[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6633-6660]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-40]


[[Page 6633]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants--Gray Wolf; Proposed Rule


[[Page 6634]]


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

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; Removing the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct
Population Segment of Gray Wolf From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
intention to conduct rulemaking to establish a distinct population
segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the Northern Rocky
Mountains of the United States (NRM). The NRM DPS of 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. The
threats to the wolf population in the NRM DPS have been reduced or
eliminated as evidenced by the population exceeding the numerical,
distributional, and temporal recovery goals each year since 2002. The
States of Montana and Idaho have adopted State laws and State wolf
management plans that would conserve a recovered NRM wolf population
within their boundaries into the foreseeable future. However, we have
determined that Wyoming State law and its wolf management plan do not
provide the necessary regulatory mechanism to assure that Wyoming's
share of a recovered NRM wolf population will be conserved if the ESA's
protections were removed. Therefore, we intend to conduct a future
rulemaking to propose that the gray wolf in the NRM wolf DPS be removed
from the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, if Wyoming adopts a
State law and a State wolf management plan that is approved by the
Service. Concerns regarding the Wyoming plan would have to be resolved
before a NRM DPS delisting could be finalized. This ANPRM is being
issued in advance of completion of the 12 month status review of NRM
wolves. This status review remains in progress.

DATES: We request that comments on this notice be submitted by the
close of business on April 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit comments and
materials concerning this notice, 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. E-mail_NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov. Include ``RIN number 1018-AU53'' in
the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery
Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western
Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601.

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 40-175 pounds (lb) (18-
80 kilograms [kg]) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974). In the
NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 100 lb (45 kg), but may weigh
up to 130 lb (60 kg). 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. 2003). Wolves may appear similar to
coyotes (C. latrans) and some domestic dog breeds (such as the German
shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. familiaris). However, the gray wolf's
size, long legs, narrow chest, large feet, wide head and snout, and
straight tail distinguish it from both the coyote and dog.
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America,
Europe and Asia. The only areas within North America that lacked gray
wolf populations prior to European settlement were southern and
interior Greenland, the coastal regions of Mexico, Central America,
coastal and other large parts of California, the extremely arid deserts
and mountaintops of the western United States, parts of eastern and
southeastern United States, and possibly southeastern Canada (Young and
Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1970; Nowak 1995, 2003; Wilson et al.
2000, 2003; Grewal et al. 2004). Some authorities question the reported
historical absence of gray wolves from large parts of California
(Carbyn in litt. 2000; Mech in litt. 2000; Schmidt 1987, 1991).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wild prey
species in the NRM include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis),
pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison),
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus),
woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), and beaver (Castor canadensis).
While other small and mid-sized mammals, birds, large invertebrates,
fish, and fruits are occasionally eaten, they are rarely important in
the wolf's diet (Mech and Boitani 2003). Since 1987, wolves in the NRM
also have preyed on domestic animals, including cattle (Bos sp.), sheep
(Ovis sp.), llamas (Lama glama), horses (Equus sp.), goats (Capra sp.),
and dogs (Service et al. 2005).
    Wolves have a social structure, normally living in packs of 2 to 12
animals. Wolf packs are usually family groups consisting of a breeding
pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from previous years,
and an occasional unrelated wolf. Wolf pack structure can be
``complex'' (multiple generations) or ``simple'' (breeding pair and
pups). 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) (D. Smith, Yellowstone NPS,
pers. comm., 2005; Service et al. 2005). In areas where conflicts with
humans and livestock are most prevalent, packs are typically smaller
and are more likely to be ``simple.'' Packs typically occupy large
distinct territories (200-500 square miles (mi\2\) (518-1,295 square
kilometers (km\2\) and defend these areas from other wolves or packs.
Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes
saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available
prey, intraspecies conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal.
    Both male and female yearling wolves often disperse from their
packs, although some non-breeding wolves remain with their natal packs
for years. 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 60
miles (mi) (97 kilometers (km)), but dispersals over 500 mi (805 km)
have been documented (Boyd et al. in prep.; Boyd and Pletscher 1997).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each
pack

[[Page 6635]]

breed and produce pups (Packard 2003; Smith, pers. comm., 2005; Service
et al. 2005). 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 1992a; Service et al. 2001). Most years,
4 of these 5 pups survive until winter (Service et al. 2005). Wolves
can live 13 years but the average lifespan in the NRM is about 4 years
(Smith, pers. comm., 2005). Pups are raised by the entire pack. If
alphas are lost when pups are very young, other pack members or even a
single adult can successfully raise them (Boyd and Jimenez 1994;
Brainerd et al. in prep.). Pup production and survival can increase
when wolf density is lower and food availability per wolf increases
(Fuller et al. 2003). Breeding members also can be quickly replaced
either from within or outside the pack (Packard 2003; Brainerd et al.
in prep.). 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; Smith, pers. comm., 2005; Service et al. 2005).

Recovery

    Background--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; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were
eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent
southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944). Thereafter,
only isolated observations of individuals and non-breeding pairs were
reported in the area (Ream and Mattson 1982; Weaver 1978). After human-
caused mortality of wolves in southwestern Canada was regulated in the
1960s, populations expanded southward (Carbyn 1983, Pletscher et al.
1991). Dispersing individuals occasionally reached the NRM (Ream and
Mattson 1982; Nowak 1983), but lacked legal protection there until 1974
when they were listed as endangered under the ESA (39 FR 1171, January
4, 1974).
    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; Fritts et al.
1995). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain Plan) was approved in
1980 (Service 1980) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987). It specifies a
recovery criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined in 1987 as
two 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 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 Yellowstone National Park (YNP)
area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and
Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 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. It also states that 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 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) reviewed wolf
recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals (Service
1994). The EIS indicated that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a
minimal recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the
basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity,
and numbers. This review concluded that as 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)
(Service 1994) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have
a high probability of long-term persistence.''
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf
population in late 2001 and early 2002 (Bangs 2002). Relevant
literature was reviewed (Fritts et al. 1994; Fritts and Carbyn 1995),
and responses were received and evaluated from 50 of 88 experts
contacted. This review showed that there is a wide variety of
professional opinion about wolf population viability. Based on the
review, we adopted the 1994 EIS's more relevant and stringent
definition of wolf population viability and recovery (Service 1994) and
began using entire States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure
progress towards recovery goals (Service et al. 2002). 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 absolute equitable
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). 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). The number
of wolves resulting from this ``natural'' recovery in northwestern
Montana steadily increased for the next decade (Service et al. 2005).
    In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada
to remote public lands in central Idaho and YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996;
Fritts et al. 1997; Bangs et al. 1998). These wolves were classified as
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA 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; Service et al. 2005).
    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; Fritts et al. 1995; Service 1989).
The Working Group, whose membership has evolved as wolf range has
expanded, conducted 4 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 and 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

[[Page 6636]]

(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. 1989-2005).
    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 and weekly reports (Service et al.
1989-2005; Service 1998-2005). Since the early 1980s, the Service and
our cooperating partners have radio-collared and monitored over 716
wolves in the NRM to assess population status, conduct research, and to
reduce/resolve conflicts with livestock. The Work Group's annual
population estimates represent the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population size
and trends, as well as distributional information.
    At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met its numerical and
distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 ``breeding pairs'' and
over 300 wolves well-distributed among Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68
FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 2003). That year, Montana
attained 8 breeding pairs and approximately 97 wolves; Wyoming attained
12 breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves; and Idaho attained 10
breeding pairs and 187 wolves. This minimum recovery goal was attainted
or exceeded in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2001, Montana attained 7
breeding pairs and approximately 123 wolves; Wyoming attained 13
breeding pairs and approximately 189 wolves; and Idaho attained 14
breeding pairs and 251 wolves. In 2002, Montana attained 17 breeding
pairs and approximately 183 wolves; Wyoming attained 18 breeding pairs
and approximately 217 wolves; and Idaho attained 14 breeding pairs and
216 wolves. In 2003, Montana attained 10 breeding pairs and
approximately 182 wolves; Wyoming attained 16 breeding pairs and
approximately 234 wolves; and Idaho attained 25 breeding pairs and 345
wolves. In 2004, Montana attained 15 breeding pairs and approximately
153 wolves; Wyoming attained 24 breeding pairs and approximately 260
wolves; and Idaho attained 27 breeding pairs and 422 wolves. Figure 1
illustrates wolf population trends by State from 1979 to 2004. Official
population estimates for 2005 are not yet available.
    The following section discusses recovery within each of the three
major recovery areas. Because the recovery areas cross State lines, the
population estimates sum differently.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE06.001

    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--Reproduction
first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The natural ability of
wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat 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 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 49-108 wolves (Service et al. 2005). Our

[[Page 6637]]

1998 estimate was a minimum of 49 wolves in 5 breeding pairs. In 1999,
and again in 2000, 6 breeding pairs produced pups, and the northwestern
Montana population increased to about 63 wolves. In 2001, we estimated
that 84 wolves in 7 breeding pairs occurred; in 2002, there were an
estimated 108 wolves in 12 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an
estimated 92 wolves in 4 breeding pairs; and in 2004, there were an
estimated 59 wolves in 6 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005). (See Figure 1.)
    The likely reasons for the lack of further growth are that suitable
wolf habitat in northwestern Montana is limited and wolf packs there
are at a 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 its' thick forests. Wolves
in northwestern Montana prey mainly on white-tailed deer and pack size
is smaller, which also makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs et
al. 1998). 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 86 wolves and about 7 packs.
    Northwestern Montana wolves are demographically and genetically
linked to both the wolf population in Canada and to central Idaho
(Pletscher et al. 1991; Boyd and Pletscher 1997). Wolf dispersal into
northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to supplement
this segment of the overall wolf population, both demographically and
genetically (Boyd et al. in prep.; Forbes and Boyd 1996, 1997; Boyd et
al. 1995).
    Wolf conflicts with livestock have fluctuated with wolf population
size and prey population density (Service et al. 2005). 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 declined (Bangs et al.
1998). Wolf numbers increased as wild prey numbers rebounded. Unlike
YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness, northwestern Montana lacks a large
core refugium that contains over-wintering 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. 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--In January 1995, 15
young adult wolves were captured in Alberta, Canada, and released by
the Service in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996; Fritts et al.
1997; Bangs et al. 1998). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from
British Columbia were released. Central Idaho contains the greatest
amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either northwestern
Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. in press). In 1998, the central
Idaho wolf population consisted of a minimum of 114 wolves, including
10 breeding pairs (Bangs et al. 1998). By 1999, it had grown to about
141 wolves in 10 breeding pairs. By 2000, this population had 192
wolves in 10 breeding pairs and by 2001 it had climbed to about 261
wolves in 14 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2002). In 2002, there were
284 wolves in 14 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were 368 wolves in 26
breeding pairs; and by the end of 2004, there were 452 wolves in 30
breeding pairs (Service et al. 2003, 2004, 2005) (Figure 1).
    Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Area--In 1995, 14 wolves from
Alberta, representing 3 family groups, were released in YNP (Bangs and
Fritts 1996; Fritts et al. 1997; Phillips and Smith 1997). Two of the 3
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
five-month old pups removed from northwestern Montana, were released in
YNP in the spring of 1997.
    By 1998, the wolves had expanded from YNP to the GYA and the
population consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 breeding pairs that
produced 10 litters of pups. The 1999 population consisted of 118
wolves, including 8 breeding pairs. In 2000, the GYA had 177 wolves,
including 14 breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including 13
breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. 2002). In 2002, there were an
estimated 271 wolves in 23 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an
estimated 301 wolves in 21 breeding pairs; and in 2004, there were an
estimated 324 wolves in 30 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2003, 2004,
2005) (Figure 1).
    Preliminary estimates suggest that wolf numbers in GYA are down in
2005 (221 wolves in 13 breeding pairs) (Service September 9, 2005). The
decline of wolves in YNP occurred because (1) highly suitable habitat
is saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appears to be
limiting population density; (3) there are fewer elk than when
reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 2006; Vucetich et al.
2005); and, (4) a suspected, but as yet unconfirmed, outbreak of canine
parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper, reduced pup survival in 2005.
Additional significant growth in the YNP portion of the Wyoming wolf
population is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with
resident wolf packs. Wolf recovery in the GYA segment of the NRM wolf
DPS will likely depend on wolf packs living outside YNP in Wyoming.
    In conclusion, having attained or exceeded the minimum numerical
and distributional recovery goals for five consecutive years, the NRM
wolf population has now achieved the biological criteria necessary for
a viable and recovered wolf population.

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 ESA. 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 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

[[Page 6638]]

section 10(j) and liberalized management options for problem wolves (70
FR 1285). 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.
    On July 13, 2000, we proposed to reclassify and delist the gray
wolf in various parts of the contiguous United States (65 FR 43449). On
April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing status of
the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States from
endangered to threatened (68 FR 15804). In terms of the NRM population,
this rule (1) designated Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the northern portions of Utah and Colorado
as the Western gray wolf DPS (covering a larger area than proposed in
2000); (2) reclassified this DPS to threatened status, except in the
experimental population areas; and (3) implemented a special regulation
under section 4(d) of the ESA to allow increased management flexibility
for problem wolves. On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, the U.S.
District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, concluded that the
2003 final rule was ``arbitrary and capricious'' and violated the ESA
(Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D. OR 2005; National
Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). The courts'
rulings invalidated the April 2003 changes to the ESA listing for the
gray wolf. Therefore, the gray wolf in the Rocky Mountains, outside of
areas designated as nonessential experimental populations, reverted
back to the endangered status that existed prior to the 2003
reclassification.
    The Service has received a number of petitions relevant to the NRM
wolf population. On July 16, 1990, the Service received a petition from
the Farm Bureau Federations of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho to delist
the gray wolf. On November 30, 1990, the Service published a finding
that the petition did not present substantial information to indicate
that the petitioned action may be warranted (55 FR 49656).
    Subsequent to our July 13, 2000, reclassification proposal (65 FR
43449), but after the close of the comment period, we received
petitions from Defenders of Wildlife to list, as endangered, gray wolf
DPSs in the--(1) southern Rocky Mountains, (2) northern California-
southern Oregon, and (3) western Washington. Because wolves were
already protected as endangered throughout the 48 conterminous States,
we did not need to take action on these petitions.
    On October 30, 2001, we received a petition dated October 5, 2001,
from the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc. (Friends
Petition) that sought removal of the gray wolf from endangered status
under the ESA (Karl Knuchel, P.C., A Professional Corporation Attorneys
at Law, in litt., 2001a). Additional correspondence in late 2001
provided clarification that the petition only applied to the Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho population and that the petition requested full
delisting of this population (Knuchel in litt. 2001b). Additionally, 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 (Wyoming Petition) to revise the listing status for the gray
wolf (Canis lupus) by establishing the northern Rocky Mountain DPS and
to concurrently remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the Federal
list of threatened and endangered species (Dave Freudenthal, Office of
the Governor, State of Wyoming, in litt. 2005). On October 26, 2005, we
published a finding that--(1) the Friends Petition failed to present a
case for delisting that would lead a reasonable person to believe that
the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted; and (2) the
Wyoming petition presented substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that the NRM gray wolf population may qualify as
a DPS and that this potential DPS may warrant delisting (70 FR 61770).
We considered the collective weight of evidence and initiated a 12-
month status review, which continues.
    In June of 2003, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) submitted
a petition to delist wolves in Nevada. The NDOW petition asserted that
the 1978 listing of gray wolves as endangered in Nevada and the 2003
reclassification of gray wolves as threatened in Nevada were in error.
On December 9, 2005, we published a finding that the NDOW petition did
not provide substantial information that the petitioned action may be
warranted (70 FR 73190).
    For additional information on previous Federal actions for gray
wolves beyond the NRM, see 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'' (68
FR 15804).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the ESA, we consider for listing any species,
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if there is
sufficient information to indicate that such action may be warranted.
To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the ESA 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 ESA and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884). 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). This
policy addresses the recognition of a DPS for potential listing,
reclassification, and delisting actions.
    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 (i.e.,
Canis lupus); and the significance of the population segment to the
taxon to which it belongs (i.e., Canis lupus)--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 in relation to the ESA's standards for listing,
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment
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 (i.e., Canis lupus) 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

[[Page 6639]]

mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of
the ESA.
    Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern
edge of the tentative NRM wolf DPS (See Figure 2) is about 400 mi (644
km) from the western edge of the area currently occupied by the 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 wolf DPS border is
about 450 mi (724 km) from the nonessential experimental populations of
wolves in the southwestern United States with vast amounts of
unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. No wolves
are known to occur west of the contemplated DPS. No wolves from other
populations are known to have dispersed as far as the borders of the
NRM wolf DPS.
    Although dispersal distance data for North America (Fritts 1983;
Missouri Department of Conservation 2001; Ream et al. 1991; Boyd and
Pletscher 1997; Boyd et al. in prep.) show that gray wolves can
disperse over 500 mi (805 km) from existing wolf populations, the
average dispersal of NRM wolves is about 60 mi (97 km). Only 7 of
nearly 200 known NRM wolf dispersal events from 1994 through 2004 have
been over 180 mi (290 km) (Boyd et al. in prep.). Six of these seven
U.S. long-distance dispersers remained within the tentative DPS. None
of those long-distance wolves found mates nor survived long enough to
breed in the United States (Boyd in prep.). 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. The
wolf that dispersed to northern Utah was incidentally captured by a
coyote trapper and relocated back to Wyoming by the Service.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE06.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The only wolf known to have dispersed (within the United States)
beyond the border of the tentative NRM wolf DPS was killed by a vehicle
collision along Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado.
    No connectivity currently exists between the three U.S. 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 400 mi from one population to the other, it has never
been documented and is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the DPS Policy
does not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations,
but instead requires ``marked separation.''
    Management Differences Among the United States and Canadian Wolf
Populations--The DPS Policy allows us to use international borders to
delineate

[[Page 6641]]

the boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution of the species
extends across that border. 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-
60,000 wolves occur in Canada where suitable habitat is abundant
(Boitani 2003). 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). If
delisted, States in the NRM would carefully monitor and manage to
retain populations at or above the recovery goal (see Factor D below).
Significant differences exist in management between U.S.-Canadian wolf
populations.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e.,
Canis lupus) 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 tentative NRM wolf DPS and thus are not included in
our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic
wolves, the NRM is the only area where such a high diversity of large
predators occupy 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). In
the NRM wolf DPS, gray wolves share habitats with black bears (Ursus
americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis
concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes,
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, white-tailed deer,
moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, pronghorn antelope, bison, and
beaver. This complexity leads to unique ecological cascades in some
areas, such as in YNP (Smith et al. 2003; Robbins 2004; Bangs and Smith
in press). 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), which in turn can
affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001). This
suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes also may be occurring with
scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a year-round source of
food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003).
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. As noted above, 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 1,000 mi
(1,600 km) 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; Robbins 2004; Bangs and Smith in press).
    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 (C. lupus) (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9,
1978). The tentative NRM wolf DPS is significant in achieving this
objective, as it is 1 of only 3 known occupied areas in the lower 48
States and constitutes nearly 20 percent of the remaining wolves in the
conterminous States.
    We believe, based on our analysis of the best available scientific
information, that the NRM wolf 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 wolf DPS appears to meet the criterion of significance under our
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments.

Defining the Boundaries of the Tentative NRM Wolf DPS

    Although our DPS policy does not provide for State or other intra-
national governmental boundaries to be used in determining the
discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or manmade boundary may
be used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the
geographic area included within a DPS designation. Easily identifiable
manmade features, such as roads and highways, also can serve as a
boundary of convenience for delineating a DPS. The boundaries of the
tentative NRM wolf DPS include all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the
eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north
central Utah (See Figure 2). 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 centerline of these
roads will be deemed the border of the DPS.
    One factor considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM wolf
DPS was the documented current distribution of all known wolf pack
locations in 2004 (Figure 2) (Service et al. 2005). We also viewed the
annual distribution of wolf packs back to 2002 (the first year the
population exceeded the recovery goal) (Service et al. 2002, 2003,
2004). 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 most current information
available. All known wolf packs in recent history have only been
located in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Only

[[Page 6642]]

occasional lone dispersing wolves from the NRM population have been
documented beyond those three States, in eastern Washington, eastern
Oregon, northern Utah, and central Colorado (Boyd et al. in prep.).
    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 1997; Boyd et al. in
prep). These data indicate the average dispersal distance of wolves
from the NRM for the last 10 years was about 60 mi (97 km) (Boyd et al.
in prep.). We determined that 180 mi (290 km), three times the average
dispersal distance, was a break-point for unusually long-distance
dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories, in part, because
only 7 wolves (none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed farther
into the United States. Only dispersal 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 formed 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).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. in press) and throughout the western United
States (Carroll et al. 2003, 2006) 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. in press; Carroll et al. 2003, 2006) were similar in many respects.
Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf 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, low
agricultural use, and low human populations (See Factor A). The models
indicate there is a large block of suitable wolf habitat in central
Idaho and the GYA, and to a lesser extent 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 wolf 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. (in press) and Carroll
et al. (2003, 2006) and our observations during the past 20 years
(Bangs 2004, Service et al. 2005) indicate that non-forested rangeland
and croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and
high desert) would preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence.
This 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. It is important to note that 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 wolf DPS
could still display the required discreteness.
    Within the NRM wolf 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 60 to 180 mile (97 to 290 km)
band from the core wolf population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone
dispersing wolves have been found in these areas in recent times (Boyd
et al. in prep.); (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 these relatively small
and fragmented habitat patches and the large blocks of suitable habitat
in the NRM wolf DPS. If wolf packs do establish in these areas, they
would 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 wolf 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),
agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no
individual wolves or packs have ever been documented there (Boyd and
Pletscher 1997, Boyd et al. in prep.). 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 wolf DPS, it would
remain protected by the ESA as endangered outside the DPS. We will
continue to provide recommendations for appropriate protections on a
site-specific basis should wolves ultimately disperse into and form
packs in areas outside of the NRM wolf DPS.
    We would include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM wolf
DPS because their State regulatory frameworks apply State-wide. We
recognize that this includes large swaths of unsuitable habitat in
eastern Wyoming and Montana. We chose not to extend the NRM wolf DPS
border beyond eastern Montana and Wyoming to provide clearly
delineated, easily understood boundaries for law enforcement purposes,
consistency with State wolf regulations and planning efforts, and for
administrative convenience. Including all of Wyoming in the NRM wolf
DPS would also result in including portions of the Sierra Madre, the
Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pers. comm.) chose
not to analyze these areas of SE 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, 2006) indicated it was suitable habitat, the model
optimistically 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 increased
human population growth and road development. Therefore, we do not
consider these areas to be suitable wolf habitat and they were not
significant factors in determining the DPS border.

[[Page 6643]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the ESA and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the ESA set forth the procedures
for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. Species may be
listed as threatened or endangered if one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA 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 ESA's
definition of threatened or endangered. The ESA defines an endangered
species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is
likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Determining
whether a species is recovered requires consolidation of the same five
categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1). For species that
are already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of
threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the
species and the threats that could potentially affect the species in
the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal or reduction of the ESA's protections.
    For the purposes of this notice, we consider ``foreseeable future''
as 30 years. We use 30 years to represent both a reasonable timeframe
for analysis of future potential threats and relate this timeframe back
to wolf biology. Wolves were listed in 1973 and reached recovery levels
by 2002 in both the midwestern United States and the NRM wolf DPS. It
has taken about 30 years for the causes of wolf endangerment to be
alleviated and for those wolf populations to recover. The average
lifespan of a wolf in YNP is 4 years and slightly less outside the Park
(Smith, pers. comm., 2005). The average gray wolf breeds at 30 months
of age and replaces itself in 3 years (Fuller et al. 2003). We used 10
wolf generations (30 years) to represent a reasonable biological
timeframe to determine if impacts could be significant. Any serious
threats to wolf population viability are likely to become evident well
before a 30-year time horizon.
    For the purposes of this notice, the ``range'' of this NRM wolf DPS
is the area within the DPS boundaries where viable populations of the
species now exist. However, a species' historic range is also
considered because it helps inform decisions on the species status in
its current range. While wolves historically occurred over most of the
DPS, large portions of it are no longer able to support viable wolf
populations.
    Significance of a portion of the range is viewed in terms of
biological significance. A portion of a species' range that is so
important to the continued existence of the species that threats to the
species in that area can threaten the viability of the species,
subspecies, or DPS as a whole is considered to be a significant portion
of the range. In regard to the NRM wolf DPS, the significant portions
of the gray wolf's range are those areas that are important or
necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving
representative meta-population in order for the NRM wolf DPS to persist
into the foreseeable future.
    The following analysis examines all significant factors currently
affecting wolf populations or likely to affect wolf populations within
the foreseeable future. Factor A considers all factors affecting both
currently occupied (defined below in Factor A) and potentially suitable
habitat (defined below in Factor A). The issues discussed under Factors
B, C, and E are analyzed throughout the entire DPS. Adequate regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed for each of the 6 States within the
DPS and relevant tribes, with an emphasis on the three States with
enough suitable habitat to sustain a viable wolf population (Wyoming,
Montana, and Idaho).

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

    As discussed in detail below, we believe that impacts to suitable
and potentially suitable habitat will occur at levels that will not
significantly affect wolf numbers or distribution in the NRM wolf DPS.
Occupied suitable habitat in key areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
is secure. These areas include Glacier, Teton, and Yellowstone National
Parks and numerous USDA Forest Service Wilderness areas. Nearly two-
thirds of the overall area is Federal and State public land. These
areas will continue to be managed for high ungulate densities, moderate
rates of seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road densities
that will provide abundant native prey, low potential for livestock
conflicts, and security from excessive unregulated human-caused
mortality. The core recovery areas are also within proximity to one
another and have enough public land between them to ensure sufficient
connectivity to maintain the wolf population above recovery levels.
    The NRM wolf DPS is 378,690 mi (980,803 km\2\) and includes 158,807
mi\2\ (411,308 km\2\) of Federal land (42 percent); 20,734 mi\2\
(53,701 km\2\) of State land (5 percent); 15,068 mi\2\ (39,026 km\2\)
of Tribal land (4 percent); and 180,543 mi\2\ (467,604 km\2\) of
private land (48 percent). The DPS contains large amounts of 3
Ecoregion Divisions--Temperate Steppe (prairie) (120,521 mi\2\ [312,148
km\2\]); Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) (156,341 mi\2\ [404,921
km\2\]); and Temperate Desert (high desert) (101,755 mi\2\ [263,544
km\2\]) (Bailey 1995). The following analysis focuses on suitable
habitat within the DPS and currently occupied areas (which may include
intermittent unsuitable habitat).
    Suitable Habitat within the DPS-- Wolves once occupied or transited
most, if not all, of the NRM wolf DPS. However, much of the wolf s
historic range within the DPS has been modified for human use and is no
longer suitable habitat. We used two relatively new models, Oakleaf et
al. (in press) and Carroll et al. (2006), to help us determine and
estimate the current amount of suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf
DPS. As expected, the Oakleaf et al. (in press) and Carroll et al.
(2006) models predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable
wolf habitat where their analysis overlapped because they used
different models with different variables over different areas.
    Oakleaf's basic model was a more intensive effort that only looked
at potential wolf habitat in the NRM. 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 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.
    Our experience in wolf management for the past 20 years, and the
persistence of wolf packs since recovery has been achieved, leads us to
concur with the Oakleaf et al. (in press) model's predictions that the
most important habitat attributes for wolf pack

[[Page 6644]]

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, in the parts of
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming analyzed, represents the most reasonably
realistic prediction of suitable wolf 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'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. 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 of different levels of road and human
density in 2025 to suitable wolf habitat in the western United States.
We believe that the Carroll et al. (2006) model tended to be more
liberal in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions
compared to Oakleaf model or our field observations indicated but it
provided a valuable relative measure across the western United States
upon which comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not
incorporate livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf
model did. We believe that may in part explain why Carroll ranked more
habitat as potentially suitable than appeared to be realistic based
upon our observations of wolf pack persistence to date. Many of the
more isolated primary habitat patches that the Carroll model predicted
as currently suitable, were predicted as unsuitable by the year 2025,
indicating they were likely on the lower end of what ranked as suitable
habitat in that model. 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 (Carroll et al. 2003).
    Despite the huge differences in each model's analysis area, layers,
inputs, and assumptions, they had similar results and assumptions that
are directly related to the NRM wolf DPS. These models were extremely
valuable to us as we developed the DPS border and analyzed potentially
suitable and unsuitable wolf habitat within the NRM wolf DPS. Both
models predicted that most suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf DPS
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 cores areas were surrounded by large areas of unsuitable habitat.
    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 wolf
DPS was typically characterized by both models as public land with
mountainous forested habitat and having 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). We generally agree with
these criteria. A mix of these characteristics produced varying degrees
of suitability. The full spectrum runs from highly suitable (i.e., the
northern range of YNP) to highly unsuitable (i.e., a city or a sheep
ranch in eastern Montana) and every imaginable combination between the
two extremes.
    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.
Carroll et al. (2006) optimistically ranked 102,588 mi2 (265,703 km\2\)
and Oakleaf et al. (in press) ranked 65,725 mi\2\ (170,228 km\2\) of
suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. We believe that these
models' assessments are reasonable and they generally support earlier
predictions about wolf habitat suitability in the NRM (Service 1980,
1987, 1994). We used their findings to make interpretations and
predictions about wolf pack distribution in relation to potentially
suitable habitat in the NRM wolf DPS.
    In the NRM wolf DPS, the estimated amounts of potentially suitable
wolf habitat predicted by Carroll et al. (2006) in each State are--
40,924 mi\2\ (105,993 km\2\) in Montana; 31,856 mi\2\ (82,507 km\2\) in
Idaho; 29,808 mi\2\ (77,202 km\2\) in Wyoming; 2,556 mi\2\ (6,620
km\2\) in Oregon; 1,655 mi\2\ (4,286 km\2\) in Utah; and 297 mi\2\ (769
km\2\) in Washington. For perspective, a single wolf pack territory
normally averages 200-500 mi\2\ (518-1,295 km\2\). Thus, approximately
28 percent of the NRM wolf DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat in
accordance with the most liberal model available (Carroll et al. 2006).
We used the Carroll model to assess relative habitat suitability in the
entire NRM wolf DPS because the Oakleaf model only analyzed areas in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 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 wolf DPS. This included the locations estimated in the 1987
wolf recovery plan (Service 1987), the primary analysis areas analyzed
in the 1994 EIS for the GYA (24,600 mi\2\ [63,700 km\2\]) and central
Idaho (20,700 mi\2\ [53,600 km\2\]) (Service 1994), information derived
from theoretical models by Carroll et al. (2006) and Oakleaf et al. (in
press), and our nearly 20 years of field experience managing wolves in
the NRM. Oakleaf predicted that there was 65,725 mi\2\ (170,227 km\2\)
of suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Carroll predicted
that there was 107,096 mi\2\ (277,377 km\2\) of suitable habitat within
the NRM wolf DPS, and 102,588 mi\2\ (265,702 km\2\) (96 percent) of
that was in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. We agree with Oakleaf et al.
(in press) on the area they concluded is suitable wolf habitat and that
there is roughly 65,000 mi\2\ (168,000 km\2\) of suitable wolf habitat
that is realistically available for persistent wolf pack formation in
the NRM wolf DPS in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming under current
conditions. Although Carroll determined there maybe some potentially
suitable wolf habitat (< 5,000 mi\2\ [13,000 km\2\]) in the NRM wolf 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.
    Currently Occupied Habitat--The area ``currently occupied'' by the
NRM wolf population was calculated by drawing a line around the outer
points

[[Page 6645]]

of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack (n = 110)
territories in 2004 (See Figure 2) (Service et al. 2005). 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 wolves
for longer than one month (Service 1994). Although we relied upon 2004
wolf monitoring data (Service et al. 2005), the overall distribution of
wolf packs has been similar since 2000 when the numerical and
distributional recovery goal was first reached (Service et al. 2001-
2005). This general distribution of wolf packs would be maintained
after delisting because delisting would occur only if Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming committed to manage wolves in their State above the minimum
10 breeding pair and 100 individual wolves recovery level per State. We
included areas between the core recovery segments as occupied wolf
habitat even though wolf packs did not use certain portions of it.
While models ranked some of it as unsuitable habitat, those intervening
areas are important to maintaining the meta-population structure since
dispersing wolves routinely travel through those areas (Service 1994;
Bangs 2002). 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.
    We estimate approximately 106,384 mi\2\ (275,533 km\2\) of occupied
habitat in parts of Montana (48,343 mi\2\ [125,208 km\2\]); Idaho
(44,907 mi\2\ [116,309 km\2\]); and Wyoming (13,134 mi\2\ [34,017
km\2\]). As noted above, occupancy is limited to these three States and
includes both suitable and unsuitable areas (especially in the areas
between wolf pack territories). Although currently occupied habitat
includes some prairie (1,733 mi\2\ [4,488 km\2\]) and some high desert
(9,451 mi\2\ [24,478 km\2\]), wolf packs did not use these habitat
types successfully. 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 70,844 mi\2\ (183,485
km\2\) Federal (67 percent); 4,717 mi\2\ (12,217 km\2\) State (4.4
percent); 1,183 mi\2\ (3,064 km\2\) Tribal (1.7 percent); and 27,675
mi\2\ (71,678 km\2\) private (26 percent).
    We determined that the current wolf population is a three segment
meta-population and that the overall area used by the NRM wolf
population has not significantly expanded since the population achieved
recovery in 2002. This indicates there is probably limited suitable
habitat for the population to expand significantly beyond its current
borders. Carroll's model predicted that 63,901 mi\2\ (165,503 km\2\) of
suitable habitat (62 percent) was within the occupied area, however,
the model's remaining potentially (38 percent) suitable habitat in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming was often fragmented and in smaller, more
isolated patches. Suitable habitat within the occupied area,
particularly between the population segments is important to maintain
the overall population. Habitat on the outer edge of the meta-
population is insignificant to maintaining the NRM wolf population's
viability or maintaining the population throughout a significant
portion of its range in the NRM wolf DPS. Oakleaf predicted that there
was 65,725 mi\2\ (170,227 km\2\) of suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho,
and Wyoming. Roughly 57,374 mi\2\ (148,599 km\2\) or 87 percent of that
is within the area we describe as the area currently occupied by the
NRM wolf population. We consider this 57,374 mi\2\ (148,599 km\2\) of
occupied suitable habitat as the significant portion of the recovered
wolf population's range because it is the only area required to
maintain the wolf population above recovery levels for the foreseeable
future and it is important to the continued existence of wolves in the
NRM wolf DPS. Threats to this area would have the effect of threatening
the viability of the NRM wolf DPS. These 57,374 mi\2\ (148,599 km\2\)
are also necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and
evolving representative meta-population in order for the NRM wolf DPS
to persist into the foreseeable future.
    We believe the remaining roughly 13 percent of theoretical suitable
wolf habitat that is unoccupied is primarily outside the NRM wolf
population area, is unimportant to maintaining the recovered wolf
population, and thus is not a significant portion of the range of the
NRM wolf DPS. The requirement that Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming each
maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves in mid-winter
insures that the recovered wolf population will be maintained
throughout a significant portion of its range in the NRM wolf DPS into
the foreseeable future. The NRM wolf population occupies nearly 100
percent of the recovery areas recommended in the 1987 recovery plan
(i.e., the central Idaho, the GYA, and the northwestern Montana
recovery areas) (Service 1987) 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).
    Potential Threats Affecting Suitable and Currently Occupied
Habitat--Establishing a recovered wolf population in the NRM wolf DPS
did not require land-use restrictions or curtailment of traditional
land-uses in the northwestern United States because there were enough
suitable habitat, enough wild ungulates, and sufficiently few livestock
conflicts to recover wolves under existing conditions (Bangs et al.
2004). We do not believe that any traditional land-use practices in the
NRM wolf DPS need be modified to maintain a recovered NRM wolf
population into the foreseeable future. We do not anticipate overall
habitat changes in the NRM wolf DPS 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. 2002; Oakleaf in press).
    The GYA and central Idaho recovery areas, 24,600 mi\2\ (63,714
km\2\) and 20,700 mi\2\ (53,613 km\2\), respectively, are primarily
composed of public lands (Service 1994) and are the largest contiguous
blocks of suitable habitat within the NRM wolf DPS. Central Idaho (with
9,375 mi\2\ [24,281 km\2\] of designated wilderness at its core) and
the GYA (with YNP over 3,125 mi\2\ [8,094 km\2\] and about 6,250 mi\2\
[16,187 km\2\] of designated wilderness at its core) provide secure
habitat and abundant ungulate populations neighboring in the range of
over 99,300 ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in central Idaho (Service
1994), and provide optimal suitable habitat to help maintain a viable
wolf population (Service 1994). These areas are in public ownership,
and no foreseeable habitat-related threats would prevent them from
supporting a wolf population that exceeds recovery levels.
    While the northwestern Montana recovery area (>19,200 mi\2\
[>49,728 km\2\]) 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. 2005). This exposes wolves to higher levels of human-

[[Page 6646]]

caused mortality and thus 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). 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
a delisted wolf population can be safely maintained above recovery
levels. Important suitable wolf habitat is in public ownership and the
States and Federal land-management agencies will continue to manage
habitat that will provide forage and security for high ungulate
populations, sufficient cover for wolf security, and low road density.
Carroll et al. (2003, 2006) 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 Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming enough to cause the wolf population to fall below recovery
levels. Ninety-six percent of suitable habitat in the NRM wolf DPS
occurs in these three states (Carroll et al. in press). Oakleaf et al.
(in press) only analyzed habitat in those three states because they
believed there was limited wolf habitat adjacent to the areas
previously identified during recovery planning (Service 1987, 1994).
The areas Carroll et al. (2006) predicted as theoretically suitable
wolf habitat in the NRM wolf DPS within Washington, Oregon, and Utah
were small and often fragmented but primarily were in public land
ownership. They were not subject to any threats that could affect wolf
recovery in the NRM wolf DPS. While they will be visited by dispersing
wolves and may support occasional wolf packs, they are an insignificant
amount of habitat and are not needed to maintain the recovered wolf
population in the NRM wolf DPS. Therefore, these areas do not appear to
constitute a significant portion of the range of the NRM wolf DPS.
    The recovery plan (Service 1987), the meta-population structure
recommended by Fritts (Service 1994), and subsequent investigations
(Bangs 2002), recognize the importance of some 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 meta-
population (Oakleaf et al. 2006; Carroll et al. 2006; vonHoldt et al.,
in litt., 2005; Boyd et al. in prep.). To date, from radio-telemetry
monitoring we have documented routine wolf movement between wolves in
Canada and northwestern Montana (Pletscher et al. 1991; Boyd and
Pletscher 1997), occasional wolf movement between wolves in Idaho and
Montana, and at least eleven wolves have traveled into the GYA
(vonHoldt et al., in litt., 2005; Boyd et al. 1995; Boyd et al. in
prep.). Because we know only about the 30 percent of the wolf
population that has been radio-collared, additional dispersal has
undoubtedly occurred. This demonstrates 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) committed to maintain natural connectivity to ensure the
maintenance of genetic integrity 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 are also common but not important, at least at this time, as
wolf prey. In total, 100,000 to 250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in
each State where wolf packs currently exist. All the States in the NRM
wolf DPS have managed resident ungulate populations for decades and
maintain them at densities that would easily support a recovered wolf
population. There is no foreseeable condition that would cause a
decline in ungulate populations significant enough to affect a
recovered wolf population.
    Cattle and sheep are at least twice as numerous as wild ungulates
even on public lands (Service 1994a). The only areas large enough to
support wolf packs, but lacking livestock grazing, are Yellowstone and
Glacier National Parks and some adjacent USDA Forest Service Wilderness
and parts of wilderness areas in central Idaho and northwestern
Montana. Consequently, many wolf pack territories have included areas
used by livestock, primarily cattle. 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
et al. 1995, Bangs et al. 2004, 2005, Service et al. 2002). This is
discussed further under Factor D and E.
    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 areas occurs in
such large contiguous blocks (Service 1987; Carroll et al. 2006;
Oakleaf et al. in press). 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 in the
NRM wolf DPS (such as east-central Oregon and the smaller isolated
fragments of suitable habitat just outside of the area currently
occupied by wolf packs) would not be capable of sustaining wolf packs.
Some habitat that is ranked by models as suitable that is adjacent to
core refugia, like central Idaho, 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 identified by models still only has a 50 percent or greater
chance of being successfully occupied by wolf packs and significantly
contributing to overall population recovery. Therefore, not all habitat
predicted by models thought to be suitable can be successfully occupied
by wolf packs.
    Strips and smaller (less than 1,000 mi\2\ [2,600 km\2\]) patches of
theoretically suitable habitat land (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

[[Page 6647]]

diminished because of interactions with surrounding less suitable
habitat, is known as an edge effect (Mills 1995). 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 wide-ranging species, like wolves, because they are more likely
to encounter surrounding unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg
1998). This suggests that even though some habitat outside the core
areas may rank as suitable in models, it is unlikely to actually be
successfully occupied by wolf packs because this type of edge effect
was not of overriding importance in either the Oakleaf or Carroll
models.
    For these reasons, we believe that the wolf population in the NRM
wolf DPS will remain centered in northwestern Montana, central Idaho,
and the GYA. This is the significant portion of the wolf's range in the
NRM that is important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining, and evolving representative population or populations in
order for the NRM wolf DPS to persist into the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we believe that the suitable habitat we predicted within,
and adjacent to these areas, are the only areas that are biologically
significant to maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving
representative meta-population in the NRM wolf DPS that will persist
into the foreseeable future. These areas comprise the only significant
portion of the gray wolf's range in the NRM wolf DPS.
    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. However, occupancy
of such theoretically suitable habitats outside of the core recovery
areas will not play a significant role in maintaining a long-term
viable wolf population. Therefore, it appears that within the NRM wolf
DPS, there are no significant portions of the wolf's range that are
currently unoccupied. Most (roughly 87 percent) suitable wolf habitat
in the NRM wolf DPS and all suitable habitat significant to maintain a
recovered wolf population is, and will remain, occupied by wolves.
    We therefore 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 wolf DPS. Occupied suitable
habitat is secured by core recovery areas in northwestern Montana,
central Idaho, and the GYA. These areas include Glacier, Teton, and
Yellowstone National Parks and numerous USDA Forest Service Wilderness
areas. Over two thirds of the overall area is Federal and State public
land. These areas will continue to be managed for high ungulate
densities, moderate rates of seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-
low road densities that will provide abundant native prey, low
potential for livestock conflicts, and security from excessive
unregulated human-caused mortality. The core recovery areas are also
within proximity to one another and have enough public land between
them to ensure sufficient connectivity to maintain the wolf population
above recovery levels.
    No significant threats to the suitable habitat in these areas are
known to exist. 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, 1987,
1994). These areas contain approximately 87 percent of the suitable
habitat in the NRM wolf DPS. Unsuitable habitat, and small, fragmented
areas of suitable habitat away from these core areas, largely represent
geographic locations where wolf packs cannot persist. Although they may
have been historic habitat, many of these areas are no longer suitable
and are not important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining, and evolving representative wolf population in the NRM wolf
DPS into the foreseeable future, and are not a significant portion of
the range of the NRM wolf DPS.

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

    As detailed below, overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes has not been a significant threat
to the NRM wolf population, particularly in the core areas of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. Delisting the NRM wolf DPS would not threaten
recovery by excessive changes in mortality rates caused by commercial,
recreational, scientific, or education purposes. However, as discussed
later in Factor D, there are potential concerns that human-caused
mortality associated with management of wolves in Wyoming as predatory
animals could exceed sustainable levels.
    Since their listing under the ESA, no gray wolves have been legally
killed or removed from the wild in the NRM wolf DPS for commercial,
recreational, or educational purposes. In the area of the tentative NRM
wolf DPS, about 3 percent of the wolves captured for scientific
research, nonlethal control, and monitoring have been accidentally
killed. Some wolves may have been illegally killed for commercial use
of the pelts and other parts, but illegal commercial trafficking in
wolf pelts or wolf parts is believed to be rare. Illegal capture of
wolves for commercial breeding purposes also is possible, but is
believed to be extremely rare. The potential for ``take'' prosecution
provided for by the ESA is believed to have discouraged and minimized
the illegal killing of wolves for commercial or recreational purposes.
Although Federal penalties under the ESA will not apply if delisting
were to be finalized, other Federal laws will still protect wildlife in
National Parks and on other Federal lands (Service 1994). 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 weblinks to applicable State
laws and regulations). We believe these laws will continue to provide a
strong deterrent to illegal killing by the public and have been
effective in State-led conservation programs for other resident
wildlife. In addition, the State fish and game agencies, National Parks
and 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 2004, the Service
and our cooperating partners have captured over 716 NRM wolves for
monitoring, nonlethal control, and research purposes with 23 accidental
deaths. If the NRM DPS were to be 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). We expect that capture-caused mortality by Federal
agencies, universities, States, and Tribes conducting wolf monitoring,
nonlethal control, and research will remain around 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 legally
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

[[Page 6648]]

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 the States where wolves would
be considered for delisting, except Wyoming, any subsequent legal take
would be regulated by State or Tribal law so that it would not
jeopardize 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 was one of the primary
reasons the Service did not approve Wyoming's plan. 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), and human-
caused mortality can replace up to 70 percent of natural morality
(Fuller et al. 2003). This means that wolf populations are quite
resilient to human-caused mortality if it can be regulated. The States
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. The States (except for Wyoming) and
Tribes 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 in Factor D). The
regulated take of those surplus wolves would not affect wolf population
recovery or viability in the NRM wolf DPS 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. Current 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 are to 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
resident wildlife (except for wolves in Wyoming). Montana and Idaho
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. If Wyoming's regulatory framework is modified and
approved by the Service, and if delisting were to occur, the States and
Tribes would regulate human-caused morality for recreational and
commercial uses to ensure it is not excessive or does not jeopardize
wolf population goals. The States and Tribes have humane and
professional animal handling protocols and trained personnel that will
ensure that population monitoring and research results in few
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.

C. Disease or Predation

    As discussed in detail below, there are a wide range of diseases
that may affect the NRM wolf DPS. However, there are no indications
that these diseases are of such magnitude that the DPS is in danger of
extinction, particularly within the core areas of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming. Similarly, there are no indications that predation poses a
significant threat to the NRM wolf DPS. The rates of mortality caused
by disease and predation are well within acceptable limits and there is
no reason to expect those rates to change appreciably if wolves were
delisted in the DPS.
    Disease--Wolves in the NRM wolf DPS 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;
Kreeger 2003). 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). 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). We fully
anticipate that these diseases and parasites will follow the same
pattern seen in other areas of North America (Brand et al. 1995; Bailey
et al. 1995; Kreeger 2003) 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 in an area
and over an appropriate time period by the State to ensure populations
are maintained above recovered levels.
    Canine Parvovirus (CPV) infects wolves, domestic dogs, foxes,
coyotes, skunks, and raccoons. The population impacts of CPV occur via
diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to abnormally high pup mortality
(WI DNR 1999a). 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 (Bailey et al. 1995; Brand et al. 1995; Kreeger 2003) and
exposure in wolves is thought to be almost universal. Currently, nearly
100 percent of the wolves handled by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
(M. Atkinson, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, pers. comm., 2005) had
blood antibodies indicating exposure to CPV. CPV contributed to low pup
survival in the northern range of YNP in 1999 and is suspected to have
done so again in 2005 (Smith, pers. comm., 2005). However, the impact
to the overall NRM wolf population was localized and temporary, as has
been documented elsewhere (Bailey et al. 1995, Brand et al. 1995,
Kreeger 2003).
    Canine distemper is an acute, fever-causing disease of carnivores
caused by a paramyxo-virus (Kreeger 2003). It is common in domestic
dogs and some wild canids, such as coyotes and foxes in the areas of
the NRM wolf DPS (Kreeger 2003). The seroprevalence in North American
wolves is about 17 percent (Kreeger 2003). Nearly 85

[[Page 6649]]

percent of Montana wolf blood samples analyzed in 2005 had blood
antibodies indicating non-lethal exposure to canine distemper (Atkinson
pers. comm. 2005). Mortality in wolves has only been documented in
Canada (Carbyn 1992), Alaska (Peterson et al. 1984, Bailey et al.
1995), and in a single Wisconsin pup (Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003b).
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). Mortality from canine distemper has
never been documented in the NRM wolf DPS despite the wolves' high
exposure to it.
    Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete bacterium, is spread
primarily by deer ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species include humans,
horses, dogs, white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, white-footed mice,
eastern chipmunks, coyotes, and wolves. Lyme disease has not been
reported from wolves beyond the Great Lakes regions (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources 1999a; Johnson et al. 1994). In those
populations, it does not appear to cause adult mortality, but might be
suppressing population growth by decreased 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). Advanced sarcoptic mange can
involve the entire body and can cause emaciation, decreased flight
distance, staggering, and death (Kreeger 2003). 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). Mange has been shown to
temporarily affect wolf population growth rates and perhaps wolf
distribution (Kreeger 2003).
    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 et al. in prep.). Those wolves likely
contracted mange from coyotes or fox whose populations experience
occasional outbreaks. In southwestern Montana, 8 percent of 12 packs in
2003, 24 percent of 17 packs in 2004, and 61 percent of 18 packs in
2005 showed evidence of mange, although not all members of every pack
appeared infested. In Wyoming, east of the YNP, 12.5 percent of 8 packs
in 2003, 22 percent of 9 packs in 2003 and 2004, and 0 percent of 13
packs in 2005, showed evidence of mange. Mange has not been confirmed
in wolves from Idaho or northwestern Montana. In packs with the most
severe infestations, pup survival appeared low and some adults died
(Jimenez in prep.). In addition, we euthanized three wolves with severe
mange. We predict that mange in the NRM wolf DPS will act as it has in
other parts of North America (Brand et al. 1995; Kreeger 2003) 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 mange
infestation.
    Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) commonly feed on domestic
dogs, but can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz et al. 1983; Mech et
al. 1985). 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 the inflammation and itching, appears possible. For the first
time, we confirmed dog-biting lice in two members of the Battlefield
pack in the Big Hole Valley of southwestern Montana in 2005, but their
infestations were not severe. Its source is unknown, but was likely
domestic dogs.
    Rabies, canine heartworm, blastomycosis, brucellosis, neosporsis,
leptospirosis, bovine tuberculosis, canine coronavirus, hookworm,
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; Johnson 1995; Mech and
Kurtz 1999; Thomas in litt. 1998; Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources 1999; Kreeger 2003). Canid rabies caused local population
declines in Alaska (Ballard 1997) and may temporarily limit population
growth or distribution where another species, such as arctic foxes, 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 (Thomas in litt. 2000),
further emphasizing the need for vigilant disease monitoring programs.
    Since 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. 2005), wolf-to-wolf contacts will not likely lead to a
continuing increase in disease prevalence (Mech in litt. 1998). 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 all
wolves in the NRM wolf DPS have some exposure to all diseases and
parasites in the system. Diseases or parasites have not been a
significant threat to wolf population recovery in the NRM to date, nor
are they likely to be.
    In terms of future monitoring, each post-delisting management
entity (State, Tribal, and Federal) in the NRM wolf DPS has wildlife
agency specialists with sophisticated wildlife health monitoring
protocols, including assistance from veterinarians, disease experts,
and wildlife health laboratories. Each State has committed to monitor
the NRM wolf population for significant disease and parasite problems
(See State plans in Factor D). 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.
    Natural Predation--There are no wild animals that routinely prey on
gray wolves (Ballard et al. 2003). Occasionally wolves have been killed
by large prey such as elk, deer, bison, and moose (Mech and Nelson
1989; Smith et al. 2000; Mech and Peterson 2003). Since NRM wolves have
been monitored, only three wolves have been confirmed killed by other
large predators. Two adults were killed by mountain lions and one pup
was killed by a grizzly bear (Jimenez et al. in prep.). 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

[[Page 6650]]

humans, have the potential to significantly impact wolf populations.
Wolves are occasionally killed by prey they are attacking, but those
instances are few. Since the 1980s, wolves in the NRM have died from
wounds they received while attacking prey (elk, moose, and bison) on
about a dozen occasions. That level of mortality could not
significantly affect wolf population viability or stability.
    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 DPS (Smith, pers.
comm., 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 density. Consequently
territorial conflict is highest in saturated habitats. That cause of
mortality is infrequent and does not cause a level of mortality that
would significantly affect a wolf population's viability in the NRM
wolf DPS. (Smith, pers. comm., 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). An active eradication
program is the sole reason that wolves were extirpated from the NRM
(Weaver 1978). 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. in Mech and
Boitani 2003). 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) (Service et al. 2005). 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 (Boyd 2003) or human activity, and that makes them very
vulnerable to human-caused mortality (Mech and Boitani 2003). In the
NRM, mountain topography concentrates both wolf and human activity in
valley bottoms (Boyd and Pletscher 1997), 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 wolf
distribution in the NRM wolf DPS (Bangs et al. 2004). No wolf packs
have successfully established and persisted solely in open prairie or
high desert habitats that are used for intensive agriculture production
in the past 20 years (Service et al. 2005).
    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. The annual survival rate of mature
wolves in northwestern Montana and adjacent Canada from 1984 to 1995,
was 80 percent (Pletscher et al. 1997); 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) found similar
statistics, with humans causing most wolf mortality. 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, pers. comm., 2005). Wolves outside of large remote areas had
survival rates as low as 54 percent in some years. This is among the
lower end of adult wolf survival rates that an isolated population
segment can sustain (Fuller et al. 2003; Smith, pers. comm., 2005).
    Some information suggests these numbers could be overestimated,
while other information suggests it could be underestimated. 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 under-estimated. However, the
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, pers. comm., 2005) from 1984
through 2004 indicates that about 26 percent of the adult-sized wolves
die every year, so annual adult survival averages about 74 percent,
which typically results in wolf population growth (Keith 1983; Fuller
2003). Humans caused just over 75 percent of all radio-collared wolf
deaths (Smith, pers. comm., 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; and combined they removed nearly 20 percent of the population
annually and are responsible for 60 percent of all known wolf death.
    Wolf mortality from agency control of problem wolves (which
includes legal take by private individuals under defense of property
regulations in section 10(j) rules) is estimated to remove around 10
percent of the adult radio-collared wolves annually. Since 1995, 28
wolves have been legally killed by private citizens under Federal
defense of property regulations (Service 1994 and 2005) that, except
for Wyoming, are similar to 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 292 problem wolves from 1987 to
2004, indicating that private citizen take under State defense of
property laws will not significantly increase the overall rate of
problem wolf removal. Wolves have been illegally killed by shooting and
poisoning, and radio collar tracking data indicate that illegal killing
is as common a cause of wolf death as agency control, also removing
around 10 percent the adult wolf population annually. A comparison of
the overall wolf population and the number of wolves removed using
different analysis than just radio-collared wolves indicates agency
control removes, on average, about 6 percent of the overall wolf
population annually (Service et al. 2005). 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 the States and Tribes if the ESA's
protections were removed. Regulated wolf mortality is to be managed so
it would not reduce wolf numbers or distribution below recovery levels.
This issue is discussed further below under Factor D.
    The overall causes and rates of annual wolf mortality vary based
upon a wide number of 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 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).
However, overall wolf mortality has been low enough from 1987 until the
present time that the

[[Page 6651]]

wolf population in the NRM has steadily increased, and is now at least
twice as numerous as needed to meet recovery levels (Service 1987,
1994).
    If the DPS were to be delisted, state management would likely
increase the mortality rate in the NRM wolf population, outside
National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Tribal reservations,
from its current level of about 26 percent annually. A level of wolf
mortality as high as 50 percent is typically sustainable on an annual
basis (Fuller et al. 2003). The States, except Wyoming, have the
regulatory authorization and commitment to regulate human-caused
mortality so that the wolf population remains above its numerical and
distributional recovery goals. This issue is discussed further below
under Factor D.
    In summary, human-caused mortality to adult radio-collared wolves
in the NRM wolf DPS that averaged about 20 percent per year, still
allowed for rapid wolf population growth. The protection of wolves
under the ESA promoted rapid initial wolf population growth in suitable
habitat. The States, except for Wyoming, have committed to continue to
regulate human-caused mortality so that it does not reduce the wolf
population below recovery levels. Except for Wyoming, the States have
adequate laws and regulations (See discussion of adequate regulatory
mechanisms and Wyoming State law under 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 DPS with the future mechanisms that will provide
the framework for wolf management after delisting. These regulatory
mechanisms are carried out by the State governments included in the
DPS, with the main emphasis placed on those States that make up the
significant portion of the range in the DPS, Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming. State and Tribal programs are designed to maintain a recovered
wolf population while minimizing damage by allowing for removal of
wolves in areas of chronic conflict or in unsuitable habitat. The three
States have proposed wolf management plans that will govern how wolves
are managed if delisted. As discussed below, we have approved the Idaho
and Montana plan because they have proposed management objectives of
maintaining at least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves per State by
managing for a safety margin of 15 packs in each State. However, we
have been unable to approve the Wyoming plan because it does not
provide for the same sustainable levels of protection.
Current Wolf Management
    The 1980 and 1987, NRM wolf recovery plans 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 so few wolves would not prevent wolf population from
achieving recovery. In 1988, the Service developed an interim wolf
control plan that applied to Montana and Wyoming, but was amended in
1990 to include Idaho and eastern Washington. We analyzed the
effectiveness of those plans in 1999, and revised our guidelines for
management of problem wolves listed as endangered (Service 1999).
Evidence showed that most wolves do not attack livestock, especially
larger livestock, such as adult horses and cattle (Bangs et al. 2005).
Therefore, we developed a set of guidelines under which depredating
wolves could be harassed, moved, or killed by agency officials to
prevent chronic livestock depredation. 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). 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; Service et al. 2005).
    The conflict between wolves and livestock has resulted in the
average annual removal of 6-10 percent of the wolf population (Bangs et
al. 1995; Bangs et al. 2004, 2005; Service et al. 2002; Smith, pers.
comm., 2005). 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.
    Wolves within the NRM DPS are classified as either endangered or
members of a non-essential experimental population. Wolf control in the
experimental population areas of the DPS is more liberal than in the
areas where wolves are listed as endangered. In the area of the DPS
where wolves are listed as endangered, only designated agencies may
conduct control under the conservative protocols established by the
Service's 1999 wolf control plan. In the nonessential experimental
population areas, wolf control protocols by agencies and the public are
directed by the experimental population regulations, promulgated under
section 10(j) of the ESA (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1285,
January 6, 2005). These regulations specify which wolves can be
designated as problem animals, what forms of control are allowed, and
who can carry them out.
    Current wolf control consists of the minimum actions believed
necessary to reduce further depredations, and includes a wide variety
of non-lethal and lethal measures (Bangs and Shivik 2001; Bangs et al.
2004; Bangs et al. 2005). However, while helpful, non-lethal methods to
reduce wolf livestock conflict are often only temporarily effective
(Bangs and Shivik 2001; Bangs et al. 2005; Woodroffe et al. 2005) and
by themselves do not offer effective long-term solutions to chronic
livestock damage. For instance, relocation of problem wolves is
typically ineffective at reducing conflicts or allowing problem wolves
to contribute to population recovery if vacant suitable habitat is not
available (Bradley et al. 2005). Since 2001, all suitable areas for
wolves have been filled with resident packs and consequently most
wolves that repeatedly depredate on livestock are now removed from the
population (Service et al. 2005). Between 1987 and 2005, we removed 292
wolves and relocated wolves 117 times to reduce the potential for
chronic conflicts with livestock. Of those wolves, 19 wolves incurred
injuries from capture/relocation that ultimately resulted in their
death or removal from the wild (7 in Montana, 8 in Idaho, 4 in
Wyoming). Accidental mortality from capture during non-lethal control
was low (3 percent) and not a significant portion of total mortality in
the wolf population.
    At the end of 2004, 62 to 100 percent of the suitable wolf habitat
in the NRM wolf DPS was occupied by resident wolf packs (see discussion
in Factor A). 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 them will probably be removed to reduce future livestock
damage. Human-

[[Page 6652]]

caused mortality would have to remove 34 percent or more of the wolf
population annually before population growth would cease (Fuller et al.
2003). Preliminary wolf survival data from radio telemetry studies
suggests that adult wolf mortality resulting from conflict could be
doubled to an average of 12 to 20 percent annually and still not
significantly impact wolf population recovery (Smith, pers. comm.). The
State management laws and plans will balance the level of wolf
mortality with the recovery goals in each State.
    One of the most important factors affecting the level of wolf/
livestock conflict and need for wolf control is the availability of
wild ungulate prey. Important wild ungulate prey in the NRM wolf DPS
are elk, white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, and (only in the GYA)
bison. A large decline in native ungulate populations could result in
an increase in conflicts with livestock and the level of wolf control.
    Changes in livestock availability have also changed the rate of
livestock depredations by wolves, thus necessitating control actions.
Nearly 100,000 wild ungulates were estimated in the GYA and
northwestern Montana, and 250,000 in central Idaho where wolf packs
currently exist. However, domestic ungulates, primarily cattle and
sheep, are typically twice as numerous in those same areas, even on
public lands (Service 1994). The only areas large enough to support
wolf packs where the prey is mostly wild ungulates are YNP, Glacier
National Park including adjacent USFS wilderness, and parts of
wilderness areas in central Idaho and northwestern Montana.
Consequently, many wolf pack territories have included areas used by
livestock, primarily cattle (Bradley 2002). This overlap between wolf
pack territories and livestock has led to the conflict between wolves
and livestock because depredation control practices discourage chronic
use of livestock as prey.
    Other management control tools used for managing wolf conflict were
using shoot-on-site permits to private landowners and allowing take of
wolves in the act of attacking or molesting livestock, pets or other
domestic animals. Since 1995, only 28 (less than 7 percent of the 292
wolves removed for livestock depredations from 1987 to 2004)
experimental population wolves were shot by private landowners under
shoot-on-sight permits in areas of chronic livestock depredation or as
they attacked or harassed livestock.
    In the NRM wolf recovery area, reports of suspected wolf-caused
damage to livestock are investigated by USDA/APHIS-Wildlife Services
(USDA-WS) specialists using standard techniques (Roy and Dorrance 1976;
Fritts et al. 1992; Paul and Gipson 1994). If the investigation
confirms wolf involvement, USDA-WS specialists conduct the wolf control
measures that we specify. If the incident occurred in Idaho, USDA-WS
also coordinates with Nez Perce Tribal personnel. Since the beginning
of 2005, USDA-WS began to coordinate and conduct wolf control in
cooperation with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) and, since the
beginning of 2006 with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG),
who lead wolf management in their States under a cooperative agreement
and a Memorandum of Agreement with the Service, respectively. All
investigations of suspected wolf damage on Tribal lands and wolf
control are conducted in full cooperation with, and under approval by,
the affected Tribe. A private program has compensated ranchers full
market value for confirmed, and one-half market value for probable wolf
kills of livestock and livestock guard animals (Defenders of Wildlife
2002; Fischer 1989). That program paid an average of $75,580 annually
from 2000 to 2004.
Regulatory Assurances in States Within the Significant Portion of the
Range
    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. Governors from the
three States renewed that agreement in April 2002.
    The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical,
distributional, and temporal recovery goal, as specified in the
recovery plan, in December 2002. However, to delist the species we
realized that regulatory assurances would be necessary and 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 ESA were removed. The Service provided
various degrees of funding and assistance to the States while they
developed their wolf management plans.
    To provide the necessary regulatory assurances after delisting, we
encouraged the States in the significant portion of the range to
regulate human-caused mortality of wolves. Several issues were key to
the Service approving the plans. First the States had to provide
regulations that would allow regulatory control, define a pack
biologically consistent with the Service's definition of breeding pair,
and manage the population to maintain those pairs/packs above recovery
levels.
    The final Service determination of the adequacy of those three
State management plans was based on the combination of Service
knowledge of State law, the management plans, wolf biology, peer
review, and the States' response to the peer review. Those State plans
and our recommendations can be viewed at: http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/.
 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. Therefore, we approved those two State plans.
    However, we determined that problems with the Wyoming legislation
and its management plan did not allow us to approve its approach to
wolf management. 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. Wyoming has appealed that decision and the case is under
consideration by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Since no wolves currently live in Washington, Oregon, or Utah (the
NRM wolf population lives only in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming), and
there is very little suitable habitat in the NRM wolf DPS outside of
that currently occupied in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, we did not
request the other three States to prepare wolf management plans.
Furthermore, any potential wolves outside of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming are not needed to maintain the recovered wolf population.
However, we reviewed the regulatory framework of all States within the
NRM wolf DPS to assess all potential threats to that wolf population.
    Montana--The gray wolf was listed under the Montana Nongame and
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1973 (87-5-101 MCA). Senate Bill
163 was passed by the Montana Legislature and signed into law by the
Governor in 2001. It establishes the current legal statutes 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) which are primarily managed through regulation of
all forms of human-caused

[[Page 6653]]

mortality in a manner similar to trophy game animals like mountain
lions and black bears. The MFWP and the MFWP 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 will still occur, but
is to be prosecuted under State law and MFWP Commission regulations
which would tend to minimize any potential effect on the wolf
population.
    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 as
required by Montana State law, and recommended that the Updated
Advisory Council alternative be selected as Montana's Final Gray Wolf
Conservation and Management Plan. See http://www.fwp.state.mt.us to

view the MFWP Final EIS and the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan.
    Under the MFWP management plan, the wolf population would be
maintained above the recovery levels of 10 breeding pairs in Montana by
managing for a safety margin of 15 packs (see Post-delisting monitoring
section). Montana would manage problem wolves in a manner similar to
the control program currently being utilized 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 less than 15 packs. The States would develop their pack
definitions to approximate the current breeding pair definition, but
would measure wolf populations by the Service's current pair
definition. Wolves would not be deliberately confined to any specific
areas of Montana, but their distribution and numbers would be managed
adaptively based upon 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 meta-population structure. Montana's plan
predicts that under State management the wolf population would increase
to between 328 wolves or 27 breeding pairs and 657 wolves or 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 MFWP Commission-approved policy direction and
species management plans. The plans typically describe a management
philosophy that protects the long-term sustainability of the ungulate
populations, allows recreational hunting of surplus game, and aims to
keep the population within management objectives based on ecological
and social considerations. The MFWP takes a proactive approach to
integrate management of ungulates and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is
to be balanced with maintaining sufficient prey populations to sustain
Montana's segment of a recovered wolf population. Ongoing efforts to
monitor populations of both ungulates and wolves will provide credible,
scientific information for wildlife management decisions.
    Wolves would be managed in the same manner as other resident
wildlife designated as trophy game, whereby human-caused mortality
would be regulated by methods of take, seasons, bag limits, areas, and
conditions under which defense of property take can occur. In addition
all agency control of problem wolves would be directed by MFWP. All
forms of wolf take would be more restricted when there are 15 or fewer
packs in the State and less restricted when there are more than 15
packs. By managing for 15 packs, MFWP would maintain a safety margin to
assure that the Montana segment of the wolf population would be
maintained above the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum population
goal. Wolf management would include population monitoring, routine
analysis of population health, management of and 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.
    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 confirmed that livestock were being attacked by wolves.
The MFWP intends to enlist and direct 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
Montana will implement the commitments it made in its current laws,
regulations, and wolf plan.
    Idaho--The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) Commission has
authority to classify wildlife under Idaho Code 36-104(b) and 36-201.
The wolf was classified as endangered until March 2005, when the IDFG
Commission reclassified the gray wolf to a big game animal IDAPA
13.01.06.100.01.d. The big game classification will take effect upon
Federal delisting, and until then, they will be managed under Federal
status. As a big game animal, State regulations will adjust human-
caused wolf mortality to ensure recovery levels are exceeded. Title 36,
in the Idaho statutes, currently has laws regarding penalties
associated with illegal take of big game animals. These rules are
consistent with the legislatively adopted Idaho Wolf Conservation and
Management Plan (IDP) (2002) and big game hunting restrictions
currently in place. The IDP states that wolves will be protected
against illegal take as a big game animal under Idaho Code 36-1402 and
36-1404, and also under the flagrant violation law Idaho Code 36-202(h)
at the costs specified under Idaho Code 36-1404.
    The IDP 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 IDP. The Service provided technical advice to the
Committee and reviewed numerous

[[Page 6654]]

drafts before the IDP was finalized. In March 2002, the IDP was adopted
by joint resolution of the Idaho Legislature. The IDP can be found at:
http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf.

    The IDP calls for IDFG to be the primary manager of wolves once
delisted, and 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 ESA. Wolf take will be more
liberal if there are over 15 packs and more conservative if there are
fewer than 15 packs in Idaho. The wolf population will be managed by
defense of property regulations similar to those now in effect under
the ESA. Public harvest will be incorporated as a management tool when
there are 15 or more packs in Idaho to help mitigate conflicts with
livestock producers or big game populations that outfitters and guides
and others hunt. The IDP allows IDFG to classify the wolf as a big game
animal, furbearer, or special classification of predator so that human-
caused mortality can be regulated. In March 2005, the IDFG Commission
proposed that upon delisting the wolf would be classified as a big game
animal with the intent of managing them similar to black bears and
mountain lions, including regulated public harvest when populations are
above 15 packs. The IDP calls for the State to coordinate with USDA-WS
to manage depredating wolves depending on the number of wolves in the
State, allowing more liberal control when wolf populations exceed 15
packs and more conservatively when there are less than 15 packs. 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 will be focused on maintaining sufficient prey populations to
sustain viable wolf and other carnivore populations and hunting. IDFG
has implemented 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 will be focusing on improving mule deer conditions. The
Clearwater Elk Initiative also is an attempt at improving 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 ESA 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 IDP to maintain a
recovered wolf population. The Service has every confidence Idaho will
implement the commitments it made in its current laws, regulations, and
wolf plan.
    Wyoming--In 2003, Wyoming passed a State law that, upon delisting
from the ESA, would designate wolves as trophy game in limited areas in
Wyoming, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, John D.
Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, and the adjacent USFS designated
wilderness areas. The ``trophy game'' status allows the Wyoming Game
and Fish Commission and Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WYGF) to
regulate the method of take, seasons, types, and numbers that can be
killed. However, this classification changes to ``predatory animal''
depending on the number of wolf packs in specific areas in Wyoming.
When wolves are classified as a ``predatory animal'' they are under the
jurisdiction of the Wyoming Department of Agriculture. Species
designated as ``predatory animals'' are considered pests, and may be
taken by anyone, at any time, without limit, and by any means, except
poison.
    State law defined a pack as five wolves traveling together. When
there are 7 or more wolf packs in Wyoming outside of the Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks, the Parkway, and adjacent wilderness
areas or there are 15 or more wolf packs in Wyoming, all wolves in
Wyoming outside of those two National Parks and the adjacent wilderness
areas would be classified as predatory animals. If there are fewer than
7 packs outside of the National Parks and less than 15 packs in
Wyoming, the area where wolves would be classified as trophy game would
be expanded beyond the National Parks and adjacent wilderness areas to
include an area roughly west of Cody and north of Pinedale, Wyoming, to
the Idaho and Montana State borders. Any time the number of wolf packs
outside the National Park units increased to 7 or more, or there were
15 or more packs in Wyoming, the trophy game designation is removed and
predatory animal status would apply to all wolves outside of the
National Park units and the adjacent wilderness areas. The areas where
the predatory animal designation applies would change back and forth
every 90 days based on the number of wolf packs.
    The State law removes the legal authorization for the WYGF to
manage wolves, unless there are fewer than 7 packs outside the National
Parks and there are less than 15 packs in Wyoming, including those in
the National Park units. Under such conditions, WYGF would temporarily
gain authority to manage wolves, but that authority would end when pack
numbers increased to 15 in the State or 7 outside the National Park
units and adjacent wilderness areas. WYGF, being the wildlife agency in
Wyoming, already manages other large predators and wolf prey. They have
the professional knowledge and skill that is necessary to make
appropriate decisions to effectively manage wolves in the State and
need the management authority in order to accomplish this.
    The State wolf management plan generally attempts to implement the
State law, with some notable exceptions. It is different than State law
in that it only commits to maintaining 7 or more wolf packs outside the
National Park units and assumed 8 packs would be present in National
Park units. ``Trophy game'' status would be enacted over the larger
area (roughly that part of northwestern Wyoming east of Cody and north
of Pinedale) only if there were 7 or fewer packs outside the Park
units. The area of predatory animal status would remain in effect over
the remainder of Wyoming regardless of the number of packs.
    Like State law, the plan allows livestock owners to shoot wolves
designated as trophy game to defend their livestock and pets on private
and public land from wolf attack or harassment. The plan commits to
intensive wolf monitoring using standard methods, routine monitoring of
diseases and wolf physical characteristics through mandatory reporting
of wolf kills and pelts, and a balanced information and education
program about wolves in Wyoming.
    Wyoming's State law and its wolf management plan were not approved
by

[[Page 6655]]

the Service as an adequate regulatory mechanism to maintain a recovered
wolf population. We intend to propose to delist the NRM DPS when the
State of Wyoming addresses the deficiencies in the State Law and
management plan as discussed below.
    The Service's recovery goal for each State is maintaining at least
10 breeding pairs, and at least 100 wolves per State. We define a
breeding pair as an adult male and an adult female that raise at least
two pups until December 31. This breeding pair definition is likely
equivalent to five or six wolves traveling together in winter (our
population estimates are made for the estimated wolf population on
December 31st of each year). Our current data support the concept that
15 packs of 5 or more wolves traveling together in winter is equivalent
to about 12-15 breeding pairs. Winter was picked because wolves breed
in mid-February and the major causes of wolf mortality, wolf control
and illegal killing, peak in summer and fall. There is no statistical
difference between using either five or six wolves traveling together
in winter to develop a biological equivalent definition of pack to the
current definition of a breeding pair.
    Under Wyoming law, a pack is defined as just 5 wolves, however, the
law also allows that if a pack of 10 or more wolves has more than 2
breeding females, a single pack could be classified as multiple
breeding pairs. This definition becomes problematic when using it as a
biological equivalent to breeding pair because it lacks the flexibility
to accommodate variations in pups' survivability. WYGF needs the
flexibility to react to new scientific information as it becomes
available. For instance, in 1999, and again in 2005, pup production and
survival was significantly decreased. In Wyoming, 2002 and 2003, and in
Montana, 2004 and 2005, mange was infesting some packs and wolves with
mange were not expected to survive the winter decreasing the overall
population size. In these types of situations, five wolves traveling
together would not be the equivalent to an adult male and female, and
two pups on December 31st. With State law dictating biological
definitions, WYGF would be prevented from adjusting management and
potential levels of human-caused mortality even though they recognize
that wolf recruitment was lower than normal and any wolves removed from
the population would be less likely to be replaced, as was the case in
the situations discussed previously. Scientific decisions need to be
made by WYGF in coordination with the other States. To approve the
Wyoming State plan, the law and the management plan needs a definition
of pack that is biologically equivalent to the Service's definition of
breeding pair, which gives the WYGF the flexibility to manage human-
caused mortality for population fluctuations.
    In order for the WYGF to manage human-caused mortality, they need
to be given the regulatory authority to manage wolves by designating
wolves as a trophy game species and allowing WYGF to manage for
conservation above the recovery levels of 10 packs and 100 wolves in
the State. Wolves rarely use the wilderness areas outside the Park
units and many southern Park packs leave the Park units in winter
regularly utilizing habitat in non-wilderness public lands and some
private lands. This means most packs in Wyoming would be subject, under
predatory animal status, to unregulated and unlimited human caused
mortality. Only when the number of packs falls below seven outside the
Park units, would the predatory animal status be changed and management
by WYGF be authorized by State law. This could result in unregulated
human-caused mortality continuing until the population was below the
minimum state plan objective of seven wolf packs outside the Parks.
    The more protective and larger trophy game area and WYGF's legal
authorization to manage sport harvest would not go into effect until
the population crossed below the 15 pack threshold and there were less
than 7 packs left to protect or manage outside of the National Park
units. Trophy game status, by itself, would not reduce wolf mortality
from defense of property by Wyoming livestock, pet, and hunting dog
owners, agency control of problem wolves, or illegal killing, or any
natural causes of mortality. Once there were fewer than 15 packs in
Wyoming and fewer than 7 packs outside the Park Units, WYGF could do
little except decline to authorize additional wolf mortality through
sport hunting and trapping seasons. This limited authority and the low
thresholds that trigger change in status mean that the wolf population
would be at levels too low for WYGF to undertake effective action to
conserve the wolf population above recovery levels. WYGF needs to be
given the regulatory authority to adaptively manage the species
throughout the State of Wyoming to account for fluctuations in
population levels.
    The potential success of the current Wyoming law and wolf plan to
maintain its share of wolves in the NRM DPS depends on Yellowstone
National Park having at least eight packs. In our September 9, 2005,
weekly wolf report, we provided our annual mid-year estimate of the
wolf population in the NRM. That was only an interim count but it
appeared that wolf numbers are down substantially in Yellowstone
National Park. Canine parvo-virus is suspected of causing low pup
survival in the Park and pack conflicts over territory appears to have
reduced the number of wolves and packs in the Park from 16 breeding
pairs and 171 wolves in 2004, to 6 or 7 breeding pairs and 118 wolves
in 2005 (Service Sept. 9, 2005). While there are currently more than 7
wolf packs outside the Park because of the Act s protections, it is
likely that predatory animal status--if implemented at this time--would
quickly reduce wolf packs outside the Park to minimum levels, and based
on current conditions only 12-14 packs would exist in the State.
Wyoming State law allows no regulation of human-caused mortality until
the population falls below seven packs outside the Parks. Wyoming'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.
    Wyoming State law and predatory animal status minimizes
opportunities for adaptive professional wildlife management by WYGF,
confines wolf packs primarily to Yellowstone National Park, depends on
at least eight Park wolf packs to constitute most of the wolves in
Wyoming, and minimizes the number of wolves and wolf packs outside the
Park. We have previously determined that Wyoming State law would
prohibit a timely response to manage wolves effectively by WYGF should
modification in state management of wolves be needed to prevent the
population from falling below recovery levels of at least 10 breeding
pairs and 100 wolves for each of the three core States. Based on these
inadequacies, the Service is not assured that Wyoming's State law and
wolf management plan would maintain the Wyoming segment of the wolf
population above recovery levels.
    In accordance with the requirements of the ESA and the positive 90
day finding made by the Service on October 25, 2005, the Service is
continuing to carefully review Wyoming's July 2005 petition to delist,
its defense of Wyoming's regulatory framework, and the reasons why
Wyoming believes we should consider Wyoming State law and its wolf plan
as an adequate regulatory mechanism to propose delisting. At this time
we continue to believe that current

[[Page 6656]]

State law and the State wolf plan in Wyoming do not provide adequate
regulatory assurances that Wyoming's share of the NRM DPS population
will be maintained into the foreseeable future and thus that the
overall wolf population's distribution and numbers will be maintained
above recovery levels. However, if Wyoming modified its State law and
its wolf management plan to address the inadequacies described above
and the Service approved them, we would then consider proposing the
delisting of wolves throughout the NRM wolf DPS.
Regulatory Assurances in Other States and Tribal Areas Within the DPS
    Washington--Wolves in all of Washington are endangered under State
law (RCW 77.12, WAC 232.12.014; these provisions may be viewed at:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/ RCW/index.cfm?section= 77.12.020&fuseaction= section and http://www.leg.wa.gov/ WAC/index.cfm?section= 232-12-

014&fuseaction= section. If the NRM DPS is delisted, those areas in
Washington included in the NRM wolf DPS would still remain listed as
endangered by Washington State law, which prohibits nearly all forms of
human-caused mortality. The areas in Washington not included in the NRM
DPS would remain listed as endangered under both State and Federal law.
    At this time, there are no known wolves in Washington and there is
little suitable habitat in that part of eastern Washington in the NRM
wolf DPS. Wolf management in Washington will have no effect on the
recovered wolf population that resides in the significant portion of
the range of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    There is currently no Washington State recovery or management plan
for wolves. However, 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.
There are no known wolves in Washington at this time, but a few
individuals may occasionally disperse into the State from nearby
populations in Idaho, Montana, and Canada. There are no plans to
reintroduce wolves to Washington.
    Oregon--The gray wolf has been classified as endangered under the
Oregon Endangered Species Act (ESA; ORS 496.171-192) since 1987. If
federally delisted, wolves in that portion of the NRM DPS in Oregon
would remain listed as endangered under State law. There are currently
no known wolves in Oregon and wolf management will have no effect on
the recovered wolf population that resides in the significant portion
of the range of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, as approved in February 2005,
called for 3 legislative actions and included several provisions that
could not be implemented unless certain actions were taken by the
Oregon Legislature. The 2005 Oregon Legislative Assembly considered,
but did not adopt, the proposed legislative actions. 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. Formal amendment of the Oregon Plan is expected to
result in a strategy for conserving the gray wolf in Oregon, identify
the conditions necessary for delisting the wolf under State law, and
provide management after delisting. Under the Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife management plan, conservation of the gray wolf will be
directed by established objectives for wolf distribution, population
management, and monitoring. Wolves will not be deliberately confined to
any specific areas of the State, but their distribution and numbers
will be managed adaptively based upon ecological factors, wolf
population status, conflict mitigation, and human social tolerance.
    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. Once the objective
is achieved, the State delisting process will be initiated. Following
delisting from the State ESA, wolves will have a classification as
nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375.
    Utah--If federally delisted, wolves in that portion of the NRM wolf
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 wolf 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 (WWG) in the
summer of 2003. The WWG 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. 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 Wolf Management 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 period, immigrating
wolves will be studied to determine where they are most likely to
settle without conflict.
    Tribal Plans--There are about 20 tribes in this area. Currently no
wolf packs live on, or are entirely dependent on, Tribal lands for
their existence in the NRM wolf DPS. In the NRM wolf DPS about 12,719
mi2 (32,942 km2) (3 percent) of the area is
Tribal land. In the NRM wolf occupied habitat, about 1,813
mi2 (4,696 km2) (2 percent) is Tribal land.
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 wolf DPS. Many wolf packs live in
areas of public land where Tribes have various treaty rights, such as
wildlife harvest. Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming propose to incorporate
Tribal harvest into their assessment of the potential surplus of wolves
available for public harvest in each State, each year, to assure that
the wolf population is maintained above

[[Page 6657]]

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 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 wolf management plan
that was approved by the Service, 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
tentative NRM wolf DPS regarding their Tribal regulations and any other
relevant information regarding Tribal management or concerns about
wolves. All responses were reviewed and Tribal comments were
incorporated into this notice.
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 assure that the wolf population would be maintained 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 packs in each State. The States are
to control problem wolves in a manner similar to that used by the
Service (1987, 1994, 1999, 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 packs, wolf control measures
may be more liberal. When wolf populations are below 15 packs, 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 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 the absent management
structure under the ``predatory animal'' status. Wyoming's plan does
not provide for regulatory control to balance wolf population size and
distribution with livestock conflict and public tolerance.
    If the wolf were delisted in the NRM DPS, the major difference
between the previous Federal management and the new State management of
problem wolves would be with respect to the taking of 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.
    Private take of problem wolves under State regulations in Montana
and Idaho 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. Under Wyoming State law,
the predatory animal status 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 suitable
habitat in northwestern Wyoming.
    In contrast to the Service recovery program, currently approved
State and tribal management programs are also to incorporate regulated
public harvest, only when wolf populations in Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho are safely above recovery levels of 15 or more packs, to help
manage wolf distribution and numbers to minimize conflicts with humans.
Wyoming State law and management should also meet this requirement.
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, and will use similar programs to
manage wolf populations safely above recovery levels, when there are
more than 15 packs in their State.
    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 tentative NRM wolf DPS. There
is no foreseeable condition that 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 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 emotions regarding the threat to pets, the conviction 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 1999). 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 wolf DPS. We believe that the State management
regulations that will go into effect if wolves in the NRM wolf DPS are
removed from the ESA'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 (Bangs et al. 2004, Williams et al. 2002, Mech 1995).
State wildlife organizations have specific departments and staff
dedicated to providing accurate and science-based public education,
information, and outreach. Each State plan has committed to provide
balanced wolf outreach programs.
    Genetics--Genetic diversity in the GYA segment of the NRM wolf DPS
is extremely high. A recent study of wolf 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).
Because of the long dispersal distances and the relative speed of
natural wolf movement between Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (discussed
under Factor A), we anticipate that wolves will continue to maintain
high genetic diversity in the NRM wolf DPS. However, should it become
necessary

[[Page 6658]]

sometime in the distant future, all of the three core States' plans
recognized relocation as a potentially valid wildlife management tool.
    In conclusion, we reviewed other manmade and natural factors that
might threaten wolf population recovery in the foreseeable future.
Public attitudes towards 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 that would suggest inadequate connectivity among the
recovery areas that could affect wolf population viability (Vonholdt et
al. in prep.) If significant genetic concerns do arise at some point in
the future, our experience with wolf relocation shows that the States
could effectively remedy those concerns with occasional wolf relocation
actions, but it is highly unlikely such management action would ever be
required.
Summary of Our Five-Factor Analysis of Potential Threats
    As required by the ESA, 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 wolf
DPS and therefore, whether the NRM wolf DPS should be listed. In regard
to the NRM wolf DPS, a significant portion of the wolf's range is an
area that is important or necessary for maintaining a viable, self-
sustaining, and evolving representative meta-population in order for
the NRM wolf DPS to persist into the foreseeable future. While wolves
historically occurred over most of the tentative DPS, large portions of
this area are no longer able to support viable wolf populations, and
the wolf population in the NRM wolf DPS will remain centered in
northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. There does not appear
to be any significant portion of the range, except portions of Wyoming,
where the NRM wolf DPS remains threatened or endangered.
    The large amount and distribution of suitable habitat in public
ownership and the presence of three large protected core areas that
contain highly suitable habitats assures the Service that threats to
the wolf population in the NRM wolf DPS have been reduced or eliminated
in all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future.
Unsuitable habitat and small, fragmented suitable habitat away from
these core areas within the NRM wolf DPS, largely represent geographic
locations where wolf packs cannot persist and are not significant to
the species. 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.
    Managing take (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 in the foreseeable future. We have determined that both the
Montana and Idaho wolf management plans are adequate to regulate human-
caused mortality and that Montana and Idaho will maintain their share
and distribution of the tri-State wolf population above recovery
levels. 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 wolf
DPS.
    If Wyoming had an approved State law and wolf management plan, we
believe that regulation by States and Tribes of human-caused mortality
would be adequate to maintain the wolf population in the NRM wolf DPS
above recovery levels in all significant portions of its range for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial information available, we believe that the gray wolf in the
NRM DPS would no longer qualify for protection under the ESA, if
Wyoming modified its State wolf law and State wolf management plan in a
manner that the Service would approve as an adequate regulatory
mechanism.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the ESA include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies, groups,
and individuals. The ESA provides for possible land acquisition and
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be
carried out for all listed species. Most of these measures have already
been successfully applied to gray wolves in the conterminous 48 States.
    We intend to propose rulemaking to remove the protections of the
ESA from all or parts of six States, but do not intend to take action
until Wyoming's law and wolf management plan are modified and can be
approved by the Service. If Wyoming modified its regulatory framework
for wolf management in a manner that the Service could approve and if
the Service proposed and delisted the NRM wolf in the NRM DPS, the
protections of the ESA would still continue to apply to the gray wolves
outside the NRM wolf DPS. We do not intend to modify or withdraw the
existing special regulations or the nonessential experimental
population designations for the reintroduced gray wolf populations in
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Where wolves exist outside the NRM wolf
DPS, they would continue to be considered during consultations with
other Federal agencies under section 7 of the ESA. Should a NRM gray
wolf disperse beyond the boundaries of the NRM DPS, it would acquire
the status of wolves in the area it enters. For example, if wolves in
the NRM DPS were delisted, a wolf that dispersed from Wyoming into
Colorado would take on endangered species status under the ESA.
    This notice does not apply to the listing or protection of the red
wolf (Canis rufus).

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the ESA, 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 ESA. Should relisting be required, we may make use
of the emergency listing authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the ESA
to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of any recovered
species. Section 4(g) of the ESA explicitly requires cooperation with
the States in development and implementation of PDM programs, but we
remain

[[Page 6659]]

responsible for compliance with section 4(g) and, therefore, must
remain actively engaged in all phases of PDM.
    Monitoring Techniques--The NRM area was intensively monitored for
wolves even before wolves were documented in Montana (Weaver 1978; Ream
and Mattson 1982; Kaminski and Hansen 1984). 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. We
provide an annual estimate of the number of individuals, wolf packs,
and breeding pairs of wolves in the NRM wolf DPS. For example, by the
end of 2004, we estimated there were 835 wolves in 110 packs and that
66 of those packs met the criteria for a breeding pair in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming; no wolves were known to be present in any of the
adjacent States (Service et al. 2005).
    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) and are
almost impossible to find again and 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 summarized by packs to indicate overall population size,
composition, and distribution. This is a very intensive level of
wildlife population monitoring compared to nearly all others done in
North America that we believe results in relatively accurate estimates
of wolf population distribution and structure (Service et al. 2005) in
the NRM wolf 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-Wildlife Services--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 ESA.
The States also have committed to publish the results of their
monitoring efforts in annual wolf reports just as has been done since
1989 by the Service and its cooperators (Service et al. 1989-2005).
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.
    Service Review of the Post-Delisting Status of the Wolf
Population--To ascertain wolf population distribution and structure and
analyze if the wolf population might require a status review to
determine whether it should again be listed under the ESA, we intend to
review the State and any Tribal annual wolf reports each year. 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 estimate and describe wolf pack distribution and abundance (Service
et al. 2005; Sime et al. in prep.; Kunkel et al. in prep.). Data
indicate that other survey methods and data can become the ``biological
equivalents'' of the breeding pair definition currently used to measure
recovery. Montana and Idaho have committed to use a definition of a
wolf pack that approximates the current breeding pair standard (such as
five or six wolves traveling together in winter). Wyoming law defines a
wolf pack as simply five or more wolves traveling together, which could
mean only a female and four pups in May and would have no relationship
to a breeding pair. 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. 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 ESA is over, but this will not be required
by the ESA.
    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 and abundance in the NRM wolf 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 wolf DPS on our Web site by 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

[[Page 6660]]

in wolf-livestock conflict, or other factors.
    Our analysis and response for PDM is to track changes in wolf
abundance and 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 emergency listing of gray wolves
throughout the NRM wolf DPS. If the wolf population segment in Montana,
Idaho, or Wyoming fell below 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves in any one
of those States for 2 consecutive years, we could initiate a status
review and analysis of threats to determine if re-listing 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 occurred (1) less than 30 breeding pairs or 300
wolves, or (2) less than 10 breeding pairs or 100 wolves in Montana,
Idaho, or Wyoming for 2 consecutive years during the mandatory PDM
period), the PDM period would be extended 5 additional years from the
point of violation.

Public Comments Solicited

    We solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this notice. Generally, we seek
information, data, and comments concerning the boundaries of the
tentative NRM wolf DPS and the status of gray wolf in the NRM.
Specifically, we seek documented, biological data on the status of the
NRM wolf population and their habitat, and the management of these
wolves and their habitat.
    We will also consider the possibility of establishing a Northern
Rocky Mountain DPS for the gray wolf, but listing the DPS as
threatened, if we determine after considering public comments that the
population segment meets the criteria in the DPS Policy, but the DPS
does not meet the delisting tests in the ESA and our regulations. This
is a possible outcome if Wyoming does not adopt a State law and
management plan that are sufficient to support delisting. We request
public comments on this alternative.
    Idaho and Montana have requested that we establish a DPS that
excludes Wyoming if Wyoming fails to adopt an appropriate State law and
a management plan that would support delisting. An alternative to this
proposal would be to include Yellowstone National Park, where exclusive
Federal jurisdiction lies and neither State law nor exploitation of
wildlife would occur in any event, but to exclude the rest of Wyoming
from the DPS. The Idaho and Montana request is inconsistent with the
available science discussed earlier in this preamble as it applies to
the requirements for establishment of a DPS. Nevertheless, if anyone
now advocates such an approach, we request that they address both the
scientific and legal basis for it in their comments. We would consider
these alternative scenarios to the extent Wyoming does not act and we
find such actions to be legally sufficient.
    The eastern one third of Washington and Oregon, and a small portion
of northern Utah are included within the tentative DPS. We request
comments on whether the DPS should be expanded to include more or less
land within Utah or any other State. Any such comments should provide
relevant scientific data. We will consider the information so submitted
in delineating the boundaries for this 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 address 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 record a respondent's identity, as allowable
by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state
this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, 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 other information received, as well as supporting information used
to write this rule, 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 notice, we will take
into consideration the comments and any additional information we
receive. Such communications may lead to a proposed rule that differs
from this notice.

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).

    Dated: January 31, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 06-1102 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P