery areas was a

precondition to genetic exchange. Thepreliminary injunction order cited our1994 EIS (Service 1994) and vonHoldt etal. (2007) to support its conclusion thata metapopulation had not beendemonstrated in the NRM.

The vonHoldt et al. (2007) paper didan excellent job of analyzing theempirical data regarding the pedigreefor YNP wolves. That data proved thealmost complete natural selection foroutbreeding by wolves and the highgenetic diversity of wolves in YNP. Weappreciate their recognition of our

deliberate efforts to conserve geneticdiversity. Specifically vonHoldt et al.(2007) stated that Overall, our findingsdemonstrate the effectiveness of thereintroduction in preserving geneticdiversity over the first decade of wolfrecovery in Yellowstone (vonHoldt etal. 2007, p. 19). Furthermore, we agreethat any totally isolated wildlife

population that is never higher than 170individuals which randomly breeds willlose genetic diversity over time. It isalso true that high levels of inbreedingcan sometimes, but not always, result indemographic issues such as reducedsurvival or reduced fertility. Suchoutcomes sometimes, but not always,result in demographic problems thatthreaten population viability.

However, we question many of theassumptions that underpin thepredictive modeling portion ofvonHoldt et al. (2007) studysconclusions. First, while the study

found no evidence of genetic exchangeinto YNP (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2)), thePark is only a small portion of the GYA(63,700 km2 (24,600 mi2)). Furtherlimiting the studys ability to detectgenetic exchange among subpopulationsis the fact that most wolves that disperseto the GYA tend to avoid areas withexisting resident packs or areas withhigh wolf densities, such as YNP.Moreover, even among the YNP wolvesthe study was limited to a subsample ofPark wolves from 19952004 (i.e., theradio collared wolves). Thus, notsurprisingly, subsequent analysis ofadditional wolves across the GYA has

demonstrated gene flow among the GYAand the other recovery areas (vonHoldtet al. 2008; Wayne 2009, pers. comm.).

It is also important to consider thatour ability to detect genetic exchangewithin the NRM population is furtherlimited by the genetic similarity of theNRM subpopulations. Specifically,because both the central Idaho and GYAsubpopulations originate from acommon source, only first and possiblesecond generation offspring of adispersing wolf can be detected.Additional genetic analysis of wolvesfrom throughout the NRM population,

including a larger portion of the GYAthan just YNP, is ongoing.Second, the vonHoldt et al. (2007)

prediction of eventual inbreeding inYNP relies upon several unrealisticassumptions. One such assumptionlimited the wolf population analysis toYNPs (8,987 km2 (3,472 mi2)) carryingcapacity of 170 wolves, instead of themore than 300 wolves likely to bemanaged for in the entire GYA (63,700km2 (24,600 mi2)) by Montana, Idaho,and Wyoming. The vonHoldt et al.,(2007) predictive model also capped the



12/66


population at the YNP populationswinter low point, rather than at higherspringtime levels when pups are born.Springtime levels are sometimes doublethe winter low. Most importantly, thevonHoldt et al. (2007) assumed no geneflow into the area; an assumption nowproven incorrect. This issue is fullyexplained in Factor E below.

Conclusion of a reanalysis of the wolfrecovery goals for the NRM DPSIn itsJuly 18, 2008 preliminary injunctionorder, the District Court concluded thatthe Plaintiffs were likely to succeed ontheir claim that the NRM had notachieved its recovery goal becausegenetic exchange was promised by therecovery criteria but had not occurredbetween wolves in the GYA area and theother recovery areas. The court cited arecent genetic study of wolves in YNP(vonHoldt et al. 2007). The court alsosuggested that higher rates of mortalityassociated with State management

would further reduce the futureopportunity for genetic exchange andultimately threatened the wolfpopulation. As a result of the courtruling we have reevaluated our wolfrecovery goal for the NRM DPS anddetermined it is still scientifically valid,represents the minimum wolfpopulation that would not be threatenedor endangered in the foreseeable future,and all the biological conditionsassociated with the recovery goal havebeen completely achieved. Ourreasoning is detailed below and in ourdiscussion of Factor E.

The wolf recovery goal for the NRM

has been repeatedly reevaluated andimproved as new scientific informationwarranted. Modifications of the 1987recovery plan goals based on recentinformation, further analysis, and newscientific thinking were made in 1994(Service 1994), 1999 (Service 1999),2002 (Bangs 2002), 2008 (73 FR 10514,February 27, 2008), and in this rule. Asa result of the court ruling, we havecarefully reevaluated our recovery goalagain and reaffirmed that Thirty ormore breeding pairs comprising some300+ wolves in a metapopulation (apopulation that exists as partially

isolated sets of subpopulations) withgenetic exchange betweensubpopulations should have a highprobability of long-term persistencebecause it would contain enoughindividuals in successfully reproducingpacks that were distributed over distinctbut somewhat connected large areas ofsuitable habitat, to be viable for thelong-term (Service 1994, p. 6:75). Thevast majority of wolf experts throughoutthe world who were contacted believedthe NRM wolf recovery goal representedthe minimum criteria to describe a

viable and recovered wolf population(Service 1994, p. 675; Bangs 2002).

Genetic studies in the NRM arecontinuing. While that workdemonstrates that both human-assistedand natural genetic exchange hasoccurred in the GYA, the rate at whichthis exchange has naturally occurred inthe GYA is being determined. However,

vonHoldt et al. (2008) reported thatBased on migrant detection andassignment test our results suggest thatadequate genetic connectivity existsbetween central Idaho and northwesternMontana populations, there is limitedeffective dispersal between centralIdaho or northwestern Montana to GYA(although 15 unknown GYA individualsneed to be resolved) and there havebeen no migrants genetically detectedthat have (naturally) dispersed into theYNP portion of the GYA. They went onto state Since this analysis onlyincludes samples up to 2004, and due

to sample size limitations in some areas(GYA outside of YNP), adding moresamples and including samples up to2008 may alter interpretation.Specifically, genetic connectivity maybe higher between GYA and otherrecovery areas than currently believed.We concurred with that determination.Indeed subsequent analysis confirmedoffspring from some wolves thatnaturally dispersed into the GYA, aswell as the wolf pups that wererelocated into YNP in 1997, have beendetected as additional samples wereanalyzed (Wayne 2009, pers. comm.).We will continue to collect and analyze

genetic samples to monitor the genetichealth of the NRM wolf population(Groen et al. 2008).

Regardless of the outcome of thoseongoing genetic studies

(1) Ongoing or confirmed geneticexchange was never required by ourrecovery goal, although it has now beendocumented. The recovery goalassumed that the presence of dispersingwolves from other recovery areas alonewas enough evidence of the likelihoodof genetic exchange among recoveryareas (the reason wolves disperse is tofind mates and breeding opportunities).

Sixty-eight percent of relocated (human-assisted dispersal) wolves in the NRMbecame breeders (Bradley et al. 2005).The presence of individual naturaldispersing wolves in every recoverysegment, including the GYA, indicatesthat the NRM has a metapopulationstructure and that no segment iscompletely isolated from the others.

(2) Because GYA and central Idahowolves share a recent common genetichistory (siblings released in each area),it is very difficult to detect anythingbeyond first or second generation

offspring from long range dispersingwolves. Significant changes in genetichealth generally take place over manygenerations and decades not years.

(3) A metapopulation is one where nosegment is totally isolated from theothers. A metapopulation does notrequire a certain level of natural orhuman-assisted migration management

during a specified time period to meetthe definition of a metapopulation. Wehave proven human-assisted migrationmanagement is easy to do with wolves.However, at least for decades, thereshould be no genetic or demographicreasons to move more wolves or theirgenes between the subpopulations and/or Canada. However, it is also commonsense that a wolf population in threeequal subpopulations managed near theminimum levels of 500 wolves would befar more likely to require future human-assisted migration management than awolf population managed at over 1,000

wolves in mid-winter.(4) The assertion that successfulrecovery can only depend on solelynatural processes is not accurate. If thatwere the case management of any wolfpopulation, including the ongoing redwolf and Mexican wolf programs, aswell as in any other potential wolfrecovery programs in the U.S. (or inmany parts of the world) could neverlead to recovery. In addition, nearly allrecovery programs under the Act andthe subsequent management of thosepopulations after delisting will requirehuman intervention such as captivebreeding, relocations, population

augmentations, control of exotics orpredators, maintenance or preservationof important habitat through prescribedfire, control of fire, flooding, and etc. Inaddition, most routine State and federalmanagement programs for commonwildlife species still require continuedhuman management intervention by:Human control by agencies or by publichunts to raise management funding,limit property damage, and foster publictolerance; reintroductions,augmentation and captive breeding/rearing; habitat manipulation (fire andfirefighting, logging, crops, water

control structures, etc.); control ofexotics, invasive species, or pests; andmany other common wildlifemanagement tools.

(5) The Services recovery goal neverrequired that offspring from longdistance dispersing wolves and residentwolves be proven for the recovery goalto be met. Relocations or mere presenceof dispersing wolves was believed to beadequate proof of connectivity.Recovered Wolf PopulationIn thenorthern Rockies a recovered wolfpopulation is 10 breeding pairs of



13/66


wolves in each of 3 areas for 3successive years with some level of wolfmovement between areas (Service1994, pp. 67). However, regardless ofthe 1994 definition, natural dispersaland human-assisted migrationmanagement has resulted indocumented genetic exchange betweendispersing and resident wolves among

all three recovery areas, including theGYA.

(6) The level of natural dispersal thathas been documented to date makes ithighly unlikely that further human-assisted migration management wouldever be requiredeven in the GYA, byfar the most isolated recovery area in theNRM, especially if populations aremanaged at higher (>1,000 wolves)rather than lower (


14/66


As discussed previously, after the2002 peer review of the wolf recoveryefforts, we began using States, inaddition to recovery areas, to measureprogress toward recovery goals (Serviceet al. 20032009, Table 4). However,because the original recovery planincluded goals for core recovery areaswe have included the followingdiscussion on the history of the recoveryefforts and status of these core recoveryareas, including how the wolfpopulations distribution andmetapopulation structure is importantto maintaining its viability and how the

biological characteristics of each corerecovery area differ (Service et al. 2009,Table 4).

Recovery in the NorthwesternMontana Recovery AreaTheNorthwestern Montana Recovery Areas84,800 km2 (33,386 mi2) includesGlacier National Park; the Great Bear,Bob Marshall, and Lincoln ScapegoatWilderness Areas; and adjacent publicand private lands in northern Montanaand the northern Idaho panhandle.Wolves in this recovery area were listedand managed an endangered species.Wolves naturally recolonized this area

from Canada. Reproduction firstoccurred in northwestern Montana in1986 (Ream et al. 1989). The naturalability of wolves to find and quicklyrecolonize empty habitat (Mech andBoitani 2003, p. 1719), the interimcontrol plan (Service 1988, 1999), andthe interagency recovery programcombined to effectively promote anincrease in wolf numbers (Bangs 1991,p. 713). By 1996, the number of wolveshad grown to about 70 wolves in 7known breeding pairs. However, since1997, the estimated number of breeding

pairs and wolves has fluctuated, partlydue to actual population size and partlydue to monitoring effort. It varied from4 to 23 breeding pairs and from 49 to276 wolves (Service et al. 2009, Table4), but generally increased. By the endof 2008, we estimated 276 wolves in 18breeding pairs in the northwesternMontana recovery area (Service et al.2009, Table 4).

The Northwestern Montana RecoveryArea has sustained fewer wolves thanthe other recovery areas because there isless suitable habitat and it is morefragmented (Oakleafet al. 2005, p. 560;

Smith et al. 2008, p. 1). Some of thevariation in our wolf populationestimates for northwestern Montana isdue to the difficulty of counting wolvesin the areas thick forests. Wolves innorthwestern Montana also prey mainlyon white-tailed deer, resulting insmaller packs and territories, whichlowers the chances of a pack beingdetected (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878).Increased monitoring efforts innorthwestern Montana by MontanaFish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) since2005 were likely responsible for some ofthe higher population estimates. Wolfnumbers in 2003 and 2004 also likelyexceeded 10 breeding pairs and 100wolves, but were not documentedsimply due to less intensive monitoringthose years (Service et al. 2009, Table 4).By the end of 2009, this recovery areawill contain over 10 breeding pair and100 wolves for the fourth consecutiveyear (20052008), and probably hasdone so for the last seven years (20022008) (Service et al. 2009, Table 4).

Routine dispersal of wolves has beendocumented among northwesternMontana, central Idaho and adjacent

Canadian populations demonstratingthat northwestern Montanas wolves aredemographically and genetically linkedto both the wolf population in Canadaand in central Idaho (Pletscher et al.1991, pp. 5478; Boyd and Pletscher1999, pp. 11051106; Sime 2007, p. 4;Jimenez et al. 2008d). Because of fairlycontiguous, but fractured suitablehabitat wolves dispersing intonorthwestern Montana from bothdirections will continue to join or formnew packs and supplement this segmentof the overall wolf population (Boyd etal. 2007; Forbes and Boyd 1996, p. 1082;

Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd etal. 1995, p. 140; vonHoldt et al. 2007,p. 19; vonHoldt et al. 2008; Thiessen2007, p. 50; Sime 2007, p. 4; Jimenez etal. 2008d).

Unlike YNP or the central IdahoWilderness complex, northwesternMontana lacks a large core refugium thatcontains large numbers of overwinteringwild ungulates and few livestock.Therefore, wolf numbers may not everbe as high in northwestern Montana asthey are in central Idaho or the GYA.However, that population segment haspersisted for nearly 20 years, is robusttoday, and habitat there is capable ofsupporting over 200 wolves (Service etal. 2008, Table 4). State management,pursuant to the Montana State wolfmanagement plan (2003), will ensurethis population segment continues tothrive (see Factor D).

Recovery in the Central IdahoRecovery AreaThe Central IdahoRecovery Areas 53,600 km2 (20,700mi2) includes the Selway Bitterroot,Gos

2009 wolf delisting rule

Documents