Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 26 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 26 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6106-6139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-487]

[[Page 6105]]

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

Part III

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Northern
Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment
and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6106]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU53

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the
Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct
Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From
the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to establish a distinct population
segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky
Mountains (NRM) of the United States. The proposed NRM DPS of the gray
wolf encompasses the eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, a
small part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming.
We are also proposing to remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act, because
threats will have been reduced or eliminated if Wyoming adopts a State
law and wolf management plan that we believe will adequately conserve
wolves. The States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws and
management plans that would conserve a recovered wolf population into
the foreseeable future. However, Wyoming State law and its wolf
management plan are not sufficient to conserve Wyoming's portion of a
recovered NRM wolf population at this time. Therefore, if Wyoming fails
to modify its management regime to adequately conserve wolves, we will
keep a significant portion of the range in the Wyoming portion of the
NRM DPS because there are not adequate regulatory mechanisms in that
area. In this situation, wolves in the significant portion of the range
in northwestern Wyoming, outside the National Parks, will retain their
nonessential experimental status under section 10(j) of the Act. We
will remove the remainder of the NRM DPS from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Species. Any gray wolves in the remainder of Wyoming
outside the National Parks and those portions of Washington, Oregon,
and Utah in the NRM DPS, are not essential to conserving the NRM wolf
population and these areas do not constitute a significant portion of
the range in the DPS. Therefore these areas will not remain listed. We
are also soliciting comments regarding our intention to use section 6
agreements to allow States outside the NRM DPS with Service-approved
wolf management plans to assume management of listed wolves, including
nonlethal and lethal control of problem wolves.

DATES: We request that comments on this proposal be submitted by the
close of business on April 9, 2007. We will hold six public hearings on
this proposed rule scheduled between February 27 and March 8, 2007. In
addition, we have scheduled six open houses that will precede the
public hearings at each location (see ADDRESSES section for locations).
Requests for additional public hearings must be received by us on or
before March 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit comments and
materials concerning this proposal, identified by ``RIN number 1018-
AU53,'' by any of the following methods:
1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal--http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. [email protected]. Include ``RIN number 1018-
AU53'' in the subject line of the message.
3. Fax--(406) 449-5339.
4. Mail--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery
Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601.
5. Hand Delivery/Courier--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western
Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of this proposed action, will be
available for inspection following the close of the comment period, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at our Helena office (see
ADDRESSES).

Public Hearings

Six open houses, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. (brief presentations about
the proposed rule will be given at both 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.) and six
public hearings, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., will be held on:
February 27, 2007, Tuesday at Holiday Inn Cheyenne, 204 West Fox
Farm Road, Cheyenne, WY.
February 28, 2007, Wednesday at Plaza Hotel, 122 West South Temple,
Salt Lake City, UT.
March 1, 2007, Thursday at Jorgenson's Inn & Suites, 1714 11th
Avenue, Helena, MT.
March 6, 2007, Tuesday at Boise Convention Center on the Grove, 850
Front Street, Boise, ID.
March 7, 2007, Wednesday at Pendleton Red Lion Inn, 304 S.E. Nye
Street, Pendleton, OR.
March 8, 2007, Thursday at Oxford Inns & Suites, 15015 East Indiana
Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA.
Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is
encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it
to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the
time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can only
sign up at the open houses and hearing. Oral and written statements
receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of
written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning
the public hearings, please contact Sharon Rose 303-236-4580. Persons
needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in
the public hearings in Boise, ID; Pendleton, OR; or Spokane, WA, should
contact Joan Jewett 503-231-6211 and for hearings in Cheyenne, WY; Salt
Lake City, UT; or Helena, MT, please contact Sharon Rose at 303/236-
4580 as soon as possible in order to allow sufficient time to process
requests. Please call no later than one week before the hearing date.
Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats
upon request.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg)
(40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and 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.

[[Page 6107]]

31-34; McIntyre 1995, pp. 1-461). 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 have a
social structure, normally living 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. 2006, Tables 1-3). Packs typically occupy large distinct
territories 518-1,295 square kilometers (km²) (200-500
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, intraspecies conflict, other forms of mortality, and
dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as lone animals as
they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in
unoccupied habitat. Dispersal distances in the NRM average about 97
kilometers (km) (60 miles (mi)), but dispersals over 805 km (500 mi)
have been documented (Boyd 2006; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1102).
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. 2006, 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.
1989-2006, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2006, 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). Breeding members also
can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack (Packard
2003, p. 38; Brainerd 2006). 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. 2006,
Table 4).
For detailed information on the biology of this species see the
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003,
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous
United States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Recovery

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 (Rocky Mountain 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.
Overall, recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive
management and judging the degree of recovery of a species is also an
adaptive management process.
The Rocky Mountain Plan (Service 1987, p. 57) specifies a recovery
criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined in 1987 as 2 wolves
of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for 3
consecutive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas--(1)
northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob
Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public
and private lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump,
Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and
adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), and (3) the YNP area (including the
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness
Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). The Rocky Mountain Plan
states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3
successive years, gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to
threatened status and if all 3 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding
pairs for 3 successive years, the NRM wolf population can be considered
fully recovered and can be considered for delisting. The Plan also
states that individual recovery areas meeting recovery objectives can
be reclassified to threatened status and consideration can be given to
reclassifying such a population to threatened under similarity of
appearance regulations after special regulations are established and a
State management plan is in place for that population (Service 1987,
pp. 19-20).
The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) reviewed wolf
recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals (Service
1994, pp. 6:68-78). The EIS indicated 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. This review concluded that, at a minimum,
the recovery goal should be, ``Thirty or more breeding pairs (i.e., 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) 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'' (Service 1994, pp.
6:75). We believe 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 is representative, resilient, and
redundant and would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf
population in late 2001 and early 2002 (Bangs 2002). Based on the
review, we adopted the 1994 EIS's more relevant and stringent
definition of wolf population viability and recovery (Service 1994, p.
6:75) and began using entire States, in addition to recovery areas, to
measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2002, Table 4).
We have determined that an essential part of achieving recovery is a
well-distributed number of wolf packs and individual wolves among the
three States and the three recovery zones. While uniform distribution
is not necessary, a well-distributed population with no one State
maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or number of
individual wolves is needed.
Fostering Recovery--In 1982, a wolf pack from Canada began to
occupy Glacier National Park along the United States-Canada border. In
1986, the first litter of pups documented in over 50 years was born in
the Park (Ream et al. 1989, pp. 39-40). Also in 1986, a pack denned
just east of the Park on the Blackfeet Reservation, but was not
detected until 1987, when they began to depredate livestock (Bangs et
al. 1995,

[[Page 6108]]

p. 131). The number of wolves resulting from this ``natural'' recovery
in northwestern Montana steadily increased for the next decade (Service
et al. 2006, Table 4).
In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada
to remote public lands in central Idaho and YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996,
pp. 785-786; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Bangs et al. 1998, pp. 407-9).
These wolves were classified as nonessential experimental populations
under section 10(j) of the Act to increase management flexibility and
address local and State concerns (59 FR 60252 and 60266, November 22,
1994). This reintroduction and accompanying management programs greatly
expanded the numbers and distribution of wolves in the NRM. Because of
the reintroduction, wolves soon became established throughout central
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) (Bangs et al. 1998, pp.
787-789; Service et al. 2006, Table 4).
Monitoring and Managing Recovery--By 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, p. 1). The Working Group, whose membership has
evolved as wolf range has expanded, conducted four basic recovery
tasks, 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;
(3) conduct research on wolf relationships to ungulate prey, other
carnivores and scavengers, livestock, and people; and (4) provide
accurate science-based information to the public through reports and
mass media so that people could develop their opinions about wolves and
wolf management from an informed perspective (Service et al. 1989-2006,
pp. 1-3).
The size and distribution of the wolf population is estimated by
the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is
published in interagency annual reports (Service et al. 1989-2006,
Table 4). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our cooperating
partners have radio-collared and monitored over 814 wolves in the NRM
to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve
conflicts 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--We measure wolf recovery by the number of
breeding pairs because wolf populations are maintained by packs that
successfully raise pups. We use ``breeding pairs'' to describe
successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002).
Breeding pairs are only measured in winter because most wolf mortality
occurs in spring/summer/fall (illegal killing, agency control, and
disease/parasites) and winter is the beginning of the annual courtship
and breeding season for wolves. Often we do not know if a specific pack
actually contains an adult male, adult female and two pups in winter,
but there is a strong correlation between wolf pack size then and its
probability of being classified as a breeding pair. The group size of
packs of unknown composition in winter can be used to estimate their
breeding pair status (Ausband 2006). Different habitat characteristics
result in slightly different probabilities of breeding pair status in
each State. However, regardless of which State, overall the probability
of a pack of wolves having a 90 percent chance of being a breeding pair
does not occur until there are at least nine wolves in a pack in winter
(Ausband 2006). In the past we had primarily used packs of known
composition in winter to estimate the number that meet our breeding
pair recovery criteria. However, now we can use the best information
currently available and use pack size in winter as a surrogate to
reliably identify their contribution toward meeting our breeding pair
recovery criteria and to better predict the effect of managing for
certain pack sizes on wolf population recovery.
At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met its numerical and
distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 ``breeding pairs'' (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) and over 300 wolves well-distributed among
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al.
2001, Table 4). This minimum recovery goal was again exceeded in 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (Service et al. 2002-2006, 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
(Service et al. 2003, Table 4). By the end of 2006, the NRM wolf
population had achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal
for 7 consecutive years (Service et al. 2001-2006, Table 4; 68 FR
15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006).
In 2000, 8 breeding pairs and approximately 97 wolves were known to
occur in Montana; 12 breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves were
known to occur in Wyoming; and 10 breeding pairs and 187 wolves were
known to occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2001, Table 4). In 2001, 7
breeding pairs and approximately 123 wolves were known to occur in
Montana; 13 breeding pairs and approximately 189 wolves were known to
occur in Wyoming; and 14 breeding pairs and 251 wolves were known to
occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2002, Table 4). In 2002, 17 breeding
pairs and approximately 183 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 18
breeding pairs and approximately 217 wolves were known to occur in
Wyoming; and 14 breeding pairs and 216 wolves were known to occur in
Idaho (Service et al. 2003, Table 4). In 2003, 10 breeding pairs and
approximately 182 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding
pairs and approximately 234 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and
25 breeding pairs and 345 wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service
et al. 2004, Table 4). In 2004, 15 breeding pairs and approximately 153
wolves were known to occur in Montana; 24 breeding pairs and
approximately 260 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 27
breeding pairs and 422 wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service et
al. 2005, Table 4). In 2005, 19 breeding pairs and approximately 256
wolves were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding pairs and
approximately 252 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 36
breeding pairs and 512 wolves were known to occur in Idaho, for a total
of 71 breeding pairs and 1,020 wolves (Service et al. 2006, Table 4).
In late 2006, preliminary estimates indicate there are 283 wolves in at
least 22 breeding pairs in Montana (C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.), at
least 650 wolves in about 42 breeding pairs in Idaho (S. Nadeau, IDFG,
pers. comm.), and 310 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in Wyoming (M.
Jimenez, Service, and D. Smith, NPS, pers. comm.) combining to at least
1,243 wolves in over 89 breeding pairs in the NRM wolf population. The
NRM wolf population increased an average of 26 percent annually from
1995-2005 (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). Figure 1 illustrates wolf
population trends by State from 1979 to 2005.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6109]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE07.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
The following section discusses recovery within each of the three
major recovery areas. Because the recovery areas cross State lines, the
population estimates may sum differently.
Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--The
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area (>49,728 km\2\ (>19,200 mi\2\))
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.
Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The
natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat,
the interim control plan, and the interagency recovery program combined
to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers. By 1996, the number
of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs.
However, since 1997, the number of breeding groups and number of wolves
has fluctuated widely, varying from 4-12 breeding pairs and from 49-130
wolves (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). Our 1998 estimate was a minimum
of 49 wolves in 5 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 1999, Table 4).
In 1999, and again in 2000, 6 known breeding pairs produced pups, and
the northwestern Montana population increased to about 63 wolves
(Service et al. 2000, 2001, Table 4). In 2001, we estimated that 84
wolves in 7 known breeding pairs occurred; in 2002, there were an
estimated 108 wolves in 12 known breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an
estimated 92 wolves in 4 known breeding pairs; in 2004, there were an
estimated 59 wolves in 6 known breeding pairs; and in 2005, there were
an estimated 130 wolves in 11 known breeding pairs (Service et al.
2002-2006, Table 4) (See Figure 1). In 2006, preliminary estimates
indicate there are about 149 wolves in at least 12 breeding pairs in
northwestern Montana (C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.) and for the first
time about 10 wolves in two packs (1 breeding pair) were documented in
the endangered area of the Idaho Panhandle (S. Nadeau, IDFG, pers.
comm.).
The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat.
Wolf packs in this area may be near their local social and biological
carrying capacity. Some of the variation in our wolf population
estimates for northwestern Montana is due to the difficulty of counting
wolves in the areas' thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana prey
mainly on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and pack size is
smaller, which also makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs et al.
1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) in 2005 were likely responsible
for some of the sharp increase in the estimated wolf population. MFWP
has led wolf management in this area since February 2004. It appears
that wolf numbers in northwestern Montana are likely to fluctuate
around 100 wolves. Since 2001, this area has maintained an average of
nearly 96 wolves and about 8 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 2006,
Table 4).
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). Wolf dispersal into northwestern Montana from both directions
will continue to supplement this segment of the overall wolf
population, both demographically and genetically (Boyd 2006; Forbes and
Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd et al. 1995, p.
140).
Wolf conflicts with livestock have fluctuated with wolf population
size and prey population density (Service et al. 2005, Table 5). For
example, in 1997, immediately following a severe winter that reduced
white-tailed deer populations in northwestern Montana, wolf conflicts
with livestock increased dramatically, and the wolf population

[[Page 6110]]

declined (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). Wolf numbers increased as wild
prey numbers rebounded. Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness,
northwestern Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large
numbers of overwintering wild ungulates. Therefore, wolf numbers are
not ever likely to be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in
central Idaho or the GYA. However, the population has persisted for
nearly 20 years and is robust today (Service et al. 2006, Table 4).
State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan,
will ensure this population continues to persist (see Factor D).
Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho
Recovery Area (53,600 km\2\ [20,700 mi\2\]) includes the Selway
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth
Wilderness Areas; adjacent to mostly Federal lands in central Idaho;
and adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In
January 1995, 15 young adult wolves were captured in Alberta, Canada,
and released by the Service 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. 2006, p. 559). In 1998, the central Idaho wolf population consisted
of a minimum of 114 wolves, including 10 known breeding pairs (Bangs et
al. 1998, p. 789). By 1999, it had grown to about 141 wolves in 10
known breeding pairs (Service et al. 2000, Table 4). By 2000, this
population had 192 wolves in 10 known breeding pairs, and by 2001, it
had climbed to about 261 wolves in 14 known breeding pairs (Service et
al. 2001, 2002, Table 4). In 2002, there were 284 wolves in 14 known
breeding pairs; in 2003, there were 368 wolves in 26 known breeding
pairs; in 2004, there were 452 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs and,
by the end of 2005, there were 512 wolves in 36 known breeding pairs
(Service et al. 2003-2006, Table 4). As in the Northwestern Montana
Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in
its estimated wolf population in 2005 was due to an increased
monitoring effort by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (See
Figure 1). In 2006, we estimated there were 713 wolves in at least 46
breeding pairs in central Idaho (S. Nadeau, IDFG, C. Sime, MFWP, pers.
comm.).
Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Area--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); and 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 rarely
used by wolves due to high elevation, deep snow, and low productivity
in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate populations (Service et
al. 2006, Figure 3). In 1995, 14 wolves from Alberta, representing 3
family groups, were released in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409;
Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). Two of
the three groups produced young in late April. In 1996, this procedure
was repeated with 17 wolves from British Columbia, representing 4
family groups. Two of the groups produced pups in late April. Finally,
10 5-month old pups removed from northwestern Montana were released in
YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787).
By 1998, the wolves had expanded from YNP into the GYA with a
population that consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 breeding pairs
that produced 10 litters of pups (Service et al. 1999, Table 4). The
1999 population consisted of 118 wolves, including 8 known breeding
pairs (Service et al. 2000, Table 4). In 2000, the GYA had 177 wolves,
including 14 known breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including
13 known breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. 2001, 2002, Table 4).
In 2002, there were an estimated 271 wolves in 23 known breeding pairs;
in 2003, there were an estimated 301 wolves in 21 known breeding pairs;
in 2004, there were an estimated 335 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs;
and in 2005, there were an estimated 325 wolves in 20 known breeding
pairs (Service et al. 2003-2006, Table 4) (See Figure 1). In 2006, we
estimated there were 371 wolves in at least 30 breeding pairs in the
GYA (D. Smith, NPS, M. Jimenez, Service, C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.).
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 somewhat in 2006, primarily because
wolves outside YNP in WY grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs
(M. Jimenez, pers. comm.). 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, Table 4)
and likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP is
saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appears to be
limiting population density; (3) there are fewer elk (Cervus
canadensis) than when reintroduction took place (White and Garrott
2006, p. 942; Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) a suspected, but
as yet unconfirmed, outbreak of disease, canine parvovirus (CPV) or
canine distemper, reduced pup survival to 20 percent in 2005 (Service
et al. 2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 2006, p. 244). Additional
significant growth in the National Park/Wilderness portions of the
Wyoming wolf population is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is
saturated with resident wolf packs. In 2006, we estimated there were
about 136 wolves in 10 breeding pairs in YNP (D. Smith, NPS, pers.
comm.). Maintaining wolf populations above recovery levels in the GYA
segment of the NRM area will likely depend on wolf packs living outside
the National Park/Wilderness portions of Wyoming.
For detailed information on the history of NRM wolf recovery,
recovery planning (including defining appropriate recovery criteria),
population monitoring (through the end of 2005), and cooperation and
coordination with our partners in achieving recovery, see the
``Recovery'' section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month finding on a
petition to establish and delist the NRM gray wolf population
(including population estimates through the end of 2005) (71 FR 43411-
43413).

Previous Federal Action

In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered
including the NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus); the eastern timber
wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the northern Great Lakes region; the Mexican
wolf (C. l. baileyi) in Mexico and the southwestern United States; and
the Texas gray wolf (C. l. monstrabilis) of Texas and Mexico (39 FR
1171, January 4, 1974). 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, critical habitat was designated in Minnesota and Isle Royale,
Michigan.
On November 22, 1994, we designated unoccupied portions of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas
for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the Act. The Yellowstone
Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho east of
Interstate 15; that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate 15
and south of the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the
eastern Montana border; and all of

[[Page 6111]]

Wyoming (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994). The Central Idaho
Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho that is
south of Interstate 90 and west of Interstate 15; and that portion of
Montana south of Interstate 90, west of Interstate 15 and south of
Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). This
designation assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects
in central Idaho and the GYA (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994). On
January 6, 2005, we revised the regulations under section 10(j) and
liberalized management options for problem wolves (70 FR 1286). We also
encouraged State and Tribal leadership in wolf management in the
nonessential experimental population areas (70 FR 1286, January 6,
2005) where States and Tribes had Service-approved wolf management
plans.
The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical and
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001,
Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved at the
end of 2002 (Service et al. 2001-2003, Table 4). Prior to delisting,
the Service required that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming develop wolf
management plans to provide assurances that adequate regulatory
mechanisms would exist should the Act's federal protections be removed.
The Service determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf
management plans were adequate to assure the Service that their share
of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels
and approved those two State plans. However, we determined that
problems with the 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). In response,
Wyoming litigated this issue (Wyoming U.S. District Court 04-CV-0123-J
and 04-CV-0253-J consolidated). The Wyoming Federal District Court
dismissed the case on procedural grounds (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214 March
18, 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision but the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals agreed with the District Court decision on April 3, 2006
(442 F. 3rd 1262).
On October 30, 2001, we received a petition from the Friends of the
Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc., that sought removal of the NRM
gray wolf from endangered status under the Act (Knuchel 2001). On July
19, 2005, we received a petition dated July 13, 2005, from the Office
of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish
Commission to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by
establishing the NRM DPS and to remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Freudenthal
2005). On October 26, 2005, we published a 90-day finding that
considered the collective weight of evidence and initiated a 12-month
status review (70 FR 61770, October 26, 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 Wyoming
State law and its 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, August 1, 2006).
On February 8, 2006, we published an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) announcing our intention to conduct a rulemaking to
establish a DPS of the gray wolf in the NRM and to remove this DPS from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Species, if Wyoming adopts a
State law and a State wolf management plan that is approved by the
Service (71 FR 6634).
For detailed information on previous Federal actions see the ANPR
(71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006) and the 2003 Reclassification Rule (68
FR 15804, April 1, 2003).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

Pursuant to the Act, we consider for listing any species,
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if there is
sufficient information to indicate that such an action may be
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) published, on December 21, 1994, a draft Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
under the Act and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884-65885).
After review of comments and further consideration, the Service and
NMFS adopted the interagency policy as issued in draft form, and
published it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722-
4725). This policy addresses the recognition of a DPS for potential
listing, reclassification, and delisting actions.

Discreteness and Significance of the Proposed DPS

Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision
regarding the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These
are applied similarly for additions to the list of endangered and
threatened species, reclassification of already listed species, and
removals from the list. The first two factors--discreteness of the
population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon; and the
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it
belongs--bear on whether the population segment is a valid DPS. If a
population meets both tests, it is a DPS and then the third factor is
applied--the population segment's conservation status is evaluated in
relation to the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or
reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or threatened).

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.

Defining the Boundaries of the Proposed NRM DPS

Our DPS policy allows for artificial or manmade boundary such as a
road or highway to be used as a boundary of convenience in order to
clearly identify the geographic area included within a DPS designation.
The boundaries of the proposed NRM DPS include 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 center of these roads will be
deemed the border of the DPS (see Figure 2).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE07.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
One factor we considered in defining the boundaries of the proposed
NRM DPS was the documented current distribution of all known wolf pack
locations in 2004 (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). We also viewed the
annual distribution of wolf packs back to 2002; i.e., the first year
the population exceeded the recovery goal through 2005 (Service et al.
2002-2006, Figure 1; Bangs et al. in press b). Our estimate of the
overall area occupied by wolf packs in the NRM would not have
substantially changed our conclusions had we included other years of
data, so we used the 2004 data that had already been analyzed in the
February 8, 2006 ANPR. All known wolf packs in recent history have only
been located in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Only occasional lone
dispersing wolves from the NRM population have been documented beyond
those three States, in eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northern
Utah, central Colorado, and South Dakota (Boyd 2006).
Dispersal distances played a key role in determining how far to
extend the DPS. We examined the known dispersal distance of over 200
marked dispersing wolves from the NRM, primarily using radio-telemetry
locations and recoveries of the carcasses of marked wolves from the
1980s until the present time (Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1097; Boyd

[[Page 6113]]

2006). These data indicate the average dispersal distance of wolves
from the NRM for the last 10 years was about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd 2006).
We determined that 180 mi (290 km), three times the average dispersal
distance, was a break-point in our data for unusually long-distance
dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories. Only 8 wolves (none
of which subsequently bred) have dispersed farther and remained in the
United States. No wolf traveling that far has ever come back to the
core population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only dispersal from the
NRM packs to areas within the United States was considered in these
calculations because we were trying to determine the appropriate DPS
boundaries within the United States. Dispersers to Canada were
irrelevant because the Canadian border is to form the northern edge of
the DPS. Thus, we plotted the average dispersal distance and three
times the average dispersal distance out from existing wolf pack
territories. The resulting map indicated a wide-band of likely wolf
dispersal that might be frequent enough to result in additional pack
establishment from the core wolf population given the availability 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, p. 13-16).
We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western
United States (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538, 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. 2006, 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 below under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The
models indicate a large block of suitable wolf habitat exists in
central Idaho and the GYA, and to a lesser 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. The
models indicate there is little suitable habitat within the portion of
the NRM DPS in Washington, Oregon, or Utah (see Factor A).
Unsuitable habitat also is 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.
2006, 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 chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local
cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf behavioral
characteristics that make them extremely 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
`barrier' or natural boundary separating the current 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 northwestern United States.
Within the NRM DPS, we included the eastern parts of Washington and
Oregon and a small portion of north central Utah, because--(1) these
areas are within a 97- to 290-km (60- to 180-mi) band from the core
wolf population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing wolves
have been found in these areas in recent times (Boyd 2006); (3) these
areas contain some suitable habitat (see Factor A for a more in-depth
discussion of suitable habitat); and (4) the potential for connectivity
exists between the relatively small and fragmented habitat patches in
these areas and the large blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS. If
wolf packs do establish in these areas, they 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 suitable habitat outside the NRM
DPS. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would isolate
these populations from other suitable habitat patches to the west or
south.
Although we have received reports of individual and wolf family
units in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp.
7-13), agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no
individual wolves or packs have ever been confirmed there (Boyd and
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd 2006). Intervening unsuitable habitat
makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM population have
dispersed to the North Cascades of Washington in recent history.
However, if the wolf were to be delisted in the NRM DPS, it would
remain protected by the Act as endangered outside the DPS.
We propose to include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM
DPS because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply State-wide; and
(2) expanding the proposed DPS beyond a 97- to 290-km (60- to 180-mi)
band of likely dispersal to include the entire State adds only
unsuitable habitat. 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. 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 unlikely. While Carroll et
al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas
were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current
conditions these areas were largely sink habitat 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 border beyond eastern Montana and
Wyoming, although those adjacent portions of North Dakota and South
Dakota only contain unsuitable habitat.
Given the available information on potentially suitable habitat,
expansion of the DPS to include Colorado or larger portions of Utah
would have required significant expansion of the DPS south and west.
Given current occupancy, and consideration of the significant portion
of the range language in the Act's definition of threatened and
endangered, we concluded that a smaller DPS centered around occupied
suitable habitat was more appropriate.
Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern
edge of the proposed NRM DPS (see Figure 2) is about 644 km (400 mi)
from the western edge of the area currently occupied by the Western
Great Lakes wolf population (eastern Minnesota) and is separated from
it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat (See discussion of
suitable habitat in Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS

[[Page 6114]]

border is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental
populations of wolves in the southwestern United States with vast
amounts of unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them.
Although individual wolves have occasionally been sighted west of the
DPS boundary (likely individuals dispersing from Idaho or Canada), no
wolf packs are known to occur west of the proposed DPS. No wolves from
other U.S. populations are known to have dispersed as far as the
borders of the NRM DPS.
Although dispersal distance data for North America (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 2006)
show that gray wolves can disperse over 805 km (500 mi) from existing
wolf populations, the average dispersal of NRM wolves is about 97 km
(60 mi). Only 8 of nearly 200 confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from
1994 through 2004 have been over 290 km (180 mi) (Boyd 2006). Six of
these eight confirmed United States long-distance dispersers remained
within the proposed DPS. None of those long-distance wolves found mates
nor survived long enough to breed in the United States (Boyd 2006).
Of the three wolves that dispersed into eastern Oregon, two died
and one was relocated by the Service back to central Idaho. Of the two
wolves that dispersed into eastern Washington, one died and the other
moved north into Canada. A wolf that dispersed to northern Utah was
incidentally captured by a coyote trapper and relocated back to Wyoming
by the Service in late 2002. Another wolf that dispersed into the same
area of northern Utah was incidentally killed in a coyote trap in 2006.
The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the United States)
beyond the border of the proposed 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 possible dispersing wolf had traveled into Colorado. The
subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. 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. We expect that
occasional lone dispersing wolves will continue to disperse beyond the
currently occupied wolf habitat area in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as
well as into States adjacent to the NRM DPS, but that pack development
and persistence outside the proposed NRM DPS is highly unlikely in the
foreseeable future.
No connectivity currently exists between the three United States
gray wolf populations, nor are there any resident wolf packs in
intervening areas. While it is theoretically possible that a lone wolf
might transverse over 644 km (400 mi) from one population to the other,
movement between these populations has never been documented and is
extremely unlikely because of both the distance and the large gaps in
suitable habitat between the populations. Furthermore, the DPS Policy
does not require complete separation of one DPS from other 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 above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly
separated from all other gray wolves in the United States.
Management Differences Among the United States 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.-Canadian wolf populations. Therefore, we will continue to use the
United States-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. About 52,000 to
60,000 wolves occur in Canada where suitable habitat is abundant
(Boitani 2003, p. 322). Because of this abundance, protection and
intensive management are not necessary to conserve the wolf in Canada.
This contrasts with the situation in the United States, where, to date,
intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf. Wolves in
Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally
protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546).
If delisted, States in the NRM would carefully monitor and manage to
retain populations at or above the recovery goal (see Factor D below).

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: (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 proposed
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic
wolves, the NRM has among the highest diversity of large predators
occupying the same areas as a large variety of native ungulate prey
species, resulting in complex ecological interaction between the
ungulate prey, predator, and scavenger groups (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), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis
rufus), fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The
unique and diverse assemblage of native prey include elk, mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer, 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 unique ecological cascades in
some areas, such as in YNP (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins
2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753). For example,
wolves appear to be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and
competition with other ungulates and other predators (e.g., cougars)
that did not occur when wolves were absent. These complex interactions
could be increasing streamside willow production and survival (Ripple
and Beschta 2004, p. 755), which in turn can affect beaver and nesting
by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001). This suspected pattern of wolf-

[[Page 6115]]

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). The wolf
population in the NRM has significantly extended the range of the gray
wolf in the continental United States into a much more diverse,
ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of species than is found
elsewhere within historical wolf habitat in the northern hemisphere,
including Europe and Asia.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Loss of the NRM wolf
population would represent a significant gap in the holarctic range of
the taxon. Wolves once lived throughout most of North America. Wolves
have been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their 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 that area (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338;
Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753).
Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous States and
the portion of the historic range the conterminous States represent,
recovery in 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
proposed NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1
of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and constitutes
nearly 20 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.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR Part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. The Act defines
``species'' to also include any subspecies or, for vertebrates, any
DPS. Because the NRM gray wolf population is discrete and significant,
as defined above, it warrants recognition as a DPS under the Act and
our policy (61 FR 4722). Species may be listed as threatened or
endangered if one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act threaten the continued existence of the species. A
species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best
scientific and commercial data available substantiate that the species
is neither endangered nor threatened because of (1) extinction, (2)
recovery, or (3) error in the original data used for classification of
the species.
A recovered population is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of threatened or endangered. Determining whether a species
is recovered requires consideration of the same five categories of
threats specified in section 4(a)(1). 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.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, we consider ``foreseeable
future'' to be 30 years. We use 30 years because it is a reasonable
timeframe for analysis of future potential threats as they relate to
wolf biology. The average gray wolf breeds at 30 months of age and
replaces itself in 3 years (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 175; Smith et al.
2006, pp. 244-245). We used 10 wolf generations (30 years) to represent
a reasonable biological timeframe to determine if impacts could be
significant. To the extent practical, we assessed all potential threats
to the wolf population based upon that 30-year foreseeable timeframe.
A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act 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 following describes how we interpret the terms
``range'' and ``significant'' as used in the phrase ``significant
portion of its range,'' and explains the bases for our use of those
terms in this rule.

``Range''

The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' refers to the range in which a species currently exists, not to
the historical range of the species where it once existed. The context
in which the phrase is used is crucial. Under the Act's definitions, a
species is ``endangered'' only if it ``is in danger of extinction'' in
the relevant portion of its range. The phrase ``is in danger'' denotes
a present-tense condition of being at risk of a future, undesired
event. To say that a species ``is in danger'' in an area that is
currently unoccupied, such as unoccupied historical range, would be
inconsistent with common usage. Thus, ``range'' must mean ``currently-
occupied range,'' not ``historical range.'' This interpretation of
``range'' is further supported by the fact that section 4(a)(1)(A) of
the Act requires us to consider the ``present'' or ``threatened''
(i.e., future), rather than the past, ``destruction, modification, or
curtailment'' of a species' habitat or range in determining whether a
species is endangered or threatened.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to conclude,
without any analysis or explanation that the ``range'' referred to in
the SPR phrase includes the historical range of the species. The court
stated that a species ``can be extinct `throughout * * * a significant
portion of its range' if there are major geographical areas in which it
is no longer viable but once was,'' and then faults the Secretary for
not ``at least explain[ing] her conclusion that the area in which the
species can no longer live is not a significant portion of its range.''
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added).
This would suggest that the range we must analyze in assessing
endangerment includes unoccupied historical range--i.e., the places
where the species was once viable but no longer exists.
The statute does not support this interpretation. This
interpretation is based on what appears to be an inadvertent misquote
of the relevant statutory language. In addressing this issue, the Ninth
Circuit states that the Secretary must determine whether a species is
``extinct throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' Id. If
that were true, we would have to study the historical range. But that
is not what the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit quotes the statute
correctly elsewhere in its opinion. Under the Act, we are not to
determine if a species is ``extinct throughout * * * a significant
portion of its range,'' but are to determine if it ``is in danger of
extinction throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' A
species cannot presently be ``in danger of extinction'' in that portion
of its range where it ``was once viable but no longer is''--if by the
latter phrase the court meant lost historical habitat. In that portion
of its range, the species has by definition ceased to exist. In such
situations, it is not ``in danger of extinction''; it is extinct.

[[Page 6116]]

Although we must focus on the range in which the species currently
exists, data about the species' historical range and how the species
came to be extinct in that location may be relevant in understanding or
predicting whether a species is ``in danger of extinction'' in its
current range and therefore relevant to our 5 factor analysis. But the
fact that it 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 notice we consider the range of the
gray wolf to be the entire geographic area delineated by the boundaries
of the NRM DPS.

``Significant''

The Act does not clearly indicate what portion(s) of a species'
range should be considered ``significant.'' Most dictionaries list
several definitions of ``significant.'' For example, one standard
dictionary defines ``significant'' as ``important,'' ``meaningful,''
``a noticeably or measurably large amount,'' or ``suggestive''
(Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1088 10th ed. 2000). If it
means a ``noticeably or measurably large amount,'' then we would have
to focus on the size of the range in question, either in relation to
the rest of the range or perhaps even in absolute terms. If it means
``important,'' then we would have to consider factors in addition to
size in determining a portion of a species' range is ``significant.''
For example, would a key breeding ground of species be ``significant,''
even if it was only a small part of the species' entire range?
One district court interpreted the term to mean ``a noticeably or
measurably large amount'' without analysis or any reference to other
alternate meanings, including ``important'' or ``meaningful.''
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002).
We consider the court's interpretation to be unpersuasive because the
court did not explain why we could not employ another, equally
plausible definition of ``significant.'' It is impossible to determine
from the word itself, even when read in the context of the entire
statute, which meaning of ``significant'' Congress intended. Moreover,
even if it were clear which meaning was intended, ``significant'' would
still require interpretation. For example, if it were meant to refer to
size, what size would be ``significant'': 30 percent, 60 percent, 90
percent? Should the percentage be the same in every case or for each
species? Moreover, what factors, if any, would be appropriate to
consider in making a size determination? Is size all by itself
``significant,'' or does size only become ``significant'' when
considered in combination with other factors? On the other hand, if
``significant'' were meant to refer to importance, what factors would
need to be considered in deciding that a particular portion of a
species' range is ``important'' enough to trigger the protections of
the Act?
Where there is ambiguity in a statute, as with the meaning of
``significant,'' the agency charged with administering the statute, in
this case the Service, has broad discretion to resolve the ambiguity
and give meaning to the term. As the Supreme Court has stated:

In Chevron, this Court held that ambiguities in statutes within
an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority
to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion.
Filling these gaps, the Court explained, involves difficult policy
choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts. If a
statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency's construction
is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the
agency's construction of the statute, even if the agency's reading
differs from what the court believes is the best statutory
interpretation.

Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S.
967, 980 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
We have broad discretion in defining what portion of a species'
range is ``significant.'' No ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases, and we may consider factors other than simply the size of
the range portion in defining what is ``significant.'' In light of the
general ecosystems conservation purposes and findings in section 2 of
the Act, out goal is to define ``significant'' in such a way as to
insure the conservation of the species protected by the Act. In
determining whether a range portion is significant, we consider the
ecosystems on which the species that use that range depend as well as
the values listed in the Act that would be impaired or lost if the
species were to become extinct in that portion of the range or in the
range as a whole.
However, our discretion in defining ``significant'' is not
unlimited. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while acknowledging that
we have ``a wide degree of discretion in delineating'' what portion of
a range is ``significant,'' appeared to set outer limits of that
discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the
one hand, it rejected what it called a quantitative approach to
defining ``significant,'' where a ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases. 258 F.3d. at 1143. As the court explained:

First, it simply does not make sense to assume that the loss of
a predetermined percentage of habitat or range would necessarily
qualify a species for listing. A species with an exceptionally large
historical range may continue to enjoy healthy population levels
despite the loss of a substantial amount of suitable habitat.
Similarly, a species with an exceptionally small historical range
may quickly become endangered after the loss of even a very small
percentage of habitat.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that what is ``significant'' must
``necessarily be determined on a case by case basis,'' and must take
into account not just the size of the range but also the biological
importance of the range to the species. 258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other
end of the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected what it called ``the
faulty definition offered by us,'' a definition that holds that a
portion of a species' range is ``significant'' only if the threats
faced by the species in that area are so severe as to threaten the
viability of the species as a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It thus
appears that within the two outer boundaries set by the Ninth Circuit,
we have wide discretion to give the definitive interpretation of the
word ``significant'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its
range.''
Based on these principles, we consider the following factors in
determining whether a portion of a range is ``significant''--quality,
quantity, and distribution of habitat relative to the biological
requirements of the species; the historical value of the habitat to the
species; the frequency of use of the habitat; the uniqueness or
importance of the habitat for other reasons, such as breeding, feeding,
migration, wintering, or suitability for population expansion; genetic
diversity; and other biological factors. We focus on portions of a
species' range that are important to the conservation of the species,
such as ``recovery units'' identified in approved Section 4 recovery
plans; unique habitat or other ecological features that provide
adaptive opportunities that are of conservation importance to the
species; and ``core'' populations that generate additional individuals
of a species that can, over time, replenish depleted populations or
stocks at the periphery of the species' range. We do not apply the term
``significant'' to portions of the species' range that constitute less-
productive peripheral habitat, artificially-created habitat, or areas

[[Page 6117]]

where wildlife species have established themselves in urban or suburban
settings-- such portions of the species' range are not ``significant,''
in our view, to the conservation of the species as required by the Act.
In order to finalize this rule as proposed, Wyoming would have to
adopt a State law and wolf management plan that would adequately
conserve a recovered wolf population into the foreseeable future in the
significant portion of range outside the National Parks in northwestern
Wyoming. If Wyoming takes these steps and provides the Service with a
statute and wolf management plan that we approve and which contains the
necessary adequate regulatory measures, it is our intent to reopen the
public comment period with respect to this proposed rule in order to
receive comments on the Wyoming statute and wolf management plan before
we would issue a final rule.
However, if Wyoming has not taken these steps by the date that a
final decision is to be made, we have carefully considered the
requirements of the Act and the record before us and concluded that an
alternative approach may be in order. Specifically, it would then be
our intention instead to reclassify the portions of the DPS in the
States of Idaho and Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Utah as ``not
listed.'' We would also reclassify the portion of Wyoming that is not a
significant portion of the range and the portion that is in the
National Parks in Wyoming as ``not listed''. The DPS would no longer
exist. The significant portion of the range that exists outside the
National Parks within the State of Wyoming would continue to be listed
as ``nonessential experimental'' based on the biologically significant
nature of that portion of the species' range and the continuing
unacceptable level of threats that occur under the State's current
statute and management plan. Accordingly, we request that comments also
be submitted which specifically address this alternative as well as the
proposal to establish this DPS.
The following analysis examines all significant factors currently
affecting the NRM wolf population or likely to affect it 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 411,308 km² (158,807
mi²) of Federal land (42 percent); 53,701 km²
(20,734 mi²) of State land (5 percent); 39,026
km² (15,068 mi²) of Tribal land (4 percent); and
467,604 km² (180,543 mi²) of private land (48
percent). 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 within the
DPS and currently occupied areas (which may include intermittent
unsuitable habitat). Finally, unsuitable habitat, ungulate populations,
and connectivity are discussed.
Suitable Habitat--Wolves once occupied or transited most, if not
all, of the proposed 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. We have reviewed the quality, quantity, and
distribution of habitat relative to the biological requirements of
wolves; the historic value of the habitat to wolves; the frequency of
use of the habitat; the uniqueness or importance of the habitat for
other reasons, such as breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, or
suitability for population expansion; genetic diversity; and other
biological factors. In doing so we used two relatively new models,
Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 555-558) and Carroll et al. (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 suggested they might have a 50 percent
or greater chance of supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat in
the NRM was typically characterized by 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 their
analysis area, 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
where their models overlapped (i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming).
Oakleaf's basic model was a more intensive effort that only looked
at potential wolf habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et
al. 2006, 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
(GIS) 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. 2006, 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.
In contrast, 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 as ``pseudo-habitat'' to estimate relative ungulate density
to predict associated wolf survival and fecundity rates (Carroll et al.
2006, p. 29). The combination of the GIS model and wolf population
parameters were then 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).
We believe that the Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 31-34) model tended
to be more liberal in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current
conditions than either the Oakleaf (et al. 2006, pp. 558-560) model or
our field observations indicate is realistic, but Carroll's model
provided a valuable relative measure across the western United States
upon

[[Page 6118]]

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. 2006, p. 556). Thus,
this model ignores the fact that in situations where livestock and
wolves both live in the same area, there will be some livestock losses,
some wolf losses, and some wolf removal to reduce the rate of conflict.
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.
Furthermore, 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 types of areas were typically small and
isolated from the core population segments, we do not believe they are
currently suitable habitat based upon on our data on wolf pack
persistence for the past 10 years (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 788; Service
et al. 1999-2006, Figure 1). Even if one views these habitat areas as
suitable, they are not a significant portion of the range.
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, and in the area currently occupied by the NRM wolf
population. They also indicated that these three areas were connected.
However, northwest Montana and Idaho were more connected to each other
than the GYA, and collectively the three core areas were surrounded by
large areas of unsuitable habitat.
These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions
and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their
relationships to wolf pack persistence, rather than as predictors of
absolute acreages or areas that can actually be occupied by wolf packs.
Additionally, both models generally support earlier 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
chance of supporting wolf packs, it is impossible to give an exact
acreage of suitable habitat that can actually be successfully occupied
by wolf packs. It is important to note that these areas also have up to
a 50 percent chance of not supporting wolf packs.
We considered data on the location of suitable wolf habitat from a
number of sources in developing our estimate of suitable wolf habitat
in the NRM. Specifically, we considered the locations estimated in the
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), the primary analysis
areas analyzed in the 1994 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
GYA (63,700 km\2\ [24,600 mi\2\]) and central Idaho (53,600 km\2\
[20,700 mi\2\]) (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 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 reasonably realistic prediction of suitable wolf
habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. We do not predict that changes
in habitat quantity, quality, and distribution of suitable habitat nor
land-uses in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of
range in the NRM DPS will threaten wolf population recovery. However,
Oakleaf predicted that most of the suitable habitat in the GYA recovery
area outside the National Parks is in northwestern Wyoming.
Additionally, an important component of suitable habitat is a reduction
or lack of risk to excessive human-caused mortality. Therefore, that
area of northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks that is listed
as ``predatory animal'' under Wyoming state law and plan would sustain
such a high level of excessive human-caused mortality that otherwise
suitable wolf habitat there would be rendered unsuitable and the range
of the GYA segment of the NRM wolf population would fall below that
needed to assure its continued existence into the future.
The area that we conclude is suitable habitat is generally depicted
in Oakleaf's et al. (2006) map on page 559. Although some areas outside
this depiction have been temporarily occupied and used by wolves, or
even packs, we consider them to be unsuitable habitat because wolf
packs have generally failed to persist there long enough to be
categorized as breeding pairs and successfully contribute toward our
recovery goals. Generally this area of suitable habitat is located in
western Montana, Idaho north of Interstate 84, and the NW corner of
Wyoming, east of state highway 120, along the western border of the
Wind River Reservation, and USDA Forest Service lands north of Boulder,
WY. Although Carroll determined there may be some 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 wolf
population recovery because it occurs in small isolated fragmented
areas. Therefore, we consider such areas as containing unsuitable
habitat and that dispersing wolves attempting to colonize those areas
are unlikely to significantly contribute to population recovery.
Significant Portion of Range--We determined whether a portion of
the species range is significant based on the biological needs of the
species and the nature of the threats to the species. As stated above,
the factors we used to determine significance include, but may not be
limited to the following: quality, quantity, and distribution of
habitat relative to the biological requirements of the species; the
historic value of the habitat to the species; the frequency of use of
the habitat; the uniqueness or importance of the habitat for other
reasons, such as breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, or
suitability for population expansion; genetic diversity (the loss of
genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the
species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes or
perturbations); and other biological factors. In determining whether a
portion of a species' range is significant we have also considered the
portion's contribution to the representation (involves conserving the
breadth of the genetic makeup of the species to conserve its adaptive
capabilities; populations in peripheral areas may be important in terms
of affecting future evolutionary processes), resilience (a species
ability to recover from periodic disturbances or environmental
variability; this is often related to habitat quality because it is
assumed that the species is most resilient in its best habitat), or
redundancy (ensuring a sufficient number of populations to provide a
margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events) of
the species as a whole.
After careful examination of the NRM DPS in the context of our
definition of

[[Page 6119]]

``significant portion of the range'' we have determined that portions
of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming each constitute a biologically
significant portion of the NRM DPS because: (1) Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming contain the lion's share of suitable habitat within the DPS
(approximately 96 percent of suitable habitat within the DPS according
to Carroll (2006) (see Factor A below); (2) the suitable habitat within
portions of these 3 States is of sufficient quality, extent, and
distribution to support a viable wolf metapopulation (Service 1980, pp.
12-13; Service 1987, pp. 12, 23; Service 1994, pp. v, 3:1-109, 4:1-103;
Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; Oakleaf et al.
2006, pp. 70-71); (3) suitable habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
currently support all of the known wolf breeding pairs in the NRM
(Service et al. 2006, Figure 1); and (4) maintenance of at least 30
breeding pairs and 300 wolves well distributed among these States, long
considered necessary to maintain a viable wolf population in the NRM
(Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, pp. 6:74-75; Bangs 2002, pp. 1-7),
requires maintenance of wolf breeding pairs in each State. The ability
to declare the NRM wolf population recovered at such relatively modest
recovery goals is dependent as much on its overall distribution as
simply maintaining at least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 wolves
in the three recovery areas/states. Therefore, that is the reason a
significant portion of range is dependent on each of the three states
contributing its share of suitable habitat. Current predatory animal
status in Wyoming would jeopardize the GYA significant portion of range
and the overall NRM wolf population. Thus, if Wyoming fails to modify
its regulatory framework, the Act's protections will be necessary to
ensure the GYA portion of the NRM wolf population is maintained above
recovery levels into the foreseeable future.
Suitable habitat within the occupied area, particularly between the
population segments, is important to maintain the overall population
and is a significant portion of the range in the DPS. Habitat on the
outer edge of the metapopulation is not capable of supporting wolf
breeding pairs, is insignificant to maintaining the NRM wolf
population's viability, and is not a significant portion of the range.
Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) predicted that roughly 148,599
km² (57,374 mi²) or 87 percent of Wyoming's,
Idaho's, and Montana's suitable habitat was within the area we describe
as the area currently occupied by the NRM wolf population. Substantial
threats to this area would have the effect of threatening the viability
of the NRM wolf population. These core areas are necessary for
maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving representative
metapopulation in order for the NRM wolf population to persist into the
foreseeable future. We believe the remaining unoccupied, roughly 13
percent, of theoretical suitable wolf habitat (as described by Oakleaf
et al. 2006, p. 561) is not capable of supporting wolf breeding pairs,
is insignificant to maintaining the NRM wolf population's viability,
and is not a significant portion of the range. We nevertheless
considered potential threats to this area.
Additionally, the portions of Oregon, Washington, and Utah within
the DPS are not a significant portion of the NRM DPS because: (1) These
portions of Oregon, Washington, and Utah contain only about 4 percent
of suitable habitat within the DPS (Carroll 2005); (2) habitat in these
States is generally lower quality and more fragmented (Carroll et al.
2006, p. 541); (3) Oregon, Washington, and Utah do not currently
support any wolf packs (although, on occasion, a few dispersing wolves
have been documented in these areas) (Service et al. 1989-2006, Tables
1-3); and (4) if wolf packs did form in these areas, they might
contribute to a viable wolf population in the NRM, but would not be
essential for its continued existence.
In summary, a total of about 275,533 km² (106,384
mi²) of occupied habitat in parts of western Montana
(125,208 km² [48,343 mi²]), Idaho (116,309
km² [44,907 mi²]), and northwestern Wyoming
(34,017 km² [13,134 mi²]) (Service et al. 2005,
Figure 1) are a significant portion of range in the NRM DPS. All other
areas in the NRM DPS are not a significant portion of range. This area
is roughly western Montana west of I-15 and North of I-90, Idaho north
of I-84 and in Wyoming west of state highway 120, along the western
border of the Wind River Reservation, and USDA Forest Service lands
north of Boulder, WY to the Idaho border. More specifically, this area
of northwestern Wyoming is described as: the junction of U.S. Highway
120 and the Wyoming/Montana State line; running southerly along state
Highway 120 to the Greybull River; southwesterly up said river to the
Wood River; running southwesterly up said river to the U.S. Forest
Service boundary; following the U.S. Forest Service boundary southerly
to the northern boundary of the Wind River Indian Reservation;
following the Reservation boundary westerly, then southerly across U.S.
Highway 26/287 to the Continental Divide; following the Continental
Divide southeasterly to Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; following the
Middle Fork of Boulder Creek and then Boulder Creek westerly to the
U.S. Forest Service boundary; following the U.S. Forest Service
boundary northwesterly to its intersection with U.S. Highway 189/191;
following U.S. Highway 189/91 northwesterly to the intersection with
Wyoming state highway 22 in the town of Jackson; following Wyoming
state highway 22 westerly to the Wyoming/Idaho State line.
The significant portion of range for the NRM wolf population
includes habitat where there are large blocks of contiguous public
land; habitat is primarily forest in Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains
(Bailey 1995); elk and/or white-tailed and mule deer are common;
livestock are primarily cattle, grazed seasonally, and are at lower
density than on private land; road density is low; and human presence
is low or seasonal. The amount, connectivity, and location of these
habitat characteristics in western Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA
is sufficient to support a metapopulation of at least 30 breeding pairs
and 300 gray wolves equitably distributed in western Montana, central
Idaho and northwestern Wyoming. These areas in the NRM DPS are depicted
in Figure 2. We do not predict that changes in habitat quantity,
quality, or distribution of suitable habitat nor land-uses in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of range in the NRM
DPS will threaten wolf population recovery.
Unoccupied Suitable Habitat--Habitat suitability modeling indicates
the NRM core recovery areas are atypical of other habitats in the
western United States because suitable habitat in those core areas
occurs in such large contiguous blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson
2004, p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559).
It is likely that without core refugia areas like YNP and the central
Idaho wilderness that provide a steady influx of dispersing wolves,
other potentially suitable wolf habitat would not be capable of
sustaining wolf packs. Some habitat ranked by models as suitable that
is adjacent to core refugia may be able to support wolf packs, while
some theoretically suitable habitat that is farther away from a strong
source of dispersing wolves may not be able to support persistent
packs. This fact is important to consider as suitable habitat, as
defined by the Carroll (et al. 2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf (et al. 2006,
p. 559) models, only has a 50 percent or greater chance of being
successfully

[[Page 6120]]

occupied by wolf packs. Therefore, model predictions regarding habitat
suitability do 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. 2006, p. 559) (typically isolated
mountain ranges) often possess higher mortality risk for wolves because
of their enclosure by, and proximity to, areas of high mortality risk.
This phenomenon, in which the quality and quantity of suitable habitat
is diminished because of interactions with surrounding less-suitable
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 long-distance dispersing species, 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 centered in the three recovery areas. These core population
segments will continue to provide a constant source of dispersing
wolves into surrounding areas, supplementing wolf packs in adjacent but
less secure suitable habitat.
Currently Occupied Habitat--The area ``currently occupied'' by the
NRM wolf population was calculated by drawing a line around the outer
points of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack territories
in 2004 (n=110) (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). We defined occupied
wolf habitat as that area confirmed as 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). We relied
upon 2004 wolf monitoring data (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). The
overall distribution of wolf packs has been similar since 2000, despite
a wolf population that has more than doubled (Service et al. 2001-2006,
Figure 1; Bangs et al. in pressb). Because the States, except Wyoming,
have committed to maintain a wolf population above the minimum recovery
levels (first achieved in 2000) we expect this general distribution
will be maintained. We do not believe the Wyoming state law and plan
provide enough assurance that the significant portion of range outside
the National Parks in northwestern Wyoming would remain occupied by
enough wolf breeding pairs to maintain that segment of the
metapopulation above recovery levels. However, if Wyoming does not
modify its management plan and law, that portion of the wolf population
will be maintained through the protections afforded by the Act in the
significant portion of the wolves' range outside of the National Parks
in Wyoming. Occupied habitat changed little (about 5 percent) from 2004
(275,533 km\2\ [106,384 mi\2\]) to 2005 (260,535 km\2\ [100,593 mi\2\])
(Service et al. 2006, Figure 1), so we used the currently occupied
habitat analysis from the February 8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634) for this
proposed rule (Bangs et al. in pressb).
We included areas between the core recovery segments as occupied
wolf habitat because they are important for connectivity between
segments even though wolf packs did not persist in certain portions of
these areas. While models ranked some of this habitat as unsuitable,
those intervening areas are important to maintaining the metapopulation
structure because dispersing wolves routinely travel through those
areas (Service 1994, pp. 6:5-6; Bangs 2002, p. 3). This would include
areas such as 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 west-central Montana.
As of the end of 2004, we estimated approximately 275,533 km\2\
(106,384 mi\2\) of occupied habitat in parts of Montana (125,208 km\2\
[48,343 mi\2\]), Idaho (116,309 km\2\ [44,907 mi\2\]), and Wyoming
(34,017 km\2\ [13,134 mi\2\]) (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). Although
currently occupied habitat includes some prairie (4,488 km\2\ [1,733
mi\2\]) and some high desert (24,478 km\2\ [9,451 mi\2\]), wolf packs
did not use these habitat types successfully (Service et al. 2005,
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 km\2\ (70,844 mi\2\) Federal (67
percent); 12,217 km\2\ (4,717 mi\2\) State (4.4 percent); 3,064 km\2\
(1,183 mi\2\) Tribal (1.7 percent); and 71,678 km\2\ (27,675 mi\2\)
private (26 percent) (Service et al. 2005, Figure 1).
We determined that the current wolf population resembles a three-
segment metapopulation and that the overall area used by the NRM wolf
population has not significantly expanded since the population achieved
recovery. Stagnant distribution patterns indicate there is probably
limited suitable habitat for the NRM wolf population to expand
significantly beyond its current borders. Carroll's model predicted
that 165,503 km\2\ (63,901 mi\2\) of suitable habitat (62 percent) was
within the occupied area; however, the model's remaining potentially
suitable habitat (38 percent) was often fragmented and in smaller, more
isolated patches (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35).
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming must each manage for 15 breeding pairs
and maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in mid-winter to
ensure long-term viability of the NRM gray wolf population. 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 recovery areas) (Service 1987, p. 23) and
nearly 100 percent of the primary analysis areas (the areas where
suitable habitat was believed to exist and the wolf population would
live) analyzed for wolf reintroduction in central Idaho and the GYA
(Service 1994, p. 1:6). Because of this success and the continued
management of public lands in the significant portion of range in the
NRM DPS for high ungulate densities, low to moderate road and livestock
densities, and other factors contributing to successful wolf occupancy,
we conclude that the threats to habitat under Factor A are not
substantial enough to threaten or endanger wolf populations within the
NRM in the foreseeable future.
Potential Threats Affecting a Significant Portion of 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 70
percent of the suitable habitat is in public ownership that is managed
for multiple uses, including maintenance of viable wildlife populations
(Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560).
The GYA and central Idaho recovery areas, 63,714 km\2\ (24,600
mi\2\) and 53,613 km\2\ (20,700 mi\2\), respectively, are primarily
composed of public lands (Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest

[[Page 6121]]

contiguous blocks of suitable habitat within the proposed NRM DPS.
Central Idaho and the GYA provide secure 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 provide optimal
suitable habitat to help maintain a viable wolf population (Service
1994, p. 1:4). The central Idaho recovery area has 24,281 km\2\ (9,375
mi\2\) of designated wilderness at its core (Service 1994, p. 3:85).
The GYA recovery area has a core including over 8,094 km\2\ (3,125
mi\2\) in YNP and, although less useful to wolves due to high
elevation, about 16,187 km\2\ (6,250 mi\2\) of designated wilderness
(Service 1994, p. 3:45). These areas are in public ownership, and no
foreseeable habitat-related threats would prevent them from anchoring a
wolf population that exceeds recovery levels.
While the northwestern Montana recovery area (>49,728 km\2\
[>19,200 mi\2\]) (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 786) also has a core of
suitable habitat (Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshal Wilderness
Complex), it is not as high quality, as large, or as contiguous as that
in either central Idaho or GYA. The primary reason for this is that
ungulates do not winter throughout the area 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. 1989-2006, Figure 1). This mix
exposes wolves to higher levels of human-caused mortality, and 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) helps to maintain that segment
of the NRM wolf population. Wolves also disperse into northwestern
Montana from Canada and some packs have trans-boundary territories,
helping to maintain the NRM population (Boyd et al. 1995). 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 legal hunting
(Bangs et al. 1998, p. 790). Despite mortalities that occur in Canada,
the trans-boundary movements of wolves and wolf packs led to the
establishment of wolves in Montana, 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.
Within occupied suitable habitat, enough public land exists so that
NRM wolf populations can be maintained above recovery levels. Most
important suitable wolf habitat is in public ownership, and the States
and Federal land-management agencies are likely to continue to manage
habitat that will provide forage and security for high ungulate
populations, sufficient cover for wolf security, moderate and seasonal
levels of livestock grazing, and low road density. 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. Those threats were not
predicted to alter wolf habitat suitability in the proposed NRM DPS
enough to cause the wolf population to fall below recovery levels in
the foreseeable future.
The recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 13), the metapopulation
structure recommended by the 1994 EIS (Service 1994, pp. 6:74-75), and
subsequent investigations (Bangs 2002, p. 3) recognize the importance
of habitat connectivity between northwestern Montana, central Idaho,
and the GYA. There appears to be enough habitat connectivity between
occupied wolf habitat in Canada, northwestern Montana, Idaho, and (to a
lesser extent) the GYA to ensure exchange of sufficient numbers of
dispersing wolves to maintain demographic and genetic diversity in the
NRM wolf metapopulation (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559; Carroll et al.
2006, p. 32; Wayne 2005; Boyd 2006). To date, from radio-telemetry
monitoring, we have documented routine wolf movement between Canada and
northwestern Montana (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 544; Boyd and Pletscher
1999, pp. 1095-1096), occasional wolf movement between Idaho and
Montana, and at least 11 wolves have traveled into the GYA (Wayne 2005;
Boyd et al. 1995, pp. iii-3-1; Boyd 2006). Because we know only about
the 30 percent of the wolf population that has been radio-collared,
additional dispersal has undoubtedly occurred. This documentation
demonstrates that current habitat conditions allow dispersing wolves to
occasionally travel from one recovery area to another. Finally, the
Montana State plan (the key State regarding connectivity) commits to
maintaining natural connectivity to ensure the genetic integrity of the
NRM wolf population by promoting land uses, such as traditional
ranching, that enhance wildlife habitat and conservation.
Another 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 (only
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, 100,000-250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in each
NRM State where wolf packs currently exist (Service 1994, pp. viii-ix).
The States in the NRM DPS have managed resident ungulate populations
for decades and maintain them at densities that would easily support a
recovered wolf population. We know of no foreseeable condition that
would cause a decline in ungulate populations significant enough to
threaten the recovered status of the NRM wolf population.
Cattle and sheep are at least twice as numerous as wild ungulates
even on public lands (Service 1994, p. viii). The only areas lacking
livestock large enough to support wolf packs are YNP, Glacier National
Park, some adjacent USFS Wilderness Areas, and parts of Wilderness
Areas in central Idaho and northwestern Montana. Consequently, every
wolf pack outside these areas has interacted with some livestock,
primarily cattle. Livestock and livestock carrion are routinely used by
wolves, but management discourages chronic use of livestock as prey.
Conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the annual
removal of some wolves (Bangs and Shivik 1991, pg 2; Bangs et al. 1995,
p. 131; 2004, p. 92; 2005a, pp. 342-344; Service et al. 2006, Table
5a). This issue is discussed further under Factors D and E.
Therefore, except for Wyoming's predatory animal status, we do not
foresee that impacts to suitable and potentially suitable habitat will
occur at levels that will significantly affect wolf numbers or
distribution 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, except for the area
of northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks. These areas include
Glacier National Park, Grand Teton National Park, YNP, numerous USFS
Wilderness Areas, and other State and Federal lands. These areas will
continue to be managed for high ungulate densities, moderate rates of
seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road densities associated
with abundant

[[Page 6122]]

native prey, low potential for livestock conflicts, and security from
excessive unregulated human-caused mortality. The core recovery areas
also are within proximity to one another and have enough public land
between them to ensure sufficient connectivity into the foreseeable
future.
No significant threats to the significant portion of range in
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are known to exist in the foreseeable
future, except for Wyoming's predatory animal status. These areas have
long been recognized as the most likely areas to successfully support
30 or more breeding pairs of wolves, comprising 300 or more individuals
in a metapopulation with some genetic exchange between subpopulations
(Service 1980, pp. 1-4; 1987, p. 23; 1994, pp. 6, 74-75; 71 FR 6634,
February 8, 2006). Unsuitable habitat and small fragmented areas of
suitable habitat away from these core areas, largely represent
geographic locations where wolves are likely to persist in low numbers,
if at all. Although such areas may historically have contained suitable
habitat (and may contribute to a healthy wolf population in the NRM),
wolf packs in these areas are not important or necessary for
maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving representative wolf
population in the NRM into the foreseeable future. These areas are not
a significant portion of the range for the NRM wolf population.

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

As detailed below, overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes have not been a significant threat
to the NRM wolf population. Mortality rates caused by commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes are not anticipated
to exceed sustainable levels following delisting. These activities have
not been a threat to the viability of the wolves in the past and we
have no reason to believe that they would become a threat to the
viability of the wolves in the foreseeable future. However, as
discussed later in Factor D, we have determined that human-caused
mortality associated with Wyoming's current management strategy for
treating delisted wolves as ``predatory animals'' would exceed
sustainable levels if the species were delisted in the State.
Since their listing under the Act, no gray wolves have been legally
killed or removed from the wild in the NRM for commercial,
recreational, 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 pressa). 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, the States and Tribes have similar laws and regulations
that protect game or trophy animals from overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes (See
Factor D for a more detailed discussion of this issue and world wide
web links to applicable State laws and regulations). We believe these
laws will continue to provide a strong deterrent to illegal killing of
wolves by the public as they have been effective in State-led
conservation programs for other resident wildlife such as black bears
and mountain lions. In addition, the State fish and game agencies,
National Parks, other Federal agencies, and most Tribes have well-
distributed experienced cadres of professional law enforcement officers
to help enforce State, Federal, and Tribal wildlife regulations (See
Factor D).
Scientific Research and Monitoring--From 1984 to 2005, the Service
and our cooperating partners captured about 814 NRM wolves for
monitoring, nonlethal control, and research purposes with 23 accidental
deaths. If NRM wolves were delisted, the States, 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 wolf management plans (See ``Factor D'' and ``Post-Delisting
Monitoring'' sections). We expect that capture-caused mortality by
Federal agencies, universities, States, and Tribes 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 usually the captive-reared offspring of
wolves that were already in captivity for other reasons. 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 permits for protected species; and would not
substantially increase human-caused wolf mortality rates.
Commercial and Recreational Uses--In Idaho and Montana, any legal
take after delisting would be regulated by State or Tribal law so that
it would not threaten each State's share of the NRM wolf population
(See Factor D). Currently, Wyoming State law does not regulate human-
caused mortality to wolves throughout most of Wyoming (see Factor D for
a more detailed description of this issue). This unaddressed threat was
one of the primary reasons the Service did not approve the final
Wyoming Plan (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006; WGFD 2003; Williams 2004).
If Wyoming changes its law and plan in a satisfactory manner, this will
no longer be a threat.
Because wolves are highly territorial, wolf populations in
saturated habitat naturally limit further population increases through
wolf-to-wolf conflict or dispersal to unoccupied habitat. Wolf
populations can maintain themselves despite a sustained human-caused
mortality rate of 30 percent or more per year (Keith 1983; Fuller et
al. 2003, pp. 182-184), and human-caused mortality can replace up to 70
percent of natural mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Wolf pups
can be successfully raised by other pack members and breeding
individuals can be quickly replaced by other wolves (Brainerd 2006).
Collectively, these factors means that wolf populations are quite
resilient to human-caused mortality if it can be regulated.
Montana and Idaho would regulate human-caused mortality 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. Idaho and
Montana, 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

[[Page 6123]]

those surplus wolves would not affect wolf population recovery or
viability in the NRM because the States of Montana and Idaho (and
Wyoming, if its plan is approved in the future) would allow such take
only for wolves that are surplus to achieving the State's commitment to
maintaining a recovered population.
State laws in Washington, Oregon, and Utah do not allow public take
of wolves for recreational or commercial purposes. Regulated hunting
and trapping are traditional and effective wildlife management tools
that may be applied to help achieve State and Tribal wolf management
objectives as needed.
In summary, the States have organizations and regulatory and
enforcement systems in place to limit human-caused mortality of wolves
(except for Wyoming at this time). Montana's and Idaho's State plans
commit these States to regulate all take of wolves, including that for
commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes, and
will incorporate any Tribal harvest as part of the overall level of
allowable take to ensure that the wolf population does not fall below
the NRM wolf population's numerical and distributional recovery levels.
Wyoming's current State regulatory framework would not adequately
regulate human-caused mortality so Wyoming's portion of a recovered
wolf population will be maintained through the protections afforded by
the Act, unless Wyoming updates its State law and management plan. The
States and Tribes have humane and professional animal handling
protocols and trained personnel that will ensure that population
monitoring and research results in limited unintentional mortalities.
Furthermore, the State permitting process for captive wildlife and
animal care will ensure that few, if any wolves will be removed from
the wild solely for educational purposes. . We do not predict that
changes in threats to wolves from overuse for commercial, scientific or
educational purposes in all or a significant portion of range in the
NRM DPS will threaten wolf population recovery for the foreseeable
future. In the significant portion of the range in northwestern
Wyoming, either an approved state law and plan or the Act's protection
will provide the necessary conservation measures and adequate
regulation of these potential threats into the foreseeable future.

C. Disease or Predation

As discussed in detail below, a wide range of diseases may affect
the NRM wolves. However, no diseases are of 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.
More information on disease and predation 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 multi-species 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) and will not significantly threaten
wolf population viability. 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. 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.
CPV infects wolves, domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), foxes (Vulpes
spp.), 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. The CPV has been detected in nearly every wolf
population in North America including Alaska (Johnson et al. 1994, p.
270; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger
2003, pp. 210-211), and exposure in wolves is thought to be almost
universal. Currently, nearly 100 percent of the wolves handled by
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) (Atkinson 2005) had blood
antibodies indicating exposure to CPV. The CPV contributed to low pup
survival in the northern range of YNP in 1999, and was suspected to
have done so again in 2005 (Smith et al. 2006, p. 244). Preliminary
monitoring data suggest 2006 pup production and survival in YNP
returned to normal levels (Smith 2006). The impact of such 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).
Canine distemper is an acute, fever-causing disease of carnivores
caused by a paramyxo-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 seroprevalence in North American wolves
is about 17 percent (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). Nearly 85 percent of
Montana wolf blood samples analyzed in 2005 had blood antibodies
indicating non-lethal exposure to canine distemper (Atkinson 2005).
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).
Distemper is not a major mortality factor in wolves, because despite
exposure to the virus, affected wolf populations demonstrate good
recruitment (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 420-421). Mortality from canine
distemper 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 2005.
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. Lyme disease has not been reported from wolves
beyond the Great Lakes regions (Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources 1999, p. 61). In those populations, it does not appear to
cause adult mortality, but might be

[[Page 6124]]

suppressing population growth by decreasing wolf pup survival.
Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite (Sarcoptes scabeii) 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 mortality from exposure during severe winter
weather or secondary infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-208). Advanced
sarcoptic 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, but almost exclusively in the GYA, and primarily east of the
Continental Divide (Jimenez 2006). Those wolves likely contracted mange
from coyotes or fox whose populations experience occasional outbreaks.
In southwestern Montana, 1 of 12 packs in 2003, 4 of 17 packs in 2004,
and 11 of 18 packs in 2005, showed evidence of mange, although not all
members of every pack appeared infested (Jimenez 2006b). In Wyoming,
east of the YNP, 1 of 8 packs in 2003, 2 of 9 packs in 2003 and 2004,
and none of 13 packs in 2005, showed evidence of mange (Jimenez 2006).
Mange has not been confirmed in wolves from Idaho or northwestern
Montana (Jimenez 2006).
In packs with the most severe infestations, pup survival appeared
low, and some adults died (Jimenez 2006). In addition, we euthanized
three wolves with severe mange. 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 Wyoming wolf
packs that naturally overcame a mange infestation.
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).
The source of this infestation is unknown, but was likely domestic
dogs.
Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria immitus), blastomycosis,
brucellosis, neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, canine
coronavirus, hookworm, tapeworm, coccidiosis, and canine 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, 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). 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. 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 appear to be
stabilizing (Service et al. 2006, 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 have some 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 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, each State has committed to monitor
the NRM wolf population for significant disease and parasite problems.
These State wildlife health programs often cooperate with Federal
agencies and universities and usually have both reactive and proactive
wildlife health monitoring protocols. Reactive strategies are the
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 by the states or tribes
in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of range in
the NRM DPS will threaten wolf population recovery.
Natural Predation--There are no wild animals that 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 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
2006a). 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 3 percent of the wolf population is removed
annually by territorial conflict in the NRM wolf population (Smith
2005). 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

[[Page 6125]]

density. Consequently territorial conflict is highest in saturated
habitats. That cause of mortality is infrequent and does not result in
a level of mortality that would significantly affect a wolf
population's viability in the NRM (Smith 2005).
Human-caused Predation--Wolves are very 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.
2005a, p. 346). Some of these accidental killings are reported to
State, Tribal, and Federal authorities.
However, many wolf killings are intentional, illegal, and are never
reported to authorities. Wolves do not appear particularly wary of
people or human activity, and that makes them very 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 in areas 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 illegal killing,
has not prevented population recovery, it has affected NRM wolf
distribution (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). In the past 20 years, no wolf
packs have successfully established and persisted solely in open
prairie or high desert habitats that are used for intensive agriculture
production (Service et al. 2006, Figure 1).
As part of the interagency wolf monitoring program and various
research projects, up to 30 percent of the NRM wolf population has been
radio-collared since the 1980s (Bangs et al. in press). 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); 84 percent for resident wolves and 66 percent for dispersers.
That study found 84 percent of wolf mortality to be human-caused. Bangs
et al. (1998, p. 790) found similar statistics, with humans causing
most of the wolf mortality in the NRM. Radio-collared wolves in the
largest blocks of remote habitat without livestock, such as central
Idaho and YNP, had annual survival rates around 80 percent (Smith et
al., 2006 p. 245). Wolves outside of large remote areas had survival
rates as low as 54 percent in some years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245).
This percentage is among the lower end of adult wolf survival rates
that an isolated population can sustain (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185).
These survival rates may be biased. Wolves are more likely to be
radio-collared if they come into conflict with people, so the
proportion of mortality caused by agency depredation control actions
could be overestimated by radio-telemetry data. People who illegally
kill wolves may destroy the radio-collar, so the proportion of illegal
mortality could be underestimated. However, wolf populations have
continued to expand in the face of ongoing levels of human-caused
mortality.
An ongoing preliminary analysis of the survival data among NRM
radio-collared wolves (n=716) (Smith 2005) from 1984 through 2004
indicates that about 26 percent of adult-sized 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). Humans caused just over 75 percent of all radio-collared wolf
deaths (Smith 2005). This type of analysis does not estimate the cause
or rate of survival among pups younger than 7 months of age because
they are too small to radio-collar. Agency control of problem wolves
and illegal killing are the two largest causes of wolf death; combined
these causes remove nearly 20 percent of the population annually and
are responsible for a majority of all known wolf deaths (Smith et al.
2006, p. 245).
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. From 1995 through 2005, 30 wolves were legally killed by
private citizens under Federal defense of property regulations (Service
1994, pp. 2:13-14; 70 FR 1285, January 6, 2005) that are similar to
Idaho and Montana State laws that would take effect and direct take of
problem wolves by both the public and agencies if wolves were delisted.
Agency control removed 396 problem wolves from 1987 through 2005,
indicating that private citizen take (about 7 percent) under State
defense of property laws would not significantly increase the overall
rate of problem wolf removal (Bangs et al. in press a, pp. 19-20).
A comparison of the overall wolf population and the number of
problem wolves removed indicates agency control removes, on average,
about 7 percent of the overall wolf population annually (Service et al.
2006, Table 5). Wolf mortality under State and Tribal defense of
property regulations incidental to other legal activities, agency
control of problem wolves, and legal hunting and trapping would be
regulated by Montana, Idaho, and Tribes (and in Wyoming if it changes
its law and management plan) if the Act's protections were removed.
Specifically, the States would ensure that recovery levels are met
after delisting, while the Service would continue to have oversight in
the significant portion of the range in northwestern Wyoming outside
the National Parks unless, or until, the State has a statute and plan
that adequately conserves wolves in the State and the northwestern
Wyoming wolf population is delisted in a separate rulemaking. This
issue is discussed further below under Factor D.
The overall causes and rates of annual wolf mortality are affected
by several variables. Wolves in higher quality suitable habitat, such
as remote, forested areas with few livestock (like National Parks),
have higher survival rates. Wolves in unsuitable habitat and areas
without substantial refugia have higher overall mortality rates.
Mortality rates also vary depending on whether the wolves are resident
pack members or dispersers, if they have a history with livestock
depredation, or have been relocated (Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1506).
However, overall wolf mortality has been low enough since 1987 that the
wolf population in the NRM has steadily increased. The wolf population
is now nearly three times as numerous as needed to meet recovery levels
and is distributed throughout most suitable habitat within the DPS
(Service 1987, p. 23; Service 1994, p. 1:6).
If the NRM wolf population were to be delisted, State management
would likely increase the mortality rate outside National Parks,
National Wildlife Refuges, and Tribal reservations, from its current
level of about 26 percent annually (Smith 2005). Wolf mortality as high
as 50 percent annually may be sustainable (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185).
Idaho and Montana have the regulatory authorization and commitment to

[[Page 6126]]

regulate human-caused mortality so that the wolf population remains
above its numerical and distributional recovery goals. If Wyoming
changes its law and management plan consistent with the Service's
recommendations, it will also sufficiently regulate human-caused
mortality. If no changes occur, excessive human-caused mortality as
allowed under state law would alone remain a threat to wolves in a
significant portion of the range in Wyoming outside the National Parks.
However, if a new Wyoming regulatory framework cannot be approved by
the Service, then the Act's protections will remain in effect and they
will provide adequate assurance into the foreseeable future that human-
caused mortality will not become a threat to wolves in all or a
significant portion of their range in Wyoming. This issue is discussed
further below under Factor D.
In summary, human-caused mortality to adult radio-collared wolves
in the NRM, which averages about 20 percent per year (Smith 2006),
still allows for rapid wolf population growth. The protection of wolves
under the Act promoted rapid initial wolf population growth in suitable
habitat. Idaho and Montana have committed to continue to regulate
human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce the NRM wolf
population below recovery levels. Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington,
and Utah have adequate laws and regulations to 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

To address this factor, we compare the current regulatory
mechanisms within the proposed NRM DPS to the future mechanisms that
would provide the framework for wolf management after delisting. These
regulatory mechanisms are carried out by the State governments included
in the DPS. Idaho and Montana's wolf management programs are designed
to maintain a recovered wolf population while minimizing damage caused
by it by allowing for removal of wolves in areas of chronic conflict or
in unsuitable habitat. The three States with occupied habitat have
proposed wolf management plans that would govern how wolves are to be
managed if delisted. As discussed below, we have approved Idaho's and
Montana's plans because these States have proposed management
objectives that would maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100
wolves per State by managing for a safety margin of 15 breeding pairs
in each State. We expect Wyoming to adopt a State law and wolf
management plan that will adequately conserve a recovered wolf
population into the foreseeable future by the time we finalize this
proposed rule. However, at this time, we have been unable to approve
the Wyoming law and plan because it does not provide for sustainable
levels of protection (Williams 2004; 71 FR 43427-43432, August 2,
2006). Any wolf conservation by the Tribes and the States of
Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be beneficial, but is not necessary
to either achieving or maintaining a recovered wolf population in the
NRM DPS.

Current Wolf Management

The 1980 and 1987 NRM wolf recovery plans (Service 1980, p. 4;
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 result in some level of depredation (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 non-
depredating 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 at low levels, and the wolf population
has expanded its distribution and numbers far beyond, and more quickly
than, earlier predictions (Service 1994, p. 2:12; Service et al. 2006,
Table 4).
The conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the
average annual removal of 7-10 percent of the wolf population (Bangs et
al. 1995, p. 130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et al. 2005a, pp.
342-344; Service et al. 2006, Tables 4, 5; Smith 2005). We estimate
illegal killing removed another 10 percent of the wolf population, and
accidental and unintentional human-caused deaths have removed 1 percent
of the population annually (Smith 2005). Even with this level of
mortality, populations have expanded rapidly (Service et al. 2006,
Table 5). Despite the more liberal regulations, all suitable areas for
wolves have been filled with resident packs (Service et al. 2006,
Figure 1). The outer NRM wolf pack distribution has remained largely
unchanged since the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001-2006, Figure 1).
If the wolf population continues to expand, 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 probably be removed to reduce future
livestock damage. In 2006, about 12 percent of the NRM wolf population
was removed because of conflicts with livestock but it still increased
over 20 percent. Human-caused mortality would have to remove 34 percent
or more of the wolf population annually before population growth would
cease (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 184-185). Preliminary wolf survival data
from radio-telemetry studies suggests that adult wolf mortality
resulting from conflict could be doubled to an average of 14-20 percent
annually and still not significantly impact wolf population recovery
(Smith 2005). The State management laws and plans would balance the
level of wolf mortality with the recovery goals in each State.

Regulatory Assurances Within the Proposed NRM DPS

In 1999, the Governors of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming agreed that
regional coordination in wolf management planning among the States,
Tribes, and other jurisdictions would be necessary to ensure timely
delisting. They signed a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate
cooperation among the three States in developing adequate State wolf
management plans so that delisting could proceed. In this agreement,
all three States committed to maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and

[[Page 6127]]

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.
The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical and
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000. The temporal portion
of the recovery goal (maintaining numerical and distributional recovery
goals for the 3 consecutive years) was achieved at the end of 2002.
Because the primary threat to the wolf population (human predation and
other take) still has the potential to significantly impact wolf
populations if not adequately managed, the Service needs regulatory
assurances 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. Wolf management for the Tribes and
the States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be beneficial, but is
not necessary to either achieving or maintaining a recovered wolf
population in the NRM. The Service provided varying degrees of funding
and assistance to the States while they developed their wolf management
plans. Several issues key to our approval of State plans include
regulations that would allow regulatory control of take, a pack
definition biologically consistent with the Service's definition of a
breeding pair, and the ability to realistically manage State wolf
populations and the number of breeding pairs above recovery levels.
The final Service 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, peer review of the
State plans, and the States' response to peer review. Those State plans
can be viewed at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/.
After our analysis of the State laws, the State plans, and other
factors, the Service determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf
management plans were adequate to assure the Service that their share
of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels
following delisting. Therefore, we approved those two State plans.
However, problems with the Wyoming legislation and plan, and
inconsistencies between the law and management plan, did not allow us
to approve Wyoming's approach to wolf management (Bangs 2004a; Williams
2004; FR 71:43410). Though we have not approved Wyoming's current plan,
we anticipate that Wyoming will revise its statute and develop a plan
that we can approve prior to finalizing this proposed rule. Tribal and
State management (in the portions of Washington, Oregon, and Utah
included in the proposed DPS) also are discussed below. If Wyoming
changes its law and management plan consistent with the Service's
recommendations, it will sufficiently regulate human-caused mortality,
just as the Montana and Idaho regulatory frameworks now do. If
acceptable changes do not occur to the Wyoming regulatory framework,
then the potential for excessive human-caused mortality as allowed
under Wyoming state law would remain the lone threat to wolves in a
significant portion of the range in Wyoming outside the National Parks.
Therefore, if a new Wyoming regulatory framework cannot be approved by
the Service, then the Act's protections will remain in effect in a
significant portion of the range outside the National Parks in Wyoming
and they will provide adequate assurance into the foreseeable future
that human-caused mortality will not become a threat to wolves in all
or a significant portion of their range in northwestern Wyoming.
Montana--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, establishes 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'' (87-
5-101 to 87-5-123). Such species are primarily managed through
regulation of all forms of human-caused mortality in a manner similar
to trophy game animals like mountain lions and black bears. The MFWP
and the Commission would then finalize more detailed administrative
rules, as is typically done for other resident wildlife, but they must
be consistent with the approved Montana wolf plan and State law.
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 human-caused mortality
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 2001, 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 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://www.fwp.state.mt.us 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 safety
margin of 15 breeding pairs. MFWP would manage problem wolves in a
manner similar to the control program currently being implemented in
the experimental population area in southern Montana, whereby
landowners and livestock producers on public land can shoot wolves seen
attacking livestock or dogs, and agency control of problem wolves is
incremental and in response to confirmed depredations. State management
of conflicts would become more protective of wolves and no public
hunting would be allowed when there were fewer than 15 breeding pairs.
Wolves would not be deliberately confined to any specific areas of
Montana, but their distribution and numbers would be managed adaptively
based on ecological factors, wolf population status, conflict
mitigation, and human social tolerance. The MFWP plan commits 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. 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, consideration of a wolf-damage
compensation program, research, and information and public outreach.
Montana's plan (Montana 2003, p. 132) predicts that under State
management, the wolf population would increase to 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

[[Page 6128]]

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.
State regulations would allow agency management of problem wolves
by MFWP and USDA-WS; take by private citizens in defense of private
property; and, when the population is above 15 packs, some regulated
hunting of wolves. Montana wildlife regulations allowing take in
defense of private property are similar to the 2005 experimental
population regulations, whereby landowners and livestock grazing
permittees can shoot wolves seen attacking or molesting livestock or
pets as long as such incidents are reported promptly and subsequent
investigations confirm that livestock were being attacked by wolves.
The MFWP has enlisted and directed USDA-WS in problem wolf management,
just as the Service has done since 1987.
When the Service reviewed and approved the Montana wolf plan, 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. The Service has every confidence
that Montana would implement the commitments it has made in its current
laws, regulations, and wolf plan. In June 2005, MFWP signed a
Cooperative Agreement with the Service, and it now manages all wolves
in Montana subject to general oversight by the Service.
Idaho--The Idaho Fish and Game Commission (Idaho Commission) 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 Idaho Commission reclassified the species as a big game
animal under Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (13.01.06.100.01.d).
The big game classification would take effect upon Federal delisting,
and until then, wolves will be managed under Federal status. As a big
game animal, State regulations would adjust human-caused wolf mortality
to ensure recovery levels are exceeded. Title 36 of the Idaho statutes
currently 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) (IWCMP 2002) and
big game hunting restrictions 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. 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; like Montana, 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 would 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 would be managed
by defense of property regulations similar to those now in effect under
the Act. Public harvest would 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 Idaho Commission proposed that, upon delisting, the wolf
would be classified as a big game animal 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.
Elk and deer populations are managed to meet biological and social
objectives for each herd unit 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 would be focused on maintaining sufficient prey populations to
sustain viable wolf and other carnivore populations and hunting. 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.
Wolves are currently classified as endangered under Idaho State
law, but if delisted under the Act, they would be classified and
protected as big game under Idaho fish and game code. Human-caused
mortality would be regulated as directed by the IWCMP to maintain a
recovered wolf population. The Service has every confidence that Idaho
would implement the commitments it has made in its current laws,
regulations, and wolf plan. In January 2006, the Governor of Idaho
signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of the Interior
that provided the IDFG the power to manage all Idaho wolves.
Wyoming--In 2003, Wyoming passed a very specific and detailed State
law that would designate wolves as ``trophy game'' in YNP, Grand Teton
National Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, and the adjacent
USFS-designated Wilderness Areas once the wolf is delisted from the
Act. Wolves in other portions of the State would alternate back-and-
forth between ``trophy game'' and ``predatory animal'' status based on
oscillating population numbers.

[[Page 6129]]

A large portion of the area permanently designated as ``trophy
game'' actually has little to no value to wolf packs because it is not
suitable habitat for wolves and, thus, is rarely used (GYA wilderness,
and much of eastern and southern YNP) (Jimenez 2006c). For example,
many of the wilderness areas are rarely used by wolves because of their
high elevation, deep snow, and low ungulate productivity. The ``trophy
game'' status would allow the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (Wyoming
Commission) and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) to regulate
methods of take, hunting seasons, types of allowed take, and numbers of
wolves that could be killed.
The State law requires that when there are 7 or more wolf packs in
Wyoming ``primarily'' (this term is undefined) outside of National
Park/Wilderness Areas or there are 15 or more wolf packs anywhere in
Wyoming, all wolves in Wyoming outside of the National Park/Wilderness
units would be classified as predatory animals. When wolves are
classified as a ``predatory animal'' they are under the jurisdiction of
the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and may be taken by anyone,
anywhere in the predatory animal area, at any time, without limit, and
by any means (including shoot-on-sight; baiting; possible limited use
of poisons; bounties and wolf-killing contests; locating and killing
pups in dens including use of explosives and gas cartridges; trapping;
snaring; aerial gunning; and use of other mechanized vehicles to locate
or chase wolves down). Wolves are very susceptible to unregulated
human-caused mortality, which would be the situation if they were to be
designated as predatory animals. Wolves are unlike coyotes in that wolf
behavior and reproductive biology results in wolves being extirpated in
the face of extensive human-caused mortality. These types and levels of
take would most likely prevent wolf packs from persisting in areas of
Wyoming where they are classified as predatory, even in otherwise
suitable habitat.
Wolves in other parts of Wyoming could be classified as trophy game
only when populations dipped below 7 packs outside of the National
Park/Wilderness units and there were fewer than 15 packs in Wyoming.
When this situation occurs, the Wyoming Commission would determine how
large an area to designate as trophy game in order to reasonably ensure
seven packs are located in Wyoming, primarily outside the National
Park/Wilderness units, at the end of the calendar year. Moreover,
because many southern and eastern YNP packs leave the National Park/
Wilderness Areas in winter and regularly utilize habitat on non-
wilderness public lands and some private lands, these packs would be
subject to unregulated and unlimited human-caused mortality to the
extent wolves are classified as predatory in these lands. Wolf packs
are highly territorial and are reluctant to trespass on other pack
territories (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 19-34). A distribution of wolf
packs outside Yellowstone National Park may be necessary to act as a
biological fence to reduce Park pack movements out of the Park. If
packs outside the Park are removed, that may cause their in-Park
neighbors to investigate their absence, and thus expose those Park
packs to the same mortality sources that removed their neighbors. The
security of Park packs may partly rely on having at least one layer of
neighboring packs outside the Park Units.
The above restrictions present the very real possibility that
Wyoming would not be able to maintain its share of a recovered wolf
population, despite Wyoming's proposal to default to trophy game status
when wolf populations get below 15 packs (defined as simply 5 wolves
traveling together at any time of year). For example, in 2004, under
Wyoming Law, the YNP wolf population (171 wolves in 16 confirmed
breeding pairs) would have triggered predatory status outside the
National Parks/Wilderness Areas and allowed for the elimination of all
wolf packs outside YNP (89 wolves in 8 breeding pairs) (Service et al.
2005, Figure 3). In 2005, disease and other factors caused a natural
reduction of the YNP wolf population to 118 wolves in 7 breeding pairs
(Service et al. 2006, Table 4). The year 2005 marked the first time
successful wolf packs outside the National Park/Wilderness Areas (134
wolves in 9 breeding pairs) contributed more to Wyoming's overall share
of the recovered NRM wolf population than those in YNP (118 wolves in 7
breeding pairs) (Service et al. 2005, Table 2; 2006, Table 2). However,
if all wolves outside the National Parks/Wilderness Areas had been
eliminated in 2004 or early 2005, as allowed by state law, the Wyoming
segment of the NRM wolf population would have fallen 3 breeding pairs
below the 10 breeding pair recovery level in Wyoming by the end of 2005
(Service et al. 2006, Table 2).
The State law and plan (WGFD 2003) calls for intensive monitoring
using standard methods and a review of the Wyoming wolf population's
status every 90 days. While WGFD would have authority to manage wolves
when they are classified as trophy game, that authority would end if
the number of packs increased to 15 in the State or if there were 7
packs primarily outside the National Park/Wilderness units (even if
there were fewer than 15 packs in the State). In essence, as soon as
WGFD met their management objective, their management authority would
be removed by State law within a maximum of 90 days. Every time the
wolf population exceeded the minimum levels, all wolves outside the
National Park/Wilderness units would be designated as predatory animals
and would be subjected to unregulated human-caused mortality which
could drive the wolf population back down to, or below, the minimum
level. We believe the real potential for fluctuating between predatory
animal status and trophy game status would result in a program that
would be nearly impossible to administer and enforce because of
widespread public confusion about the changing wolf status. Attempting
to manage a wolf population that is constantly maintained at minimum
levels would likely result in the wolf population falling below
recovery levels due to factors beyond WGFD's control.
An essential element to achieving the Service's recovery goal is
our definition of a breeding pair: An adult male and an adult female
wolf that have produced at least two pups during the previous breeding
season that survived until December 31 of that year. Wyoming State law
defined a pack as simply five wolves traveling together regardless of
the group's composition. According to this definition, these wolves
could be with or without offspring and could be traveling together at
any time of year. The Wyoming plan adopted the same definition of pack
that is in State law. Wyoming's State law and management plan also
allows a pack of 10 or more wolves with 2 or 3 breeding females to
count as 2 or 3 packs, respectively. The Wyoming definition of a pack
and the 90-day evaluation of population status is inconsistent with
wolf biology and how the Service, Montana, and Idaho has, and will,
measure wolf population recovery. Wolf packs only breed and produce
young once a year (April), so a wolf population can only increase once
a year. If a pack's breeding adults are killed between February and
April, the pack will not produce young for at least another year. If
pups are killed, no more will be produced for another year. The Wyoming
definition of a wolf pack would lead to greater use of the

[[Page 6130]]

predatory animal designation and a minimal wolf population going into
summer, when diseases and most human-caused wolf mortality occur,
including that which WGFD could not regulate (control and illegal
killing) even under trophy game status. For instance, there might be 15
groups of 5 or more wolves (which may or may not be ``breeding pairs'')
going into summer, but as human-caused mortality and other mortality
factors continued to operate, the population could decline below
recovery levels at a time when the only opportunity for the population
to recover that year had passed.
Making this problem worse, Wyoming could well be overestimating the
number of breeding pairs. Wyoming incorrectly used, as the Service
initially did, a linear regression to predict a relationship between
wolf group size and its potential to be a breeding pair. This was
mathematically incorrect and greatly overestimated wolf breeding pairs
in Wyoming, because the relationship is logistic (Ausband 2006).
Wyoming data show that groups of 5 wolves traveling together in winter
only have a 0.56 probability of being a breeding pair in Wyoming
(Ausband 2006). Thus, 15 groups of 5 wolves of unknown status that are
traveling together in winter is only equal to 8.4 breeding pairs. This
could lead Wyoming to trigger predatory status with only 8.4 breeding
pairs, a level below recovery goals.
Consider the following examples. First, in 1999 and 2005, pup
production and survival declined significantly (Service et al. 2000,
Table 2; 2006, Table 2). Because few pups survived, five wolves
traveling together in winter would not have equated to an adult male
and female with two pups on December 31. Second, from 2002 to 2005,
mange infested some packs in Montana and Wyoming causing them not to
survive the winter (mange can lead to mortality from exposure during
severe winter weather or secondary infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207-
208). In this situation, if five wolves traveling together in summer or
fall (instead of mid-winter) had mange, it would be unreasonable to
rely on them as a breeding pair since they would be unlikely to survive
until December 31. Third, conflict between the Service definition of a
breeding pair and Wyoming's definition would result in over-counting
the number of packs and overuse of predatory status. For example, by
the end of 2005 there were 16 breeding pairs in Wyoming, but, under
Wyoming's definition (even if it were used in mid-winter) there would
have been 24 packs counted as breeding pairs, an overestimate of 50
percent. If Wyoming had been managing for 15 ``packs'' as they define
them (by declaring predatory status outside of the National Park/
Wilderness units), fewer than 10 actual ``breeding pairs'' would have
been left in Wyoming.
The State wolf management plan (WGFD 2003) generally attempts to
implement the State law, with some notable exceptions. Those exceptions
make the plan appear more likely to conserve the wolf population above
recovery levels than the law allows. Recognizing these inconsistencies,
the WGFD Director requested that the Wyoming Attorney General's Office
review Wyoming law regarding the classification of gray wolves as
trophy game animals (O'Donnell 2003). The Attorney General's response
stated that ``the plain language of the Enrolled Act is in conflict and
thus suffers from internal ambiguity.'' The letter states:

The noted ambiguities arise when there are either: (1) Less than
seven (7) packs outside of the Parks, but at least fifteen (15)
packs in the state, including the Parks; or, (2) at least seven (7)
packs outside the Parks, but less than fifteen (15) packs in the
state, including the Parks.
W.S. Sec. 23-1-304(b)(ii) states that the Commission shall
maintain so-called ``dual'' classification, that is, maintain
classification of the gray wolf as a predatory animal ``if it
determines there were at least seven (7) packs of gray wolves * * *
primarily outside of [the Parks] * * * or at least fifteen (15)
packs within this state, including [the Parks]. * * *'' (Emphasis
added). If this sentence is read without consideration of the stated
legislative goals, the following scenarios can occur:
Scenario 1: 10 packs inside the Parks & 5 packs outside
the Parks. Classify as a predatory animal because at least 15 packs
in the state.This scenario leaves less than 7 packs outside of the
Parks.
Scenario 2: 3 packs inside the Parks & 10 packs outside
the Parks. Classify as a predatory animal because at least 7 packs
outside the Parks. This scenario leaves less than 15 packs total in
the state.
These scenarios defeat the clearly identified legislative goals
of maintenance of fifteen (15) packs in the state and maintenance of
seven (7) packs outside the Parks.

The letter concludes:

The goals specified by the legislation may be preserved if W.S.
23-1-304(b) is construed in light of those legislatively defined
goals. Stated another way, the language of W.S. 23-1-304(b) must not
be read so restrictively as to prevent the Game and Fish Department
from crafting a state management plan for gray wolves which achieves
delisting and satisfies the other stated legislative goals. The
alternative interpretation, constructing the language of W.S. 23-1-
304(b) in its most restrictive light, will defeat these clearly
identified legislative goals. Such a result would be contrary to
Wyoming law. Should the legislature decide to endorse or change the
result reached as a result of the current statutory language, it
will in all likelihood have an opportunity to do so before delisting
is complete.

;The Wyoming Attorney General's Office thus determined that the
Wyoming State law is internally inconsistent as a key operative
provision (the requirement in '23-1-304(b)(ii)) to classify gray wolves
as predatory if there are at least 7 packs primarily outside the Parks
or at least 15 packs within the entire State) conflicts with the
legislative purpose of providing appropriate management to facilitate
delisting of the wolf. The Attorney General's Office concluded that
'23-1-304(b) should be construed in light of this legislative goal to
allow WGFD to craft a management plan that is inconsistent with the
predatory animal classification requirements of '304(b) if that is what
is needed to prepare a plan that would achieve delisting.
Notwithstanding the Attorney General's opinion, we are concerned that
WGFD would have no authority to act contrary to the categorical
requirements of an operative provision of the State law.
Furthermore, in the fall of 2003, the Service, in cooperation with
the affected States, selected 12 recognized North American experts in
wolf biology and management to review the Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
State wolf management plans. Eleven reviews were completed. While
Wyoming's Plan was thought to be the most extreme in terms of wolf
control and minimizing wolf numbers and distribution, some reviewers
thought it was adequate, primarily because they (1) assumed in error
that the Wyoming definition of a pack was equivalent to the Service's
current breeding pair standard (Ausband 2006), (2) thought that YNP was
likely to carry most of Wyoming's portion of the wolf population, and
(3) assumed that the commitments in the Plan could be implemented under
State law. As noted above, the Service now views these three
assumptions as unrealistic.
Other important developments since these peer reviews include:
recent Federal District court rulings emphasizing consideration of
suitable habitat in calculating the significant portion of the range
occupied by wolves, the decline of YNP wolves, and an improved method
of estimating wolf population status. This new methodology demonstrates
that earlier attempts to correlate pack size in winter with the
probability of being a breeding pair were mathematically incorrect and

[[Page 6131]]

are clearly inconsistent with both the Service's previous and current
breeding pair standards.
The potential success of the current Wyoming law and wolf plan to
maintain its share of wolves in the NRM is greatly dependent on YNP
having at least eight breeding pairs. However, recent experience tells
us this is an unrealistic expectation. In 2005, wolf numbers
substantially declined in YNP (Service et al. 2006, Table 2). The CPV
and/or distemper are suspected of causing low pup survival in YNP, and
pack conflicts over territory appear to have reduced the number of
wolves and packs in YNP from 16 breeding pairs and 171 wolves in 2004,
to 7 breeding pairs and 118 wolves in 2005 (Service et al. 2006, Table
2). In 2005, if each group of 5 or more wolves had been counted as a
pack as Wyoming law defines a pack, there would have been a total of 24
``packs'' in Wyoming: 11 inside YNP, and 13 outside YNP. It is likely
that predatory animal status, if it had been implemented prior to the
end of 2005, would have quickly reduced or eliminated the number and
size of wolf packs outside YNP going into the summer and fall of 2005.
The Wyoming segment of the wolf population would most likely have
fallen below 10 breeding pairs (to only the 7 breeding pairs in YNP),
and the distribution of wolf packs in suitable habitat in Wyoming
outside the National Park/Wilderness units would have been
significantly reduced. This could have occurred because the State
definition of five wolves traveling together as constituting a pack
would have prevented the Wyoming Commission from enlarging the area
designated as trophy game even though there could have been only seven
breeding pairs in the State. Also, Wyoming would have counted most wolf
packs in YNP as breeding pairs even though they were not because they
experienced reproductive failure in 2005.
Wyoming State law allows no regulation of human-caused mortality
until the population falls below 7 packs outside the Parks and there
are less than 15 packs in Wyoming. The Wyoming Petition's claim that
such extensive removal of wolves is unlikely, even if they receive no
legal protection, is not supported given the past history of wolf
extirpation. The WGFD needs to be given the regulatory authority to
adaptively manage the species throughout suitable habitat in Wyoming,
outside of the National Park/Wilderness units, to account for wide
fluctuations in wolf population levels.
In conclusion, Wyoming State law defines a wolf pack in a manner
that has little biological relationship to wolf recovery goals or
population viability, minimizes opportunities for adaptive professional
wildlife management by WGFD, confines wolf packs primarily to YNP,
depends on at least eight National Park/Wilderness wolf packs to
constitute most of the wolves in Wyoming, minimizes the number and
distribution of wolves and wolf packs outside the National Park/
Wilderness Areas, and could lead the Wyoming wolf population to quickly
slide below recovery goals. Additionally, Wyoming State law would
prohibit WGFD from responding in a timely and effective manner should
modification in State management of wolves be needed to prevent the
population from falling below the recovery levels of at least 10
breeding pairs and 100 wolves for each of the 3 core States. Based on
these inadequacies, the Service cannot reasonably be assured that
Wyoming's State law would allow its wolf management plan to maintain
the Wyoming segment of the wolf population above recovery levels or
maintain an adequate distribution of the Wyoming segment of the tri-
State wolf population. We conclude that the NRM wolf population is not
threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range except
for that significant portion of its range outside the National Parks in
northwestern Wyoming. Wyoming state regulatory mechanisms in such areas
are inadequate to prevent excessive human-caused mortality from
reducing that segment of the wolf population in that significant
portion of its range below its recovery levels. However, retention of
the Act's protections, should Wyoming fail to enact an adequate statute
and plan, will assure that the segment of the NRM wolf population in
Wyoming outside the National Parks will not become threatened or
endangered in the foreseeable future.
Future Service approval of a regulatory framework for wolf
management in Wyoming--The Service and Wyoming have continued to
discuss approaches to post-delisting wolf management in Wyoming that
would address our respective concerns and allow the Service to approve
Wyoming's wolf management strategy. Ideas under consideration by the
Wyoming legislature in the 2006 session includes; (1) The concept of a
state Trophy Game Area large enough to adequately support the wolf
population levels required for Wyoming, with predator status (with
mandatory reporting of all take) in the remainder of the State; (2)
acknowledgement that the State would manage for 15 breeding pairs in
mid-winter and that the State's responsibility is 7 breeding pairs
outside the National Parks, based on the assumption that segment of the
Wyoming wolf population will be supplemented by 8 breeding pairs living
on lands managed by the National Park Service; and, (3) that the State
of Wyoming would be responsible for assuring that the absolute minimum
of 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves required to achieve Wyoming's share
of the overall wolf recovery goal would be conserved. If such a
regulatory framework was established by Wyoming law and was to be
implemented by a Wyoming state plan, the Service intends to approve it.
In addition, there are assurances from the National Park Service that
adequate monitoring of wolf packs within Park managed properties will
continue and that information will continue to be readily shared
between the National Park Service and Wyoming. Acceptance of an
adequate regulatory framework in Wyoming by the Service would allow
Wyoming residents to have increased flexibility under the provisions of
the 2005 experimental population regulations (FR 70:1286-1311, Jan
2005) for problem wolf management and would allow the Service to
finalize delisting for that portion of the NRM DPS wolf population in
Wyoming.
The recovery goal for the NRM wolf population requires that it be
comprised of at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves that are
equitably distributed in potentially suitable habitat in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming. To ensure this goal is achieved, each of the three
States (Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) committed to manage for an
equitable distribution of the overall population and assume a
management target of 15 breeding pairs in mid-winter within each State.
The 15 breeding pair management target was not intended to be the
minimum goal for each State. It was an objective so that each State's
management would provide a reasonable cushion to ensure each State's
share of the wolf population did not fall below the 10 breeding pairs
requirement and that the 30 breeding pairs minimum would always be met
or exceeded. Within Wyoming, the 15 breeding pair management target
would be divided between lands where wildlife are managed by the
National Park Service and lands where the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department (WYGF) had primary management responsibility. Under the
current proposal, the WYGF's responsibility for the overall 15 breeding
pair target would be 7 breeding pairs in mid-winter

[[Page 6132]]

outside the National Park Units in Wyoming. We assume that the
remaining 8 breeding pairs will be supported primarily on National Park
Service lands. That said, the minimum recovery goal for the State of
Wyoming of 10 breeding pairs must always be met or exceeded. Therefore,
in the unlikely event that the wolf population within properties
managed by the National Park Service ever dropped below a level that
jeopardized Wyoming's recovery objective, additional management
responsibility by the State of Wyoming may be required to avoid
emergency listing actions.
State regulations would be enacted to ensure that wolves would be
managed to prevent the need for relisting in the future. Therefore, the
State of Wyoming would designate wolves as a Trophy Game Species within
an area similar to that defined below which is capable of supporting at
least 15 breeding pairs (USFWS et al. 2006, Figure 3). The area under
consideration in northwestern Wyoming is approximately that beginning
at the junction of U.S. Highway 120 and the Wyoming/Montana State line;
running southerly along state Highway 120 to the Greybull River;
southwesterly up said river to the Wood River; running southwesterly up
said river to the U.S. Forest Service boundary; following the U.S.
Forest Service boundary southerly to the northern boundary of the Wind
River Indian Reservation; following the Reservation boundary westerly,
then southerly across U.S. Highway 26/287 to the Continental Divide;
following the Continental Divide southeasterly to Middle Fork of
Boulder Creek; following the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek and then
Boulder Creek westerly to the U.S. Forest Service boundary; following
the U.S. Forest Service boundary northwesterly to its intersection with
U.S. Highway 189/91; following U.S. Highway 189/91 northwesterly to the
intersection with Wyoming state highway 22 in the town of Jackson;
following Wyoming state highway 22 westerly to the Wyoming/Idaho State
line.
Within the Trophy Game Area, WYGF would have management control
over the species outside the National Parks and would manage problem
wolves and set harvest regulations in such a way as to assure that the
targets of 15 breeding pair for the State and 7 breeding pairs in
Wyoming outside the National Park Units are met. Outside of the Trophy
Game Area, the State of Wyoming would manage the species as predatory
animals but would monitor the take of all wolves under the State's
predatory animal status.
If this type of regulatory framework was enacted by Wyoming state
law and its wolf management plan it would provide assurance that
Wyoming's share of the tri-state NRM wolf population would be
maintained above recovery levels into the foreseeable future and that a
significant portion of the range in Wyoming was occupied by wolf packs.
This type of management framework is consistent in its general
principles to those already enacted and accepted as being adequate
regulatory frameworks for wolves post-delisting in the states of
Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, and Idaho and would provide
adequate assurances that a viable wolf population will be maintained in
the NRM DPS.
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 was no longer seriously
threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the State. The areas in Washington not included in the
NRM DPS would remain listed as endangered under both State and Federal
law.
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 and to date, no
individual wolves or packs have ever been documented there (Boyd and
Pletscher 1999; Boyd 2006). Intervening unsuitable habitat makes it
highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM population have dispersed to
the North Cascades of Washington in recent history.
There is currently no Washington State recovery or management plan
for wolves, but the State has established an advisory committee and is
preparing a plan. Interagency Wolf Response Guidelines are being
developed by the Service, WDFW, and USDA-WS to provide a checklist of
response actions for five situations that may arise in the future. Wolf
management in Washington is likely to be beneficial to the NRM wolf
population, but is not necessary for achieving or maintaining a
population of wolves in the NRM DPS that is unlikely to become
threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future.
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. The ORS 496.012 states in relevant part: ``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. The plan was built to
meet the 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; (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. This
includes 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

[[Page 6133]]

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 (note--the boundary between east and west wolf
management zones is defined by U.S. Highway 97 from the Columbia River
to the junction of U.S. Highway 20, southeast on U.S. Highway 20 to the
junction with U.S. Highway 395, and south on U.S. Highway 395 to the
California border). 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; (4) 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
(5) 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 delisted, more options are available to
address wolf-livestock conflict. While there are five to seven breeding
pairs, landowners may kill a wolf involved in chronic depredation with
a permit. Five to seven breeding pairs is considered the management
population objective, or Phase 2.
Under Phase 3 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 is proposed to
ensure anyone with an interest in wolves is able to learn more about
the species and stay informed about wildlife management activities.
Several research projects are identified as necessary for
future success of long-term wolf conservation and management.
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. 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 is currently going through a public review
process to amend the Oregon Plan and discuss legislative proposals. 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. If a legislative change is made
to reclassify the gray wolf as a ``special status mammal'' under the
``game mammal'' definition in Oregon, the Commission will retain the
authority to regulate (and, where appropriate, prohibit) take of the
wolf as necessary.
Utah--If federally delisted, wolves in that portion of the NRM DPS
in Utah 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. Wolf management in Utah will have no
effect on the recovered wolf population that resides in suitable
habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 12
(HJR-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 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 assumptions of the plan (political, social, biological, or
legal) change. During this interim

[[Page 6134]]

period, immigrating wolves will be studied to determine where they are
most likely to settle without conflict.
Tribal Plans--Approximately 20 Tribes are within the proposed NRM
DPS. Currently no wolf packs live on, or are entirely dependent on
Tribal lands for their existence in the NRM DPS. In the NRM DPS about
32,942 km \2\ (12,719 mi \2\) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal land.
In the NRM wolf occupied habitat, about 4,696 km \2\ (1,813 mi \2\) (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. Montana and Idaho propose 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 States. Any wolves that may establish themselves on Tribal lands
will be in addition to those managed by the States outside Tribal
reservations. At this point in time, only the Nez Perce Tribe has a
Service approved wolf management plan, but that plan only applied to
listed wolves, and it was reviewed so the Service could determine if
the Tribe could take a portion of the responsibility for wolf
monitoring and management in Idaho under the 1994 special regulation
under section 10(j). No other Tribe has submitted a wolf management
plan. In November 2005, the Service requested information from all the
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 Tribal comments
were incorporated into this proposed rule.

Summary

Montana and Idaho have proposed to regulate wolf mortality over
conflicts with livestock after delisting in a manner similar to that
used by the Service to reduce conflicts with private property, and that
would promote the maintenance of wolf populations above recovery
levels. These two State plans have committed to using a definition of a
wolf pack that would approximate the Service's current breeding pair
definition. Based on that definition, they have committed to
maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State by
managing for a safety margin of 15 breeding pairs in each State. These
States are to control problem wolves in a manner similar to that used
by the Service (1988, p. 8; 1994, pp. 2, 9-12; 1999, pp. 39-40; 70 FR
1306-1311, January 6, 2005) and use adaptive management principles to
regulate and balance wolf population size and distribution with
livestock conflict and public tolerance. When wolf populations are
above State management objectives for 15 breeding pairs, wolf control
measures may be more liberal. When wolf populations are below 15
breeding pairs, wolf control as directed by each State will be more
conservative.
Current Wyoming law provides a definition of pack that is not
consistent with the Service's definition of a breeding pair. In
addition, Wyoming uses the State definition of pack in a complicated
structure for determining when wolves are protected under the
regulatory mechanisms of the ``trophy game'' status and absent
management structure under the ``predatory animal'' status. Wyoming's
plan does not provide for sufficient regulatory control to balance wolf
population size and distribution with livestock conflict and public
tolerance. If Wyoming adopts a State management plan that is consistent
with the requirements outlined above, and that have been already
incorporated into Montana's and Idaho's regulatory framework, we intend
to delist the entire NRM DPS.
If the Service delists the wolf in the NRM DPS, the major
difference between the previous Federal management and the new State
management of problem wolves will be the slightly increased authority
to take wolves in the act of attacking or molesting livestock or other
domestic animals on private land by private landowners or on grazing
allotments by permittees and public harvest programs to help regulate
wolf distribution and density to meet state management objectives.
Private take of problem wolves under State regulations would
replace some agency control, but we believe this would not dramatically
increase the overall numbers of problem wolves killed each year because
of conflicts with livestock. However, if Wyoming does not finalize an
adequate State management plan consistent with the requirements
outlined above, current Wyoming State law designates predatory animal
status that allows all wolves, including pups, to be killed by any
means, without limit, at any time, for any reason, and regardless of
any direct or potential threat to livestock. Such unregulated take
could eliminate wolves from some otherwise significant portion of the
range habitat in northwestern Wyoming. Therefore, without an adequate
State management plan, wolf management in northwestern Wyoming will
remain under the protections of the Act and continue to be conducted by
the Service after this proposal is finalized.
In contrast to the Service recovery program, currently approved
State and Tribal management programs also are to incorporate regulated
public harvest, only when wolf populations in Montana and Idaho are
safely above recovery levels of 15 or more breeding pairs, to help
manage wolf distribution and numbers to minimize conflicts with humans.
Wyoming State law and management also should meet this requirement
before wolves in that State also could be delisted. Each of the three
core States routinely uses regulated public harvest to help
successfully manage and conserve other large predators and wild
ungulates under their authority. Idaho and Montana will use similar
programs to manage wolf populations safely above recovery levels, when
there are more than 15 breeding pairs in their State. Wyoming will
likely have a similar program prior to the Act's protections being
removed.
The States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have managed resident
ungulate populations for decades and maintain them at densities that
would easily support a recovered wolf population. They, and Federal
land management agencies, will continue to manage for high ungulate
populations in the foreseeable future. Native ungulate populations also
are maintained at high levels by Washington, Oregon, and Utah in the
portions of those States that are in the proposed NRM DPS. No
foreseeable condition would cause a decline in ungulate populations
significant enough to affect a recovered wolf population.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray Wolf--The primary determinant of
the long-term status of gray wolf populations in the United States will
be human attitudes toward this large predator. These attitudes are
largely

[[Page 6135]]

based on the conflicts between human activities and wolves, concern
with the perceived danger the species may pose to humans, its symbolic
representation of wilderness, the economic effect of livestock losses,
the concerns regarding the threat to pets, opinions that the species
should never be subject to sport hunting or trapping, and the wolf
traditions of Native American Tribes.
In recent decades, national support has been evident for wolf
recovery and reintroduction in the NRM (Service 1994, pp. 5:11-111).
With the continued help of private conservation organizations, the
States and Tribes can continue to foster public support to maintain
viable wolf populations in the NRM. We have concluded that the State
management regulations that will go into effect if wolves in the NRM
are removed from the Act's protections will further enhance public
support for wolf recovery. 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). State wildlife organizations have specific
departments and staff dedicated to providing accurate and science-based
public education, information, and outreach.
Genetics--Genetic diversity in the GYA segment of the NRM is
extremely high (Wayne 2005). A recent study of genetics among wolves in
northwestern Montana and the reintroduced populations found that wolves
in those areas were as genetically diverse as their source populations
in Canada and that inadequate genetic diversity was not a wolf
conservation issue in the NRM at this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p.
1089; Vonholdt 2006). Because of the long dispersal distances and the
relative speed of natural wolf movement within the NRM DPS (discussed
under Factor A), we anticipate that populations of NRM wolves will
continue to intermix at a sufficient rate to maintain high genetic
diversity into the foreseeable future. However, should it become
necessary sometime in the distant future, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
recognize relocation as a potentially valid wildlife management tool.
No manmade and natural factors threaten wolf population recovery
within the foreseeable future. Public attitudes toward wolves have
improved greatly over the past 30 years, and we expect that, given
adequate continued management of conflicts, those attitudes will
continue to support wolf restoration. The State wildlife agencies have
professional education, information, and outreach components and are to
present balanced science-based 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. Additionally, there are no concerns related to wolf genetic
viability or interbreeding coefficients.

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis

As required by the Act, we considered the five potential threat
factors to assess whether wolves are threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of their range in the NRM DPS
and, therefore, whether the NRM DPS should remain listed. While wolves
historically occurred over most of the proposed DPS, large portions of
this area are no longer able to support viable wolf populations, and
the wolf population in the NRM DPS will remain centered in northwestern
Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. This area represents the
biologically significant portion of the species' range. If Wyoming
develops an adequate State management plan, the NRM DPS would no longer
be threatened or endangered in all or any significant portion of its
range for the foreseeable future. Gray wolves in those portions of
Oregon, Utah, and Washington that are within the boundaries of the
distinct population segment do not constitute a significant portion of
the range of this distinct population segment for the reasons outlined
above. We reviewed all potential threats to the wolf population in the
NRM DPS and we concluded that none except the current state regulatory
framework in Wyoming would threaten wolves in any significant portion
of the range in the NRM DPS in the foreseeable future. Such a
regulatory framework would also threaten the suitable habitat and wolf
range in Wyoming outside the National Parks. If Wyoming changes its law
and management plan consistent with the Service's recommendations, it
will also sufficiently regulate human-caused mortality. However, if no
changes occur, excessive human-caused mortality as allowed under
Wyoming state law would remain the lone threat to wolves in a
significant portion of the range in northwestern Wyoming outside the
National Parks. If a new Wyoming regulatory framework cannot be
approved by the Service, then the Act's protections will remain in
effect in a significant portion of range in Wyoming, outside the
National Parks, and they will provide adequate assurance into the
foreseeable future that human-caused mortality will not become a threat
to wolves in all or a significant portion of their range, even in
northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks.
The large amount and distribution of suitable habitat in public
ownership in the States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, land-use
practices that will maintain the suitability of these areas for wolves,
the presence of three large protected core areas that contain high-
quality suitable habitat assures the Service that threats to wolf
habitat in the NRM DPS have been reduced or eliminated in all or a
significant portion of its range for the foreseeable future, except for
northwestern Wyoming outside the National Parks. Unsuitable habitat and
small, fragmented suitable habitat away from these core areas within
the NRM DPS, largely represent geographic locations where wolf packs
cannot persist and are not significant to the conservation of wolves in
the NRM DPS. Disease and natural predation do not threaten wolf
population recovery in all or a significant portion of the species'
range, nor are they likely to within the foreseeable future.
Additionally, we believe that other relevant natural or manmade factors
(i.e., public attitudes and genetics) are not significant conservation
issues that threaten the wolf population in all or a significant
portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
Human-caused mortality remains the primary threat to the gray wolf.
Therefore, managing 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. Wolf management by the
Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be
beneficial, but is not necessary to either achieving or maintaining a
recovered wolf population in the NRM DPS, as these areas do not
constitute a significant portion of the DPS. We have determined that if
Wyoming develops an adequate State management plan, the wolf management
plans in the 3 States will be adequate to regulate human-caused
mortality and that each State will maintain its share and distribution
of the NRM wolf population above recovery levels for the foreseeable
future. In this case, we propose to establish the NRM DPS of the gray
wolf and to delist all gray wolves in the entire NRM DPS.
In the past, the Service has approached delisting of ``species''
(as that term is defined by the Act) due to recovery to require that
the entity being delisted must be neither threatened nor endangered
throughout all or a

[[Page 6136]]

significant portion of its range. In practice, this has meant that we
have delisted entire species, subspecies, or distinct population
segments of vertebrate animals. In the current situation, i.e., without
an adequate management plan in place in Wyoming, we propose to
establish a Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment of gray
wolf and to delist wolves in all areas of that DPS exclusive of the
significant portion of the range in the State of Wyoming outside of the
National Parks in northwestern Wyoming. As clearly indicated by the
discussion in this proposed delisting, we currently regard a portion of
Wyoming to be a significant portion of the range of the NRM DPS because
a biologically significant portion of the species' range occurs in
Wyoming and have determined that the State has not adequately addressed
the threats to the gray wolf in that portion. Accordingly, the
protections of the Act will continue to apply to gray wolves in that
significant portion of the range. We believe that this proposal is in
the public interest because, by conditionally returning management to
the States, it rewards those who have undertaken positive efforts to
conserve the species and alleviate the threats posed by human-caused
mortality. This approach furthers the Administration's efforts to
emphasize the importance of cooperative conservation in achieving the
purposes of the Act.
Section 4(c)(1) of the Act states, ``The Secretary of the Interior
shall publish in the Federal Register a list of all species determined
by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be endangered species and a list
of all species determined by him or the Secretary of Commerce to be
threatened species. Each list shall refer to the species contained
therein by scientific and common name or names, if any, specify with
respect to such species over what portion of its range it is endangered
or threatened, and specify any critical habitat within such range'' 16
U.S.C. 1533(c)(1) (emphasis added). The Service believes the emphasized
text, in conjunction with the ``significant portion of its range''
language in the definition of ``threatened'' and ``endangered,'' U.S.C.
1532(6), (20), indicates that Congress anticipated situations where the
protections of the Act might not be extended to an entire species, as
that term is defined by the Act, and that this provides the authority
for listing or delisting a portion of a species, subspecies, or
distinct population segment of vertebrate animal.
This conclusion is also consistent with the case law, the ESA, and
the legislative history of the Act. In Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton,
258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit stated regarding the
``significant portion of its range'' language: ``It appears that
Congress added this new language in order to encourage greater
cooperation between federal and state agencies to allow the Secretary
more flexibility in her approach to wildlife management.'' Id. at 1144.
The court went on to recount the Senate floor debate of the ESA,
interpreting it as suggesting that the bill would allow the Secretary
to give the American alligator different listing statuses in different
states. Id. at 1144-45. Finally, in its holding, the court stated that
a significant portion of a species' range could coincide with State
boundaries, and that ``[t]he Secretary necessarily has a wide degree of
discretion in delineating ``a significant portion of its range.'' Id.
at 1145.
Therefore, based on the best scientific and commercial information
available, if Wyoming modifies their wolf management framework we
propose that the gray wolf in the NRM DPS be removed from the list of
threatened and endangered species. However, if it fails to modify its
management plan adequately, wolves in significant portion of the range
in Wyoming outside of the National Parks in northwestern Wyoming will
still require the Act's protections and will retain their nonessential
experimental status under section 10(j) of the Act.

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 (PDM) is to verify that a recovered species
remains secure 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 well-being of any recovered
species.
Monitoring Techniques--The NRM area was intensively monitored for
wolves even before wolves were documented in Montana in the mid-1980s
(Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 1982, pp. 379-381; Kaminski and Hansen
1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, State, 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, radio-collaring, 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 (i.e., 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 outdoors-person),
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 their normal course of 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, radio-collar, and release
wolves on site. 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 numbers and locations of adult wolves and pups that were
likely alive on December 31 of that year. These data are then

[[Page 6137]]

summarized by packs to indicate overall population size, composition,
and distribution. This level of wildlife monitoring is intensive
compared to nearly all others done in North America. We believe the
results are relatively accurate estimates of wolf population
distribution and structure (Service et al. 2006, Table 4, Figure 1) in
the NRM DPS. This monitoring strategy has been used to estimate the NRM
wolf population for over 20 years.
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as Oregon and Utah, committed
to continue monitoring of wolf populations, according to their State
wolf management plans (See State plans in Factor D), 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. The States have
committed to continue to conduct wolf population monitoring through the
mandatory 5-year PDM period that is required by the Act. The States
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. 1989-2006). 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 States and coordinate those observations
with other States. The annual reports have also documented all aspects
of the wolf management program including staffing and funding,
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 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 each year. 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 throughout the post-delisting monitoring period (Service et al.
2006, 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 re-listing 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. 2006, Figure 1, Table 4;
Ausband 2006; Kunkel et al. 2005).
Data indicate that other survey methods and data can become the
``biological equivalents'' of the breeding pair definition currently
used to measure recovery. 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 (Ausband 2006). The
States will continue to cooperate with National Parks and Tribes and
publish their annual wolf population estimates after the 5-year
mandatory wolf population monitoring required by the Act is over, but
this will not be required by the Act.
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 States 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 5-year PDM
period, the best source of that information will be the State annual
wolf reports. We intend to post those annual State wolf reports and our
annual review and comment on the status of the wolf population in the
NRM DPS on our Web site (http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by,
approximately, April 1 of each year. During our yearly analysis for PDM
(at least 5 years) of the State's annual reports, 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,
diseases, decreases in prey abundance, increases in wolf-livestock
conflict, or other factors.
Our analysis and response for PDM is to track changes in wolf
abundance, distribution, and threats to the population. If the wolf
population ever falls below the minimum NRM wolf population recovery
level (30 breeding pairs of wolves and 300 wolves in Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming), we could initiate an immediate analysis of whether an
emergency listing of gray wolves throughout the NRM DPS was
appropriate. If the wolf population segment in Montana, Idaho, or
Wyoming falls below 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves in any one of those
States for 3 consecutive years, we could initiate a status review and
analysis of threats to determine if relisting was warranted. All such
reviews would be made available for public review and comment,
including peer review by select species experts. If either of these two
scenarios (less than 30 breeding pairs or 300 wolves, or less than 10
breeding pairs or 100 wolves in either Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming)
occurred in any year during the mandatory PDM period, the PDM period
would be extended five additional years from that point.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that
are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this
proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as
the following--(1) Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the preamble helpful to your understanding of the proposal?
(2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal
(groupings and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal
easier to understand? Send a copy of any comments on how we could make
this rule easier to understand to--Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20240. You also may e-mail the comments to this address--
[email protected].

Public Comments Solicited

We solicit information, data, comments or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this
proposal. Generally, we seek information, data, and comments concerning
the boundaries of the proposed NRM DPS and the status of gray wolf in
the NRM. Specifically, we seek documented, biological data on the
status and management of the NRM wolf population and its habitat.

Public Hearing

The ESA provides for public hearings on this proposed rule. We have
scheduled six public hearings on this proposed rule as specified above
in DATES and ADDRESSES. Public hearings are designed to gather relevant
information that the public may have that we should consider in our

[[Page 6138]]

rulemaking. During the hearing, we will present information about the
proposed action. We invite the public to submit information and
comments at the hearing or in writing during the open public comment
period. We encourage persons wishing to comment at the hearings to
provide a written copy of their statement at the start of the hearing.
This notice and the public hearings will allow all interested parties
to submit comments on the proposed rule for the gray wolf. We are
seeking comments from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the proposal.
The eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon, and a small portion
of northern Utah are included within the proposed DPS. We request
comments on whether the DPS should, or should not, include more, or
less, land within these, or any other, State(s). Any such comments
should provide relevant scientific data. We will consider the
information so submitted in delineating the boundaries for this DPS.
We request comment on our approach of removing protections in all
or a portion of the NRM DPS. If Wyoming adopts a State law and a State
wolf management plan that the Service approves we will remove Act
protections for all of the NRM DPS. However, if Wyoming does not, the
Service would remove the Act's protections for Idaho and Montana and
parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Northwestern Wyoming outside the
National Parks would retain its nonessential experimental status under
section 10(j) of the Act but the rest of the state would be delisted.
Continued Service management of wolves in northwestern Wyoming would
ensure their conservation, until a Wyoming regulatory framework can be
developed and approved. We believe this process is in the public's best
interest, furthers conservation efforts in the NRM DPS, and is within
our statutory discretion under the Act.
Finally, we request comments concerning our intention to use
section 6 agreements under the Act to allow States with Service-
approved wolf management plans, located adjacent to NRM DPS, to assume
wolf management including nonlethal and lethal control of problem
wolves. Such agreements may be entered into with a State for the
administration of and management for the conservation of endangered or
threatened species. The protections of the Act would still continue to
apply to the gray wolves outside the NRM DPS.
Submit comments as indicated under ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit
comments by e-mail, please avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in
your e-mail message.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment, but you should be aware that the Service may be required to
disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act. We will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at our Helena
Office. (see ADDRESSES). In making a final decision on this proposed
rule, we will take into consideration the comments and any additional
information we receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule
that differs from this proposed rule.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our delisting decision is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We will send copies of this proposed rule to
these peer reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal
Register. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the
public comment period, on the specific assumptions and conclusions
regarding the proposed delisting. We will consider all comments and
information received during the comment period on this proposed rule
during preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number 1018-0094, which expires on September 30, 2007. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. For additional information concerning permit
and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21
and 17.22.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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).

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).

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to 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.

Sec. 17.11 [Amended]

2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Wolf, gray''
under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

[[Page 6139]]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
-------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS

* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray.................... Canis lupus...... Holarctic........ U.S.A., conterminous E.......... 1, 6, 13, 15, N/A........... N/A
(lower 48) States, 35, 561, 562,
except: (1) Where 735.
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 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 Interstate
Highway 80), and
northwestern Ohio
(that portion north
of Interstate
Highway 80 and west
of the Maumee River
at Toledo);
(3) except Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho,
eastern Washington
(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), eastern
Oregon (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), and
north central Utah
(that portion of
Utah east of Highway
84 and north of
Highway 80); and (4)
Mexico. U.S.A.
(portions of AZ, NM,
and TX--see section
17.84(k)).
Do............................ do............... do............... ..................... XN......... 631........... N/A........... 17.84(k)

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 17.84 [Amended]

3. Amend Sec. 17.84 by removing paragraphs (i) and (n).

Dated: January 29, 2007.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 07-487 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P