[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6634-6660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1102]



[[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

  Federal Register / Vol. 71 , No. 26 / Wednesday, February 8, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[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-- [email protected]. 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 section and http://www.leg.wa.gov/WAC/index.cfm?section=232-12-014&fuseaction=section 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