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, 6634-6660 [06-1102]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6634-6660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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--https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail-- NRMGrayWolf@fws.gov. Include ``RIN number 1018-AU53'' in 
the subject line of the message.
    3. Mail--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf Recovery 
Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western 
Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Helena 
office (see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449-5225, extension 204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog 
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 40-175 pounds (lb) (18-
80 kilograms [kg]) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974). In the 
NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 100 lb (45 kg), but may weigh 
up to 130 lb (60 kg). Females weigh slightly less than males. Wolves' 
fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from pure 
white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2003). Wolves may appear similar to 
coyotes (C. latrans) and some domestic dog breeds (such as the German 
shepherd or Siberian husky) (C. familiaris). However, the gray wolf's 
size, long legs, narrow chest, large feet, wide head and snout, and 
straight tail distinguish it from both the coyote and dog.
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe and Asia. The only areas within North America that lacked gray 
wolf populations prior to European settlement were southern and 
interior Greenland, the coastal regions of Mexico, Central America, 
coastal and other large parts of California, the extremely arid deserts 
and mountaintops of the western United States, parts of eastern and 
southeastern United States, and possibly southeastern Canada (Young and 
Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1970; Nowak 1995, 2003; Wilson et al. 
2000, 2003; Grewal et al. 2004). Some authorities question the reported 
historical absence of gray wolves from large parts of California 
(Carbyn in litt. 2000; Mech in litt. 2000; Schmidt 1987, 1991).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wild prey 
species in the NRM include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), 
mule deer (O. hemionus), moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervus canadensis), 
pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), bison (Bison bison), 
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), 
woodland caribou (Rangifer caribou), and beaver (Castor canadensis). 
While other small and mid-sized mammals, birds, large invertebrates, 
fish, and fruits are occasionally eaten, they are rarely important in 
the wolf's diet (Mech and Boitani 2003). Since 1987, wolves in the NRM 
also have preyed on domestic animals, including cattle (Bos sp.), sheep 
(Ovis sp.), llamas (Lama glama), horses (Equus sp.), goats (Capra sp.), 
and dogs (Service et al. 2005).
    Wolves have a social structure, normally living in packs of 2 to 12 
animals. Wolf packs are usually family groups consisting of a breeding 
pair, their pups from the current year, offspring from previous years, 
and an occasional unrelated wolf. Wolf pack structure can be 
``complex'' (multiple generations) or ``simple'' (breeding pair and 
pups). In the NRM, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected 
areas, but a few complex packs have been substantially bigger in some 
areas of Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (D. Smith, Yellowstone NPS, 
pers. comm., 2005; Service et al. 2005). In areas where conflicts with 
humans and livestock are most prevalent, packs are typically smaller 
and are more likely to be ``simple.'' Packs typically occupy large 
distinct territories (200-500 square miles (mi\2\) (518-1,295 square 
kilometers (km\2\) and defend these areas from other wolves or packs. 
Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it becomes 
saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of available 
prey, intraspecies conflict, other forms of mortality, and dispersal.
    Both male and female yearling wolves often disperse from their 
packs, although some non-breeding wolves remain with their natal packs 
for years. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as lone animals as 
they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in 
unoccupied habitat. Dispersal distances in the NRM average about 60 
miles (mi) (97 kilometers (km)), but dispersals over 500 mi (805 km) 
have been documented (Boyd et al. in prep.; Boyd and Pletscher 1997).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack

[[Page 6635]]

breed and produce pups (Packard 2003; Smith, pers. comm., 2005; Service 
et al. 2005). Females and males typically begin breeding as 2-year olds 
and may annually produce young until they are over 10 years old. 
Litters are typically born in April and range from 1 to 11 pups, but 
average around 5 pups (Service 1992a; Service et al. 2001). Most years, 
4 of these 5 pups survive until winter (Service et al. 2005). Wolves 
can live 13 years but the average lifespan in the NRM is about 4 years 
(Smith, pers. comm., 2005). Pups are raised by the entire pack. If 
alphas are lost when pups are very young, other pack members or even a 
single adult can successfully raise them (Boyd and Jimenez 1994; 
Brainerd et al. in prep.). Pup production and survival can increase 
when wolf density is lower and food availability per wolf increases 
(Fuller et al. 2003). Breeding members also can be quickly replaced 
either from within or outside the pack (Packard 2003; Brainerd et al. 
in prep.). Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly recover from 
severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human-caused mortality 
or disease. After severe declines, wolf populations can more than 
double in just 2 years if mortality is reduced; increases of nearly 100 
percent per year have been documented in low-density suitable habitat 
(Fuller et al. 2003; Smith, pers. comm., 2005; Service et al. 2005).

Recovery

    Background--As Europeans began settling the United States, they 
poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once widespread 
species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States (Mech 1970; McIntyre 1995). Gray wolf populations were 
eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent 
southwestern Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944). Thereafter, 
only isolated observations of individuals and non-breeding pairs were 
reported in the area (Ream and Mattson 1982; Weaver 1978). After human-
caused mortality of wolves in southwestern Canada was regulated in the 
1960s, populations expanded southward (Carbyn 1983, Pletscher et al. 
1991). Dispersing individuals occasionally reached the NRM (Ream and 
Mattson 1982; Nowak 1983), but lacked legal protection there until 1974 
when they were listed as endangered under the ESA (39 FR 1171, January 
4, 1974).
    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980; Fritts et al. 
1995). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain Plan) was approved in 
1980 (Service 1980) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987). It specifies a 
recovery criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined in 1987 as 
two wolves of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing 
offspring) for 3 consecutive years in each of 3 distinct recovery 
areas--(1) northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, 
Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent 
public lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank 
Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and adjacent, 
mostly Federal, lands), and (3) the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
area (including the Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and 
Teton Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public lands). The Rocky Mountain 
Plan states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 
successive years, gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to 
threatened status. It also states that if all 3 recovery areas maintain 
10 breeding pairs for 3 successive years, the NRM wolf population can 
be considered fully recovered and can be considered for delisting.
    The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) reviewed wolf 
recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals (Service 
1994). The EIS indicated that the 1987 recovery goal was, at best, a 
minimal recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted on the 
basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, connectivity, 
and numbers. This review concluded that as a minimum the recovery goal 
should be, ``Thirty or more breeding pairs (i.e., an adult male and an 
adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups that survived 
until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the previous 
breeding season) comprising some +300 wolves in a metapopulation (a 
population that exists as partially isolated sets of subpopulations) 
(Service 1994) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should have 
a high probability of long-term persistence.''
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 (Bangs 2002). Relevant 
literature was reviewed (Fritts et al. 1994; Fritts and Carbyn 1995), 
and responses were received and evaluated from 50 of 88 experts 
contacted. This review showed that there is a wide variety of 
professional opinion about wolf population viability. Based on the 
review, we adopted the 1994 EIS's more relevant and stringent 
definition of wolf population viability and recovery (Service 1994) and 
began using entire States, in addition to recovery areas, to measure 
progress towards recovery goals (Service et al. 2002). We have 
determined that an essential part of achieving recovery is a well 
distributed number of wolf packs and individual wolves among the three 
States and the three recovery zones. While absolute equitable 
distribution is not necessary, a well distributed population with no 
one State maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or 
number of individual wolves is needed.
    Fostering Recovery--In 1982, a wolf pack from Canada began to 
occupy Glacier National Park along the United States Canada border. In 
1986, the first litter of pups documented in over 50 years was born in 
the Park (Ream et al. 1989). Also in 1986, a pack denned just east of 
the Park on the Blackfeet Reservation, but was not detected until 1987, 
when they began to depredate livestock (Bangs et al. 1995). The number 
of wolves resulting from this ``natural'' recovery in northwestern 
Montana steadily increased for the next decade (Service et al. 2005).
    In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada 
to remote public lands in central Idaho and YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996; 
Fritts et al. 1997; Bangs et al. 1998). These wolves were classified as 
nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j) of the ESA to 
increase management flexibility and address local and State concerns 
(59 FR 60252 and 60266, November 22, 1994). This reintroduction and 
accompanying management programs greatly expanded the numbers and 
distribution of wolves in the NRM. Because of the reintroduction, 
wolves soon became established throughout central Idaho and the Greater 
Yellowstone Area (GYA) (Bangs et al. 1998; Service et al. 2005).
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--By 1989, we formed an interagency 
wolf working group (Working Group), composed of Federal, State, and 
tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991; Fritts et al. 1995; Service 1989). 
The Working Group, whose membership has evolved as wolf range has 
expanded, conducted 4 basic recovery tasks, in addition to the standard 
enforcement functions associated with the take of a listed species. 
These tasks were--(1) monitor wolf distribution and numbers; (2) 
control wolves that attacked livestock by moving and other non-lethal 
measures or by killing them; (3) conduct research on wolf relationships 
to ungulate prey, other carnivores and scavengers, livestock, and 
people; and

[[Page 6636]]

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

    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--Reproduction 
first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The natural ability of 
wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat and the interagency 
recovery program combined to effectively promote an increase in wolf 
numbers. By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 
7 breeding pairs. However, since 1997 the number of breeding groups and 
number of wolves has fluctuated widely, varying from 4-12 breeding 
pairs and from 49-108 wolves (Service et al. 2005). Our

[[Page 6637]]

1998 estimate was a minimum of 49 wolves in 5 breeding pairs. In 1999, 
and again in 2000, 6 breeding pairs produced pups, and the northwestern 
Montana population increased to about 63 wolves. In 2001, we estimated 
that 84 wolves in 7 breeding pairs occurred; in 2002, there were an 
estimated 108 wolves in 12 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an 
estimated 92 wolves in 4 breeding pairs; and in 2004, there were an 
estimated 59 wolves in 6 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2002, 2003, 
2004, 2005). (See Figure 1.)
    The likely reasons for the lack of further growth are that suitable 
wolf habitat in northwestern Montana is limited and wolf packs there 
are at a local social and biological carrying capacity. Some of the 
variation in our wolf population estimates for northwestern Montana is 
due to the difficulty of counting wolves in its' thick forests. Wolves 
in northwestern Montana prey mainly on white-tailed deer and pack size 
is smaller, which also makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs et 
al. 1998). It appears that wolf numbers in northwestern Montana are 
likely to fluctuate around 100 wolves. Since 2001, this area has 
maintained an average of nearly 86 wolves and about 7 packs.
    Northwestern Montana wolves are demographically and genetically 
linked to both the wolf population in Canada and to central Idaho 
(Pletscher et al. 1991; Boyd and Pletscher 1997). Wolf dispersal into 
northwestern Montana from both directions will continue to supplement 
this segment of the overall wolf population, both demographically and 
genetically (Boyd et al. in prep.; Forbes and Boyd 1996, 1997; Boyd et 
al. 1995).
    Wolf conflicts with livestock have fluctuated with wolf population 
size and prey population density (Service et al. 2005). For example, in 
1997, immediately following a severe winter that reduced white-tailed 
deer populations in northwestern Montana, wolf conflicts with livestock 
increased dramatically and the wolf population declined (Bangs et al. 
1998). Wolf numbers increased as wild prey numbers rebounded. Unlike 
YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness, northwestern Montana lacks a large 
core refugium that contains over-wintering wild ungulates. Therefore, 
wolf numbers are not ever likely to be as high in northwestern Montana 
as they are in central Idaho or the GYA. However, the population has 
persisted for nearly 20 years and is robust today. State management, 
pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan, will ensure this 
population continues to persist (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--In January 1995, 15 
young adult wolves were captured in Alberta, Canada, and released by 
the Service in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996; Fritts et al. 
1997; Bangs et al. 1998). In January 1996, an additional 20 wolves from 
British Columbia were released. Central Idaho contains the greatest 
amount of highly suitable wolf habitat compared to either northwestern 
Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et al. in press). In 1998, the central 
Idaho wolf population consisted of a minimum of 114 wolves, including 
10 breeding pairs (Bangs et al. 1998). By 1999, it had grown to about 
141 wolves in 10 breeding pairs. By 2000, this population had 192 
wolves in 10 breeding pairs and by 2001 it had climbed to about 261 
wolves in 14 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2002). In 2002, there were 
284 wolves in 14 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were 368 wolves in 26 
breeding pairs; and by the end of 2004, there were 452 wolves in 30 
breeding pairs (Service et al. 2003, 2004, 2005) (Figure 1).
    Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Area--In 1995, 14 wolves from 
Alberta, representing 3 family groups, were released in YNP (Bangs and 
Fritts 1996; Fritts et al. 1997; Phillips and Smith 1997). Two of the 3 
groups produced young in late April. In 1996, this procedure was 
repeated with 17 wolves from British Columbia, representing 4 family 
groups. Two of the groups produced pups in late April. Finally, 10 
five-month old pups removed from northwestern Montana, were released in 
YNP in the spring of 1997.
    By 1998, the wolves had expanded from YNP to the GYA and the 
population consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 breeding pairs that 
produced 10 litters of pups. The 1999 population consisted of 118 
wolves, including 8 breeding pairs. In 2000, the GYA had 177 wolves, 
including 14 breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including 13 
breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. 2002). In 2002, there were an 
estimated 271 wolves in 23 breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an 
estimated 301 wolves in 21 breeding pairs; and in 2004, there were an 
estimated 324 wolves in 30 breeding pairs (Service et al. 2003, 2004, 
2005) (Figure 1).
    Preliminary estimates suggest that wolf numbers in GYA are down in 
2005 (221 wolves in 13 breeding pairs) (Service September 9, 2005). The 
decline of wolves in YNP occurred because (1) highly suitable habitat 
is saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appears to be 
limiting population density; (3) there are fewer elk than when 
reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 2006; Vucetich et al. 
2005); and, (4) a suspected, but as yet unconfirmed, outbreak of canine 
parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper, reduced pup survival in 2005. 
Additional significant growth in the YNP portion of the Wyoming wolf 
population is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is saturated with 
resident wolf packs. Wolf recovery in the GYA segment of the NRM wolf 
DPS will likely depend on wolf packs living outside YNP in Wyoming.
    In conclusion, having attained or exceeded the minimum numerical 
and distributional recovery goals for five consecutive years, the NRM 
wolf population has now achieved the biological criteria necessary for 
a viable and recovered wolf population.

Previous Federal Action

    In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf were listed as endangered 
including the NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus); the eastern timber 
wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the northern Great Lakes region; the Mexican 
wolf (C. l. baileyi) in Mexico and the southwestern United States; and 
the Texas gray wolf (C. l. monstrabilis) of Texas and Mexico (39 FR 
1171, January 4, 1974). In 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 9607, March 
9, 1978) relisting the gray wolf as endangered at the species level (C. 
lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for 
Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. At that 
time, critical habitat was designated in Minnesota and Isle Royale, 
Michigan.
    On November 22, 1994, we designated unoccupied portions of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas 
for the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the ESA. The Yellowstone 
Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho east of 
Interstate 15; that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate 15 
and south of the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the 
eastern Montana border; and all of Wyoming (59 FR 60252, November 22, 
1994). The Central Idaho Experimental Population Area consists of that 
portion of Idaho that is south of Interstate 90 and west of Interstate 
15; and that portion of Montana south of Interstate 90, west of 
Interstate 15 and south of Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR 60266, 
November 22, 1994). This designation assisted us in initiating gray 
wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and the GYA (59 FR 60252, 
November 22, 1994). On January 6, 2005, we revised the regulations 
under

[[Page 6638]]

section 10(j) and liberalized management options for problem wolves (70 
FR 1285). We also encouraged State and Tribal leadership in wolf 
management in the nonessential experimental population areas (70 FR 
1286, January 6, 2005) where States and Tribes had Service-approved 
wolf management plans.
    On July 13, 2000, we proposed to reclassify and delist the gray 
wolf in various parts of the contiguous United States (65 FR 43449). On 
April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing status of 
the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States from 
endangered to threatened (68 FR 15804). In terms of the NRM population, 
this rule (1) designated Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, 
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and the northern portions of Utah and Colorado 
as the Western gray wolf DPS (covering a larger area than proposed in 
2000); (2) reclassified this DPS to threatened status, except in the 
experimental population areas; and (3) implemented a special regulation 
under section 4(d) of the ESA to allow increased management flexibility 
for problem wolves. On January 31, 2005, and August 19, 2005, the U.S. 
District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, respectively, concluded that the 
2003 final rule was ``arbitrary and capricious'' and violated the ESA 
(Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03-1348-JO, D. OR 2005; National 
Wildlife Federation v. Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005). The courts' 
rulings invalidated the April 2003 changes to the ESA listing for the 
gray wolf. Therefore, the gray wolf in the Rocky Mountains, outside of 
areas designated as nonessential experimental populations, reverted 
back to the endangered status that existed prior to the 2003 
reclassification.
    The Service has received a number of petitions relevant to the NRM 
wolf population. On July 16, 1990, the Service received a petition from 
the Farm Bureau Federations of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho to delist 
the gray wolf. On November 30, 1990, the Service published a finding 
that the petition did not present substantial information to indicate 
that the petitioned action may be warranted (55 FR 49656).
    Subsequent to our July 13, 2000, reclassification proposal (65 FR 
43449), but after the close of the comment period, we received 
petitions from Defenders of Wildlife to list, as endangered, gray wolf 
DPSs in the--(1) southern Rocky Mountains, (2) northern California-
southern Oregon, and (3) western Washington. Because wolves were 
already protected as endangered throughout the 48 conterminous States, 
we did not need to take action on these petitions.
    On October 30, 2001, we received a petition dated October 5, 2001, 
from the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc. (Friends 
Petition) that sought removal of the gray wolf from endangered status 
under the ESA (Karl Knuchel, P.C., A Professional Corporation Attorneys 
at Law, in litt., 2001a). Additional correspondence in late 2001 
provided clarification that the petition only applied to the Montana, 
Wyoming, and Idaho population and that the petition requested full 
delisting of this population (Knuchel in litt. 2001b). Additionally, on 
July 19, 2005, we received a petition dated July 13, 2005, from the 
Office of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission (Wyoming Petition) to revise the listing status for the gray 
wolf (Canis lupus) by establishing the northern Rocky Mountain DPS and 
to concurrently remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS from the Federal 
list of threatened and endangered species (Dave Freudenthal, Office of 
the Governor, State of Wyoming, in litt. 2005). On October 26, 2005, we 
published a finding that--(1) the Friends Petition failed to present a 
case for delisting that would lead a reasonable person to believe that 
the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted; and (2) the 
Wyoming petition presented substantial scientific and commercial 
information indicating that the NRM gray wolf population may qualify as 
a DPS and that this potential DPS may warrant delisting (70 FR 61770). 
We considered the collective weight of evidence and initiated a 12-
month status review, which continues.
    In June of 2003, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) submitted 
a petition to delist wolves in Nevada. The NDOW petition asserted that 
the 1978 listing of gray wolves as endangered in Nevada and the 2003 
reclassification of gray wolves as threatened in Nevada were in error. 
On December 9, 2005, we published a finding that the NDOW petition did 
not provide substantial information that the petitioned action may be 
warranted (70 FR 73190).
    For additional information on previous Federal actions for gray 
wolves beyond the NRM, see the April 1, 2003, ``Final rule to 
reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of endangered and 
threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous United States'' (68 
FR 15804).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Pursuant to the ESA, we consider for listing any species, 
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if there is 
sufficient information to indicate that such action may be warranted. 
To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the ESA and 
Congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) published, on December 21, 1994, a draft Policy 
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
under the ESA and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884). After 
review of comments and further consideration, the Service and NMFS 
adopted the interagency policy as issued in draft form, and published 
it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This 
policy addresses the recognition of a DPS for potential listing, 
reclassification, and delisting actions.
    Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision 
regarding the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These 
are applied similarly for additions to the list of endangered and 
threatened species, reclassification of already listed species, and 
removals from the list. The first two factors--discreteness of the 
population segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., 
Canis lupus); and the significance of the population segment to the 
taxon to which it belongs (i.e., Canis lupus)--bear on whether the 
population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets both tests, it 
is a DPS and then the third factor is applied--the population segment's 
conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the population segment 
endangered or threatened).

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon (i.e., Canis lupus) as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors (quantitative measures 
of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this 
separation); or (2) is delimited by international governmental 
boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory

[[Page 6639]]

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

[[Page 6640]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE06.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The only wolf known to have dispersed (within the United States) 
beyond the border of the tentative NRM wolf DPS was killed by a vehicle 
collision along Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado.
    No connectivity currently exists between the three U.S. gray wolf 
populations, nor are there any resident wolf packs in intervening 
areas. While it is theoretically possible that a lone wolf might 
transverse over 400 mi from one population to the other, it has never 
been documented and is extremely unlikely. Furthermore, the DPS Policy 
does not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations, 
but instead requires ``marked separation.''
    Management Differences Among the United States and Canadian Wolf 
Populations--The DPS Policy allows us to use international borders to 
delineate

[[Page 6641]]

the boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution of the species 
extends across that border. Therefore, we will continue to use the 
United States-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the DPS 
due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, 
and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries. About 52,000-
60,000 wolves occur in Canada where suitable habitat is abundant 
(Boitani 2003). Because of this abundance, protection and intensive 
management are not necessary to conserve the wolf in Canada. This 
contrasts with the situation in the United States, where, to date, 
intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf. Wolves in 
Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally 
protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991). If 
delisted, States in the NRM would carefully monitor and manage to 
retain populations at or above the recovery goal (see Factor D below). 
Significant differences exist in management between U.S.-Canadian wolf 
populations.

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e., 
Canis lupus) to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 
consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following--(1) 
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents 
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic 
range; and/or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs 
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics. Below we address Factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do 
not apply to the tentative NRM wolf DPS and thus are not included in 
our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
wolves, the NRM is the only area where such a high diversity of large 
predators occupy the same areas as a large variety of native ungulate 
prey species, resulting in complex ecological interaction between the 
ungulate prey, predator, and scavenger groups (Smith et al. 2003). In 
the NRM wolf DPS, gray wolves share habitats with black bears (Ursus 
americanus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis), cougars (Felis 
concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), coyotes, 
badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis rufus), fisher (Martes 
pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The unique and diverse 
assemblage of native prey include elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, 
moose, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, pronghorn antelope, bison, and 
beaver. This complexity leads to unique ecological cascades in some 
areas, such as in YNP (Smith et al. 2003; Robbins 2004; Bangs and Smith 
in press). For example, wolves appear to be changing elk behavior and 
elk relationships and competition with other ungulates and other 
predators (e.g. cougars) that did not occur when wolves were absent. 
These complex interactions could be increasing streamside willow 
production and survival (Ripple and Beschta 2004), which in turn can 
affect beaver and nesting by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001). This 
suspected pattern of wolf-caused changes also may be occurring with 
scavengers, whereby wolf predation is providing a year-round source of 
food for a diverse variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003). 
The wolf population in the NRM has significantly extended the range of 
the gray wolf in the continental United States into a much more 
diverse, ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of species than is 
found elsewhere within historical wolf habitat in the northern 
hemisphere, including Europe and Asia.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Loss of the NRM wolf 
population would represent a significant gap in the holarctic range of 
the taxon. As noted above, wolves once lived throughout most of North 
America. Wolves have been extirpated from most of the southern portions 
of their North American range. The loss of the NRM wolf population 
would represent a significant gap in the species' holarctic range in 
that this loss would create a 15 degree latitudinal or over 1,000 mi 
(1,600 km) gap across the Rocky Mountains between the Mexican wolf and 
wolves in Canada. If this potential gap were realized, substantial 
cascading ecological impacts would occur in that area (Smith et al. 
2003; Robbins 2004; Bangs and Smith in press).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous States and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous States represent, 
recovery in the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to 
the taxon (C. lupus) (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 
1978). The tentative NRM wolf DPS is significant in achieving this 
objective, as it is 1 of only 3 known occupied areas in the lower 48 
States and constitutes nearly 20 percent of the remaining wolves in the 
conterminous States.
    We believe, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM wolf DPS is significant to the taxon in that 
NRM wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM wolf DPS appears to meet the criterion of significance under our 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments.

Defining the Boundaries of the Tentative NRM Wolf DPS

    Although our DPS policy does not provide for State or other intra-
national governmental boundaries to be used in determining the 
discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or manmade boundary may 
be used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the 
geographic area included within a DPS designation. Easily identifiable 
manmade features, such as roads and highways, also can serve as a 
boundary of convenience for delineating a DPS. The boundaries of the 
tentative NRM wolf DPS include all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, the 
eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small part of north 
central Utah (See Figure 2). Specifically, the DPS includes that 
portion of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa 
and that portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It 
includes that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 
north of Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 
south of Burns Junction. Finally, the DPS includes that portion of Utah 
east of Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The centerline of these 
roads will be deemed the border of the DPS.
    One factor considered in defining the boundaries of the NRM wolf 
DPS was the documented current distribution of all known wolf pack 
locations in 2004 (Figure 2) (Service et al. 2005). We also viewed the 
annual distribution of wolf packs back to 2002 (the first year the 
population exceeded the recovery goal) (Service et al. 2002, 2003, 
2004). Our estimate of the overall area occupied by wolf packs in the 
NRM would not have substantially changed our conclusions had we 
included other years of data, so we used the most current information 
available. All known wolf packs in recent history have only been 
located in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Only

[[Page 6642]]

occasional lone dispersing wolves from the NRM population have been 
documented beyond those three States, in eastern Washington, eastern 
Oregon, northern Utah, and central Colorado (Boyd et al. in prep.).
    Dispersal distances played a key role in determining how far to 
extend the DPS. We examined the known dispersal distance of over 200 
marked dispersing wolves from the NRM, primarily using radio-telemetry 
locations and recoveries of the carcasses of marked wolves from the 
1980s until the present time (Boyd and Pletscher 1997; Boyd et al. in 
prep). These data indicate the average dispersal distance of wolves 
from the NRM for the last 10 years was about 60 mi (97 km) (Boyd et al. 
in prep.). We determined that 180 mi (290 km), three times the average 
dispersal distance, was a break-point for unusually long-distance 
dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories, in part, because 
only 7 wolves (none of which subsequently bred) have dispersed farther 
into the United States. Only dispersal within the United States was 
considered in these calculations because we were trying to determine 
the appropriate DPS boundaries within the United States. Dispersers to 
Canada were irrelevant because the Canadian border formed the northern 
edge of the DPS. Thus, we plotted the average dispersal distance and 
three times the average dispersal distance out from existing wolf pack 
territories. The resulting map indicated a wide-band of likely wolf 
dispersal that might be frequent enough to result in additional pack 
establishment from the core wolf population given the availability of 
nearby suitable habitat. Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM 
may not be applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 
2003).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. in press) and throughout the western United 
States (Carroll et al. 2003, 2006) by comparing the biological and 
physical characteristics of areas currently occupied by wolf packs with 
the characteristics of adjacent areas that remain unoccupied by wolf 
packs. The basic findings and predictions of those models (Oakleaf et 
al. in press; Carroll et al. 2003, 2006) were similar in many respects. 
Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf DPS is typically characterized by 
public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant year-round wild 
ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers of domestic 
livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 
agricultural use, and low human populations (See Factor A). The models 
indicate there is a large block of suitable wolf habitat in central 
Idaho and the GYA, and to a lesser extent northwestern Montana. These 
findings support the recommendations of the 1987 wolf recovery plan 
(Service 1987) that identified those three areas as the most likely 
locations to support a recovered wolf population. The models indicate 
there is little suitable habitat within the portion of the NRM wolf DPS 
in Washington, Oregon, or Utah. (See Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also is important in determining the boundaries 
of our DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (in press) and Carroll 
et al. (2003, 2006) and our observations during the past 20 years 
(Bangs 2004, Service et al. 2005) indicate that non-forested rangeland 
and croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and 
high desert) would preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. 
This is due to chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local cultural 
intolerance of large predators, and wolf behavioral characteristics 
that make them extremely vulnerable to human-caused mortality in open 
landscapes (See Factor A). We looked at the distribution of large 
expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a ``barrier'' or natural 
boundary separating the current population from both the southwestern 
and midwestern wolf populations and from the core of any other possible 
wolf population that might develop in the foreseeable future in the 
northwestern United States. It is important to note that the DPS Policy 
does not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations, 
but instead requires ``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional 
individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the NRM wolf DPS 
could still display the required discreteness.
    Within the NRM wolf DPS, we included the eastern parts of 
Washington and Oregon and a small portion of north central Utah, 
because--(1) these areas are within a 60 to 180 mile (97 to 290 km) 
band from the core wolf population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone 
dispersing wolves have been found in these areas in recent times (Boyd 
et al. in prep.); (3) these areas contain some suitable habitat (see 
Factor A for a more in-depth discussion of suitable habitat); and (4) 
the potential for connectivity exists between these relatively small 
and fragmented habitat patches and the large blocks of suitable habitat 
in the NRM wolf DPS. If wolf packs do establish in these areas, they 
would be more connected to the core populations in central Idaho and 
northwestern Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might 
become established in other large blocks of suitable habitat outside 
the NRM wolf DPS. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat 
would isolate these populations from other suitable habitat patches to 
the west or south.
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf family 
units in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998), 
agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have ever been documented there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1997, Boyd et al. in prep.). Intervening unsuitable habitat 
makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM population have 
dispersed to the North Cascades of Washington in recent history. 
However, if the wolf were to be delisted in the NRM wolf DPS, it would 
remain protected by the ESA as endangered outside the DPS. We will 
continue to provide recommendations for appropriate protections on a 
site-specific basis should wolves ultimately disperse into and form 
packs in areas outside of the NRM wolf DPS.
    We would include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM wolf 
DPS because their State regulatory frameworks apply State-wide. We 
recognize that this includes large swaths of unsuitable habitat in 
eastern Wyoming and Montana. We chose not to extend the NRM wolf DPS 
border beyond eastern Montana and Wyoming to provide clearly 
delineated, easily understood boundaries for law enforcement purposes, 
consistency with State wolf regulations and planning efforts, and for 
administrative convenience. Including all of Wyoming in the NRM wolf 
DPS would also result in including portions of the Sierra Madre, the 
Snowy, and the Laramie Ranges. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pers. comm.) chose 
not to analyze these areas of SE Wyoming because they are fairly 
intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed 
by, private land, making pack establishment unlikely. While Carroll et 
al. (2003, 2006) indicated it was suitable habitat, the model 
optimistically predicted that under current conditions these areas were 
largely sink habitat and that by 2025 (within the foreseeable future) 
they were likely to be ranked as low occupancy because of increased 
human population growth and road development. Therefore, we do not 
consider these areas to be suitable wolf habitat and they were not 
significant factors in determining the DPS border.

[[Page 6643]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the ESA and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the ESA set forth the procedures 
for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. Species may be 
listed as threatened or endangered if one or more of the five factors 
described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA threaten the continued 
existence of the species. A species may be delisted, according to 50 
CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and commercial data available 
substantiate that the species is neither endangered nor threatened 
because of (1) extinction, (2) recovery, or (3) error in the original 
data used for classification of the species.
    A recovered population is one that no longer meets the ESA's 
definition of threatened or endangered. The ESA defines an endangered 
species as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is 
likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Determining 
whether a species is recovered requires consolidation of the same five 
categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1). For species that 
are already listed as threatened or endangered, this analysis of 
threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently facing the 
species and the threats that could potentially affect the species in 
the foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the 
removal or reduction of the ESA's protections.
    For the purposes of this notice, we consider ``foreseeable future'' 
as 30 years. We use 30 years to represent both a reasonable timeframe 
for analysis of future potential threats and relate this timeframe back 
to wolf biology. Wolves were listed in 1973 and reached recovery levels 
by 2002 in both the midwestern United States and the NRM wolf DPS. It 
has taken about 30 years for the causes of wolf endangerment to be 
alleviated and for those wolf populations to recover. The average 
lifespan of a wolf in YNP is 4 years and slightly less outside the Park 
(Smith, pers. comm., 2005). The average gray wolf breeds at 30 months 
of age and replaces itself in 3 years (Fuller et al. 2003). We used 10 
wolf generations (30 years) to represent a reasonable biological 
timeframe to determine if impacts could be significant. Any serious 
threats to wolf population viability are likely to become evident well 
before a 30-year time horizon.
    For the purposes of this notice, the ``range'' of this NRM wolf DPS 
is the area within the DPS boundaries where viable populations of the 
species now exist. However, a species' historic range is also 
considered because it helps inform decisions on the species status in 
its current range. While wolves historically occurred over most of the 
DPS, large portions of it are no longer able to support viable wolf 
populations.
    Significance of a portion of the range is viewed in terms of 
biological significance. A portion of a species' range that is so 
important to the continued existence of the species that threats to the 
species in that area can threaten the viability of the species, 
subspecies, or DPS as a whole is considered to be a significant portion 
of the range. In regard to the NRM wolf DPS, the significant portions 
of the gray wolf's range are those areas that are important or 
necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and evolving 
representative meta-population in order for the NRM wolf DPS to persist 
into the foreseeable future.
    The following analysis examines all significant factors currently 
affecting wolf populations or likely to affect wolf populations within 
the foreseeable future. Factor A considers all factors affecting both 
currently occupied (defined below in Factor A) and potentially suitable 
habitat (defined below in Factor A). The issues discussed under Factors 
B, C, and E are analyzed throughout the entire DPS. Adequate regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) are discussed for each of the 6 States within the 
DPS and relevant tribes, with an emphasis on the three States with 
enough suitable habitat to sustain a viable wolf population (Wyoming, 
Montana, and Idaho).

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

    As discussed in detail below, we believe that impacts to suitable 
and potentially suitable habitat will occur at levels that will not 
significantly affect wolf numbers or distribution in the NRM wolf DPS. 
Occupied suitable habitat in key areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 
is secure. These areas include Glacier, Teton, and Yellowstone National 
Parks and numerous USDA Forest Service Wilderness areas. Nearly two-
thirds of the overall area is Federal and State public land. These 
areas will continue to be managed for high ungulate densities, moderate 
rates of seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road densities 
that will provide abundant native prey, low potential for livestock 
conflicts, and security from excessive unregulated human-caused 
mortality. The core recovery areas are also within proximity to one 
another and have enough public land between them to ensure sufficient 
connectivity to maintain the wolf population above recovery levels.
    The NRM wolf DPS is 378,690 mi (980,803 km\2\) and includes 158,807 
mi\2\ (411,308 km\2\) of Federal land (42 percent); 20,734 mi\2\ 
(53,701 km\2\) of State land (5 percent); 15,068 mi\2\ (39,026 km\2\) 
of Tribal land (4 percent); and 180,543 mi\2\ (467,604 km\2\) of 
private land (48 percent). The DPS contains large amounts of 3 
Ecoregion Divisions--Temperate Steppe (prairie) (120,521 mi\2\ [312,148 
km\2\]); Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) (156,341 mi\2\ [404,921 
km\2\]); and Temperate Desert (high desert) (101,755 mi\2\ [263,544 
km\2\]) (Bailey 1995). The following analysis focuses on suitable 
habitat within the DPS and currently occupied areas (which may include 
intermittent unsuitable habitat).
    Suitable Habitat within the DPS-- Wolves once occupied or transited 
most, if not all, of the NRM wolf DPS. However, much of the wolf s 
historic range within the DPS has been modified for human use and is no 
longer suitable habitat. We used two relatively new models, Oakleaf et 
al. (in press) and Carroll et al. (2006), to help us determine and 
estimate the current amount of suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf 
DPS. As expected, the Oakleaf et al. (in press) and Carroll et al. 
(2006) models predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable 
wolf habitat where their analysis overlapped because they used 
different models with different variables over different areas.
    Oakleaf's basic model was a more intensive effort that only looked 
at potential wolf habitat in the NRM. It used roads accessible to two-
wheel and four-wheel vehicles, topography (slope and elevation), land 
ownership, relative ungulate density (based on state harvest 
statistics), cattle and sheep density, vegetation characteristics 
(Ecoregions and land cover), and human density to comprise its 
geographic information system (GIS) layers. Oakleaf analyzed the 
characteristics of areas occupied and not occupied by NRM wolf packs 
through 2000 to predict what other areas in the NRM might be suitable 
or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation.
    Our experience in wolf management for the past 20 years, and the 
persistence of wolf packs since recovery has been achieved, leads us to 
concur with the Oakleaf et al. (in press) model's predictions that the 
most important habitat attributes for wolf pack

[[Page 6644]]

persistence are forest cover, public land, high elk density, and low 
livestock density. Therefore, we believe that Oakleaf's calculations of 
the amount and distribution of suitable wolf habitat, in the parts of 
Montana, Idaho and Wyoming analyzed, represents the most reasonably 
realistic prediction of suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming.
    In contrast, Carroll's model analyzed a much larger area (all 12 
western States and northern Mexico) in a less specific way. Carroll's 
model used density and type of roads, human population density and 
distribution, slope, and vegetative greenness as ``pseudo-habitat'' to 
estimate relative ungulate density to predict associated wolf survival 
and fecundity rates. The combination of the GIS model and wolf 
population parameters were then used to develop estimates of habitat 
theoretically suitable for wolf pack persistence. In addition, Carroll 
predicted the potential effect of different levels of road and human 
density in 2025 to suitable wolf habitat in the western United States. 
We believe that the Carroll et al. (2006) model tended to be more 
liberal in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions 
compared to Oakleaf model or our field observations indicated but it 
provided a valuable relative measure across the western United States 
upon which comparisons could be made. The Carroll model did not 
incorporate livestock density into its calculations as the Oakleaf 
model did. We believe that may in part explain why Carroll ranked more 
habitat as potentially suitable than appeared to be realistic based 
upon our observations of wolf pack persistence to date. Many of the 
more isolated primary habitat patches that the Carroll model predicted 
as currently suitable, were predicted as unsuitable by the year 2025, 
indicating they were likely on the lower end of what ranked as suitable 
habitat in that model. Because these types of areas were typically 
small and isolated from the core population segments, we do not believe 
they are currently suitable habitat based upon on our data on wolf pack 
persistence for the past 10 years (Carroll et al. 2003).
    Despite the huge differences in each model's analysis area, layers, 
inputs, and assumptions, they had similar results and assumptions that 
are directly related to the NRM wolf DPS. These models were extremely 
valuable to us as we developed the DPS border and analyzed potentially 
suitable and unsuitable wolf habitat within the NRM wolf DPS. Both 
models predicted that most suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf DPS 
was in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA and in the area 
currently occupied by the NRM wolf population. They also indicated that 
these three areas were connected. However, northwest Montana and Idaho 
were more connected to each other than the GYA, and collectively the 
three cores areas were surrounded by large areas of unsuitable habitat.
    Both models ranked areas as suitable habitat if they had 
characteristics that suggested they might have a 50 percent or greater 
chance of supporting wolf packs. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM wolf 
DPS was typically characterized by both models as public land with 
mountainous forested habitat and having abundant year-round wild 
ungulate populations, low road density, low numbers of domestic 
livestock that are only present seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 
agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically 
just the opposite (i.e., private land, flat open prairie or desert, low 
or seasonal wild ungulate populations, high road density, high numbers 
of year-round domestic livestock including many domestic sheep, high 
levels of agricultural use, and many people). We generally agree with 
these criteria. A mix of these characteristics produced varying degrees 
of suitability. The full spectrum runs from highly suitable (i.e., the 
northern range of YNP) to highly unsuitable (i.e., a city or a sheep 
ranch in eastern Montana) and every imaginable combination between the 
two extremes.
    These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions 
and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their 
relationships to wolf pack persistence rather than as predictors of 
absolute acreages or areas that can actually be occupied by wolf packs. 
Carroll et al. (2006) optimistically ranked 102,588 mi2 (265,703 km\2\) 
and Oakleaf et al. (in press) ranked 65,725 mi\2\ (170,228 km\2\) of 
suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. We believe that these 
models' assessments are reasonable and they generally support earlier 
predictions about wolf habitat suitability in the NRM (Service 1980, 
1987, 1994). We used their findings to make interpretations and 
predictions about wolf pack distribution in relation to potentially 
suitable habitat in the NRM wolf DPS.
    In the NRM wolf DPS, the estimated amounts of potentially suitable 
wolf habitat predicted by Carroll et al. (2006) in each State are--
40,924 mi\2\ (105,993 km\2\) in Montana; 31,856 mi\2\ (82,507 km\2\) in 
Idaho; 29,808 mi\2\ (77,202 km\2\) in Wyoming; 2,556 mi\2\ (6,620 
km\2\) in Oregon; 1,655 mi\2\ (4,286 km\2\) in Utah; and 297 mi\2\ (769 
km\2\) in Washington. For perspective, a single wolf pack territory 
normally averages 200-500 mi\2\ (518-1,295 km\2\). Thus, approximately 
28 percent of the NRM wolf DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat in 
accordance with the most liberal model available (Carroll et al. 2006). 
We used the Carroll model to assess relative habitat suitability in the 
entire NRM wolf DPS because the Oakleaf model only analyz