Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Establish the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Population (Canis lupus, 43410-43432 [06-6595]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 147 (Tuesday, August 1, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43410-43432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6595]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To Establish the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf 
Population (Canis lupus) as a Distinct Population Segment To Remove the 
Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment From the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to establish the northern Rocky Mountain 
(NRM) gray wolf (Canis lupus) population as a Distinct Population 
Segment (DPS) and to remove the NRM gray wolf DPS from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (ESA). After review of all available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the petitioned action is not 
warranted. We have determined that Wyoming State law and its wolf 
management plan do not provide the necessary regulatory mechanisms to 
assure that Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of a recovered 
NRM wolf population would be conserved if the protections of the ESA 
were removed.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on August 1, 
2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this 12-month finding, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

[[Page 43411]]

Montana Ecological Services Office, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 
59601.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, at the above address (see ADDRESSES) or by 
telephone at (406) 449-5225, extension 204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or 
reclassify a species presents substantial information to indicate the 
petitioned action may be warranted. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA 
requires that within 12 months after receiving a petition that contains 
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings: (a) 
The petitioned action is not warranted; (b) the petitioned action is 
warranted; or (c) the petitioned action is warranted but precluded by 
higher priority workload. Such 12-month findings are to be published 
promptly in the Federal Register.

Previous Federal Action

    In 1974, we listed four subspecies of gray wolf as endangered, 
including the northern Rocky Mountain (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) listing 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.
    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 (59 FR 60252). This 
designation assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects 
in central Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). In 1995 and 
1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada into remote 
public lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park (YNP) 
(Bangs and Fritts 1996; Fritts et al. 1997; Bangs et al. 1998). These 
reintroductions and accompanying management programs greatly expanded 
the numbers and distribution of wolves in the NRM. Because of the 
reintroductions, wolves soon became established throughout central 
Idaho and the GYA (Bangs et al. 1998; Service et al. 2006). Naturally 
dispersing wolves from Canada led to the reestablishment of wolf packs 
into northern Montana in the early 1980s, and the number of wolves in 
this area steadily increased for the next decade (Service et al. 2006).
    The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical and 
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000, and the temporal 
portion of the recovery goal was achieved at the end of 2002 (Service 
et al. 2001, 2002, 2003). Before these wolves can be delisted, the 
Service requires that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming develop wolf 
management plans to demonstrate that other adequate regulatory 
mechanisms exist should the ESA protections be removed. The Service 
determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf management plans are 
adequate to assure the Service that those State's share of the NRM wolf 
population would be maintained above recovery levels, and the Service 
approved those two State plans. However, we determined that problems 
with Wyoming's legislation and plan, and inconsistencies between the 
law and management plan do not allow us to approve Wyoming's approach 
to wolf management (Williams 2004). In response, Wyoming litigated this 
issue (Wyoming U.S. District Court 04-CV-0123-J and 04-CV-0253-J 
consolidated). The Wyoming Federal District Court dismissed the case on 
procedural grounds (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214, March 18, 2005). Wyoming 
appealed that decision, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed 
with the District Court decision on April 3, 2006 (442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On October 30, 2001, we received a petition 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 of gray wolf 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 by establishing the NRM DPS and concurrently 
removing the NRM DPS of gray wolf from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (Dave Freudenthal, Office of the Governor, 
State of Wyoming, 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 this 12-month status review 
(70 FR 61770; October 26, 2005).
    On February 8, 2006, we published an advanced notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) announcing our intention to conduct rulemaking to 
establish a DPS of the gray wolf in the NRM and to remove that gray 
wolf DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, if 
Wyoming adopts a State law and a State wolf management plan that is 
approved by the Service (71 FR 6634). This finding is based upon 
additional analysis and updates the information in the ANPR (71 FR 
6634).
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions impacting the 
NRM gray wolf population, see the February 8, 2006, February 8, 2006 
ANPR (71 FR 6634). 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'' 
(2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Biology

    For detailed information on the biology of the gray wolf see: (1) 
The ``Background'' section of the February 8, 2006, ANPR (71 FR 6634); 
and (2) the ``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the 2003 
Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804; April 1, 2003).

Recovery

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the ESA include recovery actions, possible land 
acquisition, requirements for Federal protection, cooperation with the 
States, prohibitions against certain practices, and recognition by 
Federal, State, and private agencies, groups, and individuals. Most of 
these measures already have been successfully applied to gray wolves. 
For background on the

[[Page 43412]]

history of NRM wolf recovery, recovery planning (including defining 
appropriate recovery criteria), population monitoring, and cooperation 
and coordination with our partners in achieving recovery, see the 
``Recovery'' section of the February 8, 2006, ANPR (71 FR 6634).
    What follows is a summary of recovery progress by (1) State for 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho; and (2) recovery area. Both discussions 
include 2005 population estimates not available at the time the ANPR 
was published (71 FR 6634; February 8, 2006).
    Recovery by State--We measure wolf recovery by the number of 
breeding pairs because wolf populations are maintained by packs that 
successfully raise pups. We use 'breeding pairs' to describe 
successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994; Bangs 2002). Breeding 
pairs are only measured in winter because most wolf mortality occurs in 
spring/summer/fall (illegal killing, agency control and disease/
parasites) and winter is the beginning of the annual courtship and 
breeding season for wolves. Often we do not know if a specific pack 
actually contains an alpha pair and two pups in winter, but there is a 
strong correlation between wolf pack size then and its probability of 
being a breeding pair. The group size of packs of unknown composition 
in winter can be used to estimate their breeding pair status. Different 
habitat characteristics result in slightly different probabilities of 
breeding pair status in each state. Based upon the best scientific 
information currently available, in Wyoming, 10 groups of 5 wolves of 
unknown composition in winter would be the equivalent of 5.6 breeding 
pairs, 10 groups of 6 wolves would equate to 6.5 breeding pairs, etc. 
The probability of a pack of wolves having a 90% chance of being a 
breeding pair doesn't occur until there are at least 9 wolves in a pack 
in winter (Ausband 2006). In the past we had primarily used packs of 
known composition in winter to estimate the number of breeding pairs. 
However, now we can use the best information currently available and 
use pack size in winter as a surrogate to reliably identify breeding 
pairs and to better predict the effect of managing for certain pack 
sizes on wolf population recovery.
    At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met its numerical and 
distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 ``breeding pairs'' (an 
adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups 
that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the 
previous breeding season) and over 300 wolves well-distributed among 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 
2001). While absolute equitable distribution is not necessary, a well-
distributed population throughout suitable habitat with no one State 
maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or number of 
individual wolves is needed for recovery in a significant portion of 
its range. This minimum recovery goal was again exceeded in 2001, 2002, 
2003, 2004, and 2005 (Service et al. 2002-2006). Because the recovery 
goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the temporal element of 
recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 (Service et al. 2003). 
By the end of 2005, the NRM wolf population had achieved its numerical 
and distributional recovery goal for 6 consecutive years (Service et 
al. 2001-2006; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 
2006).
    In 2000, 8 breeding pairs and approximately 97 wolves were known to 
occur in Montana; 12 breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves were 
known to occur in Wyoming; and 10 breeding pairs and 187 wolves were 
known to occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2001). In 2001, 97 reeding 
pairs and approximately 123 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 13 
breeding pairs and approximately 189 wolves were known to occur in 
Wyoming; and 14 breeding pairs and 251 wolves were known to occur in 
Idaho (Service et al. 2002). In 2002, 17 breeding pairs and 
approximately 183 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 18 breeding 
pairs and approximately 217 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 
14 breeding pairs and 216 wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service 
et al. 2003). In 2003, 10 breeding pairs and approximately 182 wolves 
were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding pairs and approximately 234 
wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 25 breeding pairs and 345 
wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2004). In 2004, 15 
breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves were known to occur in 
Montana; 24 breeding pairs and approximately 260 wolves were known to 
occur in Wyoming; and 27 breeding pairs and 422 wolves were known to 
occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2005). In 2005, 19 breeding pairs and 
approximately 256 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding 
pairs and approximately 252 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 
36 breeding pairs and 512 wolves were known to occur in Idaho, for a 
total of 71 breeding pairs and 1,020 wolves (Service et al. 2006).
    Although we now measure recovery by State, biologically each 
recovery area remains of some importance. Thus, 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.
    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--The 
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area (>49,728 square kilometers 
(km2) [>19,200 square miles (mi2)]) includes 
Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Lincoln 
Scapegoat Wilderness areas; and adjacent public and private lands in 
northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. Reproduction first 
occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The natural ability of wolves 
to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat, the interim control plan, 
and the interagency recovery program combined to effectively promote an 
increase in wolf numbers. By 1996, the number of wolves had grown to 
about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. However, since 1997, the 
number of breeding groups and number of wolves has fluctuated widely, 
varying from 4-12 breeding pairs and from 49-130 wolves (Service et al. 
2006). Our 1998 estimate was a minimum of 49 wolves in 5 known breeding 
pairs (Service et al. 1999). In 1999, and again in 2000, 6 known 
breeding pairs produced pups, and the northwestern Montana population 
increased to about 63 wolves (Service et al. 2000, 2001). In 2001, we 
estimated that 84 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs occurred; in 2002, 
there were an estimated 108 wolves in 12 known breeding pairs; in 2003, 
there were an estimated 92 wolves in 4 known breeding pairs; in 2004, 
there were an estimated 59 wolves in 6 known breeding pairs; and in 
2005, there were an estimated 130 wolves in 11 known breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
    The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves 
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat. 
Wolf packs in this area may be near their local social and biological 
carrying capacity. Some of the variation in our wolf population 
estimates for northwestern Montana is due to the difficulty of counting 
wolves in the areas thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana prey 
mainly on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and pack size is 
smaller, which also makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs et al. 
1998). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by Montana 
Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) in 2005 were likely responsible for 
some of the sharp increase in the estimated wolf

[[Page 43413]]

population. The MFWP have led wolf management in this area since 
February 2004. It appears that wolf numbers in northwestern Montana are 
likely to fluctuate around 100 wolves. Since 2001, this area has 
maintained an average of nearly 96 wolves and about 8 known breeding 
pairs (Service et al. 2006).
    Northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically and genetically 
linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in central Idaho 
(Pletscher et al. 1991; Boyd and Pletscher 1999). 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 overwintering wild ungulates. Therefore, 
wolf numbers are not ever likely to be as high in northwestern Montana 
as they are in central Idaho or the GYA. However, the population has 
persisted for nearly 20 years and is robust today (Service et al. 
2006). State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management 
plan, will ensure this population continues to persist (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho 
Recovery Area (53,600 km\2\ [20,700 mi\2\]) includes the Selway 
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth 
Wilderness areas; adjacent, mostly Federal, lands in central Idaho; and 
adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994). 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. 2006). In 1998, the central Idaho 
wolf population consisted of a minimum of 114 wolves, including 10 
known breeding pairs (Bangs et al. 1998). By 1999, it had grown to 
about 141 wolves in 10 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 2000). By 
2000, this population had 192 wolves in 10 known breeding pairs, and by 
2001, it had climbed to about 261 wolves in 14 known breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2001, 2002). In 2002, there were 284 wolves in 14 known 
breeding pairs; in 2003, there were 368 wolves in 26 known breeding 
pairs; in 2004, there were 452 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs, and 
by the end of 2005, there were 512 wolves in 36 known breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). As in the Northwestern Montana 
Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in 
wolf populations in 2005, was due to an increased monitoring effort by 
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). They began to actively 
help with wolf management in Idaho beginning in 2005, and have led 
these efforts since 2006.
    Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Area--The GYA recovery area 
(63,700 km2 [24,600 mi2]) includes YNP; the 
Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
areas (the National Park/Wilderness units); and adjacent public and 
private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent parts of Idaho and Montana 
(Service 1994). The wilderness portions of the GYA are rarely used by 
wolves due to those areas' high elevation, deep snow, and low 
productivity in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate 
populations. 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 1996). Two of the three groups produced young 
in late April. In 1996, this procedure was repeated with 17 wolves from 
British Columbia, representing 4 family groups. Two of the groups 
produced pups in late April. Finally, 10 5-month-old pups removed from 
northwestern Montana were released in YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs 
et al. 1998).
    By 1998, the wolves had expanded from YNP into the GYA with a 
population that consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 breeding pairs 
that produced 10 litters of pups (Service et al. 1999). The 1999 
population consisted of 118 wolves, including 8 known breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2000). In 2000, the GYA had 177 wolves, including 14 
known breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including 13 known 
breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. 2001, 2002). In 2002, there 
were an estimated 271 wolves in 23 known breeding pairs; in 2003, there 
were an estimated 301 wolves in 21 known breeding pairs; in 2004, there 
were an estimated 335 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs; and in 2005, 
there were an estimated 325 wolves in 20 known breeding pairs (Service 
et al. 2003--2006).
    Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding 
pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service et al. 2006). 
Most of this decline occurred in YNP (which declined from 171 wolves in 
16 known breeding pairs in 2004, to 118 wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 
2005 (Service et al. 2005, 2006)) and likely occurred because: (1) 
Highly suitable habitat in YNP is saturated with wolf packs; (2) 
conflict among packs appears to be limiting population density; (3) 
there are fewer elk (Cervus canadensis) than when reintroduction took 
place (White and Garrott 2006; Vucetich et al. 2005); and (4) a 
suspected, but as yet unconfirmed, outbreak of disease, canine 
parvovirus (CPV) or canine distemper, reduced pup survival to 20 
percent in 2005 (Service et al. 2006; D. Smith, YNP, pers. comm. 2005). 
Additional significant growth in the National Park/Wilderness portions 
of the Wyoming wolf population is unlikely because suitable wolf 
habitat is saturated with resident wolf packs. Maintaining wolf 
populations above recovery levels in the GYA segment of the NRM area 
will likely depend on wolf packs living outside the National Park/
Wilderness portions of Wyoming.

Discussion of the Petition

    Wyoming's Petition advocated that the Service: (1) Establish a NRM 
DPS for the gray wolf composed of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming; (2) 
eliminate the experimental population designations established in 1994; 
and (3) remove the gray wolf within the NRM DPS from protections under 
the ESA. The only substantive disagreements between the Service and 
Wyoming are: (1) Whether there is any emergency or urgency to delist 
wolves in Wyoming and (2) if Wyoming's regulatory framework is adequate 
to maintain the wolf population above its numerical and distribution 
recovery levels in Wyoming should the ESA protections be removed. The 
Wyoming Petition addressed six major issues.
    1 Urgent Action Required--The Wyoming Petition argued that 
delisting was urgent and a priority because of alleged impacts to big 
game populations, economic impacts, introducing wolves into unnatural 
and fragmented habitats, and livestock depredation. Wyoming presented 
this information with an overall perspective that the number of wolves 
exceeded

[[Page 43414]]

recovery goals and that the wolf population and its impacts were larger 
those analyzed in the Service's 1994 environmental impact statement 
(EIS) on wolf reintroduction (Service 1994). The Wyoming Petition did 
not reveal any issues that were not previously anticipated or predicted 
in the 1994 EIS, nor does there currently appear to be any emergency 
regarding wolves or wolf management in Wyoming (White et al. 2005). In 
addition, the Wyoming segment of the wolf population was stable or 
slightly decreased in 2005, so the rate of predation on wild ungulates 
and livestock did not increase (Service et al. 2006).
    The Wyoming Petition presented data indicating that nearly all 
Wyoming elk herds still exceeded State management objectives, but that 
herds in areas with wolves had lower cow/calf ratios than herds in 
areas without wolves. The Petitionor, however, did not address numerous 
other significant differences between these elk herds. All elk herds 
being preyed on by wolves are also being preyed on by grizzly bears 
(Barber et al. 2005). Elk herds that are living in areas without wolves 
have fewer large predators interacting with them. Elk herds with wolves 
typically summer in remote areas at high elevation, without access to 
as much agricultural forage, possibly making them more susceptible to 
severe winter or summer drought. Summer drought reduces forage for elk, 
which can greatly reduce calf production and survival (Cook et al. 
2004). Some of Wyoming's comparisons made between elk herds with and 
without wolves seemed questionable; for example, the Wiggins Fork herd 
with an objective of 7,000 elk and the largest decrease in cow/calf 
ratios of any herd, was only being preyed upon by one small wolf pack. 
It is highly unlikely that one pack of approximately 10 wolves could 
have any measurable impact on overall herd size or calf ratios among 
7,000 elk (White and Garrott 2006; Hamlin 2005). In addition, Wyoming 
and Montana (North Yellowstone elk herd) initiated deliberate elk herd 
reduction programs (cow elk hunts in winter) in the GYA to bring the 
herd sizes down to habitat management objectives and to alleviate 
landowner complaints about excessive elk competition with livestock for 
forage and crop damage (Hamlin 2005; Vucetich et al. 2005; White and 
Garrott 2006). Identifying wolf predation as the only, or primary, 
cause of differences in elk herd size or calf recruitment is 
misleading.
    There is no doubt that wolves eat elk and that, in some situations 
and in combination with other factors, wolf predation can affect the 
survival rate of adult cow elk, older calf elk, herd size, and the 
potential surplus available for human harvest. However, wolves are 
territorial, and wolf populations naturally regulate their density with 
prey density (Mech and Boitani 2003); areas with high prey numbers 
support more wolves, while areas with few prey support fewer wolves. 
Wolf populations expand by establishing new packs in new areas, which 
means that those new packs are preying on new elk and other ungulate 
herds. An example of this type of adjustment in wolf density was the 
dramatic decline of wolves in YNP's northern range in 2005, due to 
disease and social conflict in response, in part, to reduced elk 
density (Service et al. 2006). Low neonate calf survival is typically 
related to habitat quality and predation by bears (Barber et al. 2005). 
The potential impact of wolf predation to decrease some elk herds and 
reduce hunter harvest for cow elk was relatively accurately forecast in 
the EIS and has been the subject of a long series of subsequent 
research projects with various conclusions (Hamlin 2005; See Service et 
al. 2006 for additional references). Some studies indicted wolves were 
having minor impacts on elk herds in comparison to other factors 
(Vucetich et al. 2005), while others suggested wolf predation was a 
significant factor (White and Garrott 2006).
    The Wyoming Petition also asserted that wolf predation reduced the 
number of elk that needed to be killed by hunters each year to bring 
herd size down to State management objectives and that reduced harvest 
had economic costs. This is consistent with the predictions in the 1994 
EIS that wolf predation would result in less need to kill cow elk to 
reduce herd size to habitat carrying capacity and to alleviate private 
property damage (Service 1994). The EIS also predicted reduced hunter 
opportunity and the economic losses that would be associated with fewer 
elk.
    Additionally, the Wyoming Petition only discussed the negative 
impact of wolf predation on select aspects of the economy (big game 
hunting and livestock depredation), not the entire economic effects of 
wolf restoration. The EIS analyzed the full range of costs and benefits 
of wolf reintroduction and concluded that the presence of wolves in YNP 
would generate many times more economic benefits than costs. A recent 
economic study in YNP indicted that the presence of wolves was 
currently generating over $20 million per year in economic activity in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, similar to that forecasted ($23 million in 
1992) in the EIS (Duffield et al. 2006). Wolf predation on ungulates 
(primarily elk) has a cost to some segments of society (some types of 
big game hunters), but those costs are far outweighed (over 10-fold) by 
the positive economic benefits to GYA States (Service 1994).
    The Wyoming Petition proposed that wolves were reintroduced into 
unnatural and fragmented landscapes and that wolves were living in 
altered or marginally suitable habitats because of other human uses of 
the land. Suitable wolf habitat in North America can be simply 
characterized by moderate rates of human-caused mortality (due to low 
road density, forest cover, regulation of wolf killing by humans), 
adequate wild ungulates, and seasonal or low livestock density 
(Mladenoff and Stickley 1998; Larsen 2004; Oakleaf et al. 2006; Carroll 
et al. 2003, 2006). Wolves are habitat generalists and live in 
landscapes altered by humans throughout the world (Mech and Boitani 
2003). Wolves listed under the ESA have lived in areas where human 
activities occur for decades--in the Midwest for over 30 years, the NRM 
for over 20 years, and the GYA and central Idaho for over 10 years. 
Wolf packs outside the Park Units in the Montana and Idaho portion of 
the GYA have occasional conflicts with livestock just like those in 
Wyoming. Wolf presence and human activity do not have to be mutually 
exclusive. However, just as in the case of any other species of 
wildlife (i.e., mountain lions, bears, elk, deer, skunks, geese, etc.), 
there will be occasional conflicts with people that require management 
to address. Some areas of historic habitat are currently so modified by 
human impacts that they are unsuitable habitat for wolves (Carroll et 
al. 2003, 2006; Oakleaf et al. 2006). However, there are situations 
where livestock and wolves can both live in the same area, and do so 
throughout many parts of the Northern Hemisphere. The cost of co-
existence is some livestock losses, some wolf losses, and management to 
reduce the rate of conflict (Woodroffe et al. 2006).
    The Wyoming Petition discussed wintering elk feedground issues, 
moose habitat, and livestock depredation to support its perspective 
that wolves are largely incompatible with current commercial land-uses 
on public and private lands outside YNP. In Wyoming, many elk herds are 
fed in winter, vaccinated against disease, and compensation is paid to 
private landowners whose livestock they compete against for forage. The 
artificial feeding of concentrated wildlife has a host of benefits 
(high elk populations,

[[Page 43415]]

high hunter harvest, reduced private property damage in winter, and 
more food for large predators and scavengers) and costs (funding, 
diseases, property damage, road/human safety hazards, increased 
competition with other wild ungulates/wildlife, and habituation to 
humans) associated with it. Diseases are a particularly difficult 
problem on Wyoming feedgrounds because artificial crowding in winter 
increases disease transmission rates. A high proportion of elk are 
already infected with brucellosis, and chronic wasting disease is being 
documented increasingly closer to the Wyoming elk feedgrounds. However, 
these disease-related issues existed long before wolves were ever 
present and would still be present without wolves. Disease issues, not 
wolf predation, will likely continue to be the most serious issue 
facing winter feeding of high numbers of elk, but wolves have added to 
the complexity of managing wintering elk on feedgrounds (Jimenez and 
Stevenson 2003, 2004; Jimenez et al. 2005).
    As discussed in the Wyoming Petition, moose populations were 
declining before wolves were present in the GYA, and previous Wyoming 
Game and Fish Department (WGFD) research indicated this was largely 
habitat-related. The Service is cooperating with ongoing research by 
the WGFD to investigate factors effecting moose populations in Wyoming. 
Wolves occasionally kill moose, but the effect of wolf predation on 
overall moose population status is unclear. It is unlikely, however, to 
have been the most important factor to date.
    Wolves occasionally depredate livestock. This issue has been 
discussed in detail in the EIS, interagency annual reports (Service 
1999-2006), and many publications (see Literature Cited in Service et 
al. 2006; Bangs et al. in press). Surprisingly, the rate of confirmed 
livestock depredations per 100 wolves (average of 14 cattle and 29 
sheep killed for every 100 wolves in the GYA from 1995-2005) is 
actually lower than the EIS predicted (on average 100 wolves in the GYA 
were predicted to kill 19 cattle and 68 sheep annually) (Service 1994; 
Service et al. 2006). In 2005, the number of livestock depredations in 
Wyoming decreased, despite an increasing wolf population near livestock 
outside of the GYA Park Units. This may be a result of the aggressive 
agency control of problem wolves and the high level of problem wolf 
removal by the Service in Wyoming outside of the GYA Park Units. An 
average of 10% of the GYA wolf population was killed annually by agency 
control from 1995-2005, the highest rate in the NRM (Service et al. 
2006). In Wyoming outside of YNP, about 20% of the wolf population was 
removed in 2004 and 2005 (Service et al. 2006). No information 
presented in the Wyoming Petition suggested there was any greater 
urgency or priority regarding wolf management issues in Wyoming than 
was anticipated in the 1994 EIS or than currently exists in Montana or 
Idaho. If wolves remain listed, all wolf/livestock conflict in Wyoming 
will continue to be aggressively dealt with by the Service.
    2 Current Wolf Numbers and Distribution in the NRM DPS--The Wyoming 
Petition presented the Service's information on wolf numbers and 
distribution in 2004 to reaffirm the Service's position that the wolf 
population has fully achieved both its numerical and distributional 
recovery goals every year since 2002 (Service et al. 2006). The NRM 
wolf population has not significantly increased its overall outer 
distribution in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming since 2000 (Service et al. 
2000-2006) but has continued to grow and expand within that area and 
now occupies almost all suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 
(71 FR 6643).
    3 Establish a NRM DPS--The Wyoming Petition listed reasons why a 
NRM DPS composed of all Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming is appropriate. In 
2006, the Service proposed a very similar gray wolf DPS that would be 
composed of all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming; parts of eastern 
Washington and Oregon; and northcentral Utah (71 FR 6643). However, in 
its comments on the ANPR, Wyoming stated that it supported the analysis 
and justification for the NRM DPS proposed by the Service (public 
comment to 71 FR 6643).
    4 Justification for Removing the Gray Wolf in the NRM DPS From the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife--Wyoming presented 
information from the 2003 Reclassification Rule (68 FR 15804) that the 
NRM wolf population was no longer threatened by habitat issues, 
overutilization, disease or predation, or other natural or manmade 
factors. The Service stated in the ANPR (71 FR 6643) that the numerical 
and distributional recovery of the wolf population is not jeopardized 
by these factors. Wyoming also agreed with the Service that if ESA 
protections were removed, the NRM wolf population in Montana and Idaho 
would be conserved above numerical and distributional recovery levels 
due to existing regulatory mechanisms. Both Montana and Idaho State law 
and their State management plans were consistent with one another and 
were approved by the Service (Bangs 2004; Williams 2004; Hogan et al. 
2005). However, the Service has determined that the regulatory 
framework established by Wyoming would not conserve Wyoming's numerical 
and distributional share of the NRM DPS wolf population above recovery 
levels (Williams 2004).
    5 Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms in Wyoming--The adequacy of 
Wyoming's regulatory framework to maintain Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of the NRM wolf population is the primary area of 
disagreement between the Service and Wyoming. The Service's 
determination that Wyoming's regulatory framework is not adequate is 
fully discussed later in this finding (see Factor D below).
    6 Peer Review of the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan--The 
Service, in cooperation with the affected States, selected 12 
recognized North American biological experts in wolf biology and 
management to review to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming's State wolf 
management plans in the fall of 2003. The reviewers were not asked to 
examine other aspects of the State's regulatory framework, such as 
State laws, nor were they provided copies of these documents. Eleven 
reviews were completed. In general, most reviewers believed the 
coordinated implementation of all three State plans would be adequate 
to maintain 30 breeding pairs in the NRM. While Wyoming's Plan was 
thought the most extreme in terms of wolf control and minimizing wolf 
numbers and distribution, it was thought adequate by some reviewers, 
primarily because they believed that YNP would carry most of Wyoming's 
share of the NRM wolf population, and that the commitments in the Plan 
could be implemented under State law. The Wyoming Petition asserts that 
since a majority of peer reviewers believed that, in combination, the 
three State plans were adequate to numerically maintain a recovered 
wolf population in the NRM, the Service should approve Wyoming's plan 
and propose delisting of the NRM gray wolf DPS.
    Four critical conditions have changed since the fall of 2003 and 
the peer review of the State Plans. These four conditions support the 
Service's decision to not approve Wyoming's regulatory framework (Bangs 
2004; Williams 2004); (1) Our review of the State law questioned 
whether commitments made in the Plan could actually be implemented 
under the law; (2) the wolf population in YNP (most reviewers believed 
YNP would carry the bulk of Wyoming's share of the wolf

[[Page 43416]]

population) declined rapidly and dramatically by spring 2005; (3) in 
2005, the Federal District Court in Oregon and Vermont ruled on a 2003 
Service rule to establish two large DPSs and reclassify wolves in a 
Western and an Eastern DPS to threatened status (68 FR 15804). Those 
court rulings emphasized the distribution of the wolf population in 
historical and still suitable habitat was a critical component of 
determining if recovery had been achieved. Peer reviewers were not 
asked whether Wyoming's plan would maintain wolf pack distribution in 
suitable habitat outside of YNP; (4) in recent consultation with 
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Nez Perce Tribe, Yellowstone National 
Park, and the University of Montana, the Service recognized that the 
relationship between wolf pack size in winter and breeding pairs was 
not a linear regression as argued in the Wyoming Petition. The Service 
in consultation with the above groups, established a method of 
estimating wolf population status that is scientifically sound and 
consistent with the Service's wolf breeding pair standard (discussed 
below in Recovery by State section) (Ausband 2006). However, the 
definition of a wolf pack in Wyoming law and Plan is not consistent 
with this analysis and the method in the Wyoming definition of a wolf 
pack would not allow the Wyoming segment of the wolf population to be 
maintained above recovery levels.
    The Service considered the entire regulatory framework that could 
affect wolf population recovery, not just State management plans. The 
Service consistently reviewed the overall regulatory framework in 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to determine whether their State laws and 
their State management plans were consistent with one another (Bangs 
2004; Hogan 2005) (see detailed discussion under Factor D).
    Conclusions--The Service agrees with the Wyoming Petition on 
several points regarding the removal of ESA protections for the NRM 
wolf population: (1) The population would not be threatened by four of 
the five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the 
ESA--present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; or other 
natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (71 FR 
6634); and (2) the NRM wolf population in Montana and Idaho would be 
conserved above numerical and distributional recovery levels because of 
the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in Montana and Idaho. 
Both Montana's and Idaho's State laws and management plans were 
consistent with one another and were approved by the Service.
    The Service disagrees with the Wyoming Petition regarding the 
adequacy of Wyoming's regulatory framework, and we have determined that 
Wyoming's current regulatory framework is not adequate to maintain 
Wyoming's numerical and distributional share of the NRM wolf population 
(See Factor D for a detailed discussion). This shortcoming means that 
the NRM DPS remains subject to a threat that leaves the DPS likely to 
become endangered in the foreseeable future.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Under 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. The Service 
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) adopted the Policy 
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
under the ESA (DPS policy) 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 Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants, reclassification of already listed 
species, and removals from the lists. 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., C. lupus)--bear on 
whether the population segment is a valid DPS. If a population meets 
both tests, it is a DPS, and then we apply the third factor--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).
    A population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It 
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) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within 
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. If we determine 
a population segment is discrete, we next consider available scientific 
evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e., C. 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.
    Based on our analysis of the best scientific information available, 
wolves in the NRM area are discrete in relation to the remainder of the 
taxon (i.e., Canis lupus) in that: (1) The NRM wolf populations exhibit 
substantial geographic isolation from all other wolf populations in the 
lower 48 States far exceeding the DPS policy's first criterion for 
discreteness; and (2) the international boundary between the United 
States and Canada meets the second discreteness criterion due to 
differences in exploitation and conservation status (see the 2006 ANPR 
(71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006) for a detailed analysis). Based on our 
analysis of the best scientific information available, wolves in the 
NRM area appear to meet the criterion of significance in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon (see ANPR (71 FR 
6634, February 8, 2006) for a detailed analysis).
    Although this finding has determined that the NRM population of 
gray wolves (currently limited to portions of Wyoming, Idaho, and 
Montana) is both discrete from other wolf populations (found in the 
Great Lakes Region and the southwestern United States) and significant 
to the taxon, therefore qualifying as a DPS, actually designating a DPS 
requires an official rulemaking process. This finding does not 
initiate, nor complete, such a process. While the ANPR put forward our 
preferred DPS boundaries (assuming adequate

[[Page 43417]]

regulatory mechanisms can be assured), the ANPR also discussed and 
requested comments on several other alternatives being considered (see 
the PUBLIC COMMENTS SOLICITED section of the ANPR at 71 FR 6634; 
February 8, 2006). We intend to fully evaluate this issue, including 
suggestions submitted as public comments, before proposing a DPS 
designation. When our evaluation is complete, we will publish another 
document in the Federal Register.
    While the ANPR suggested a preferred DPS that encompasses the 
eastern one-third of Washington and Oregon; a small part of north-
central Utah; and all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, this 12-month 
finding is limited to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. This finding focuses 
only on these three States because--(1) This action is a response to a 
petition that proposed an Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming DPS, (2) the most 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRMs and all suitable habitat significant 
to maintaining a recovered wolf population is contained within these 
three States (Service 1987; Carroll et al. 2003, 2006; Oakleaf et al. 
2006; 71 FR 6634), and (3) all ``occupied wolf habitat'' (defined in 
Factor A's ``Currently Occupied Habitat'') in the NRMs is limited to 
portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

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 consideration 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 are reasonably likely to 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' 
to be 30 years. We use 30 years because it is a reasonable timeframe 
for analysis of future potential threats as they relate to wolf 
biology. Wolves were listed in 1973, and reached recovery levels in the 
NRMs by 2002. 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 less than 4 years and 
even lower outside the Park (Smith et al. 2006). 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 the NRM wolf 
population is the area 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 outside the areas currently 
occupied, large portions of this area are no longer able to support 
viable wolf populations.
    We view significance of a portion of the range 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 population, 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 metapopulation in order for the NRM wolf population to 
persist into the foreseeable future.
    Our five-factor analysis follows.

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

    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 NRMs as discussed in detail below. 
Occupied suitable habitat in key areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 
is secure and sufficient to provide for a self-sustaining population of 
gray wolves in the absence of any other threats. These areas include 
Glacier National Park, Teton National Park, YNP, numerous U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) Wilderness areas, and other State and Federal lands. 
These areas will continue to be managed for high ungulate densities, 
moderate rates of seasonal livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road 
densities that will provide abundant native prey, low potential for 
livestock conflicts, and security from excessive unregulated human-
caused mortality. The core recovery areas also are within proximity to 
one another and have enough public land between them to ensure 
sufficient connectivity to maintain the wolf population above recovery 
levels.
    Suitable Habitat--Wolves once occupied or transited most, if not 
all, of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. However, much of the wolf's 
historic range within this area has been modified for human use and is 
no longer suitable habitat. We used two relatively new models, Oakleaf 
et al. (2006) and Carroll et al. (2006), to help us gauge the current 
amount of suitable wolf habitat in the NRMs. 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 NRMs was typically characterized by both 
models as public land with mountainous, forested habitat that contains 
abundant year-round wild ungulate populations, low road density, low 
numbers of domestic livestock that are only present seasonally, few 
domestic sheep, low agricultural use, and few people. Unsuitable wolf 
habitat was typically just the opposite (i.e., private land; flat open 
prairie or desert; low or seasonal wild ungulate populations; high road 
density; high numbers of year-round domestic livestock including many 
domestic sheep; high levels of agricultural use; and many people). 
Despite their similarities, there were substantial differences between 
these two models in their analysis area, layers, inputs, and 
assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et al. (2006) and Carroll et al. 
(2006) models predicted different amounts of theoretically suitable 
wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Oakleaf's basic model was a more intensive effort that only looked 
at potential wolf habitat in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et 
al. 2006). It used roads accessible to two-

[[Page 43418]]

wheel and four-wheel vehicles, topography (slope and elevation), land 
ownership, relative ungulate density (based on State harvest 
statistics), cattle (Bos sp.) and sheep (Ovis sp.) density, vegetation 
characteristics (ecoregions and land cover), and human density to 
comprise its geographic information system (GIS) layers. Oakleaf 
analyzed the characteristics of areas occupied and not occupied by NRM 
wolf packs through 2000 to predict what other areas in the NRM might be 
suitable or unsuitable for future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf et al. 
2006). In total, Oakleaf et al. (2006) ranked 170,228 km\2\ (65,725 
mi\2\) as suitable habitat in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
    In contrast, Carroll's model analyzed a much larger area (all 12 
western States and northern Mexico) in a less specific way (Carroll et 
al. 2006). Carroll's model used density and type of roads, human 
population density and distribution, slope, and vegetative greenness as 
``pseudo-habitat'' to estimate relative ungulate density to predict 
associated wolf survival and fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 2006). The 
combination of the GIS model and wolf population parameters were then 
used to develop estimates of habitat theoretically suitable for wolf 
pack persistence. In addition, Carroll predicted the potential effect 
on suitable wolf habitat of increased road development and human 
density expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006). Carroll et al. (2006) 
ranked 265,703 km\2\ (102,588 mi\2\) as suitable habitat in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    We believe that the Carroll et al. (2006) model tended to be more 
liberal in identifying suitable wolf habitat under current conditions 
than either the Oakleaf (et al. 2006) model or our field observations 
indicate is realistic, but Carroll's model 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 (Carroll et al. 2006; Oakleaf 
et al. 2006). However, this ignores the fact that in situations where 
livestock and wolves both live in the same area, there will be some 
livestock losses, some wolf losses, and some wolf removal to reduce the 
rate of conflict. During the past 20 years, wolf packs have been unable 
to persist in areas intensively used for livestock production, 
primarily because of agency control of problem wolves and illegal 
killing. This level of wolf mortality occurred despite wolves being 
protected under the ESA, including areas where wolves are listed as 
endangered.
    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 (Carroll et al. 2006). Because 
these types of areas were typically small and isolated from the core 
population segments, we do not believe they are currently suitable 
habitat based upon on our data on wolf pack persistence for the past 10 
years (Bangs et al. 1998; Service et al. 1999-2006).
    Despite the substantial differences in each model's analysis area, 
layers, inputs, and assumptions, both models predicted that most 
suitable wolf habitat in the NRMs 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.
    These models are useful in understanding the relative proportions 
and distributions of various habitat characteristics and their 
relationships to wolf pack persistence, rather than as predictors of 
absolute acreages or areas that can actually be occupied by wolf packs. 
Additionally, both models generally support earlier predictions about 
wolf habitat suitability in the NRM (Service 1980, 1987, 1994). 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 NRMs. Specifically, we considered the locations estimated in the 
1987 wolf recovery plan (Service 1987), the primary analysis areas 
analyzed in the 1994 EIS for the GYA (63,700 km\2\ [24,600 mi\2\]) and 
central Idaho (53,600 km\2\ [20,700 mi\2\]) (Service 1994), information 
derived from theoretical models by Carroll et al. (2006) and Oakleaf et 
al. (2006), our nearly 20 years of field experience managing wolves in 
the NRM, and the persistence of wolf packs since recovery has been 
achieved. Collectively, this evidence leads us to concur with the 
Oakleaf et al. (2006) model's predictions that the most important 
habitat attributes for wolf pack persistence are forest cover, public 
land, high elk density, and low livestock density. Therefore, we 
believe that Oakleaf's calculations of the amount and distribution of 
suitable wolf habitat available for persistent wolf pack formation, in 
the parts of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, represents the most 
reasonably realistic prediction of suitable wolf habitat in Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming.
    Currently Occupied Habitat--The area ``currently occupied'' by the 
NRM wolf population was calculated by drawing a line around the outer 
points of radio-telemetry locations of all known wolf pack (n=110) 
territories in 2004 (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 territorial 
wolves for longer than 1 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, despite a wolf 
population that has more than doubled (Service et al. 2001-2006). 
Because the States must commit to maintain a wolf population above the 
minimum recovery levels (first achieved in 2000), we expect this 
general distribution will be maintained. Occupied habitat changed 
little from 2004 (275,533 km\2\ [106,384 mi\2\]) to 2005 (260,535 km\2\ 
[100,593 mi\2\]) (Service et al. 2006), so we relied on the Montana, 
Idaho, and Wyoming portions of our analysis from the ANPR for this 12-
month finding.
    We included areas between the core recovery segments as occupied 
wolf habitat even though wolf packs did not persist in certain portions 
of it. While models ranked some of it as unsuitable habitat, those 
intervening areas are important to maintaining the metapopulation 
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.
    As of the end of 2004, we estimate approximately 275,533 km\2\ 
(106,384 mi\2\) of occupied habitat in parts of Montana (125,208 km\2\ 
[48,343 mi\2\]), Idaho (116,309 km\2\ [44,907 mi\2\]), and Wyoming 
(34,017 km\2\ [13,134 mi\2\]) (Service et al. 2005). As noted above, we 
are focusing on occupancy limited to

[[Page 43419]]

these three States and including both suitable and unsuitable areas 
(especially in the areas between wolf pack territories). Although 
currently occupied habitat includes some prairie (4,488 km\2\ [1,733 
mi\2\]) and some high desert (24,478 km\2\ [9,451 mi\2\]), wolf packs 
did not use these habitat types successfully (Service et al. 2005). 
Since 1986, no persistent wolf pack has had a majority of its home 
range in high desert or prairie habitat. Landownership in the occupied 
habitat area is 183,485 km\2\ (70,844 mi\2\) Federal (67 percent); 
12,217 km\2\ (4,717 mi\2\) State (4.4 percent); 3,064 km\2\ (1,183 
mi\2\) tribal (1.7 percent); and 71,678 km\2\ (27,675 mi\2\) private 
(26 percent) (Service et al. 2005).
    We determined that the current wolf population resembles a three-
segment metapopulation and that the overall area used by the NRM wolf 
population has not significantly expanded its range since the 
population achieved recovery. This indicates there is probably limited 
suitable habitat within Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming for the NRM wolf 
population to expand significantly beyond its current borders. 
Carroll's model predicted that 165,503 km\2\ (63,901 mi\2\) of suitable 
habitat (62 percent) was within the occupied area; however, the model's 
remaining potentially suitable habitat (38 percent) in Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming was often fragmented and in smaller, more isolated patches 
(Carroll et al. 2006). 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 metapopulation 
is insignificant to maintaining the NRM wolf population's viability.
    Oakleaf et al. (2006) predicted that roughly 148,599 km\2\ (57,374 
mi\2\) or 87 percent of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana's suitable habitat 
was within the area we describe as the area currently occupied by the 
NRM wolf population. Substantial threats to this area would have the 
effect of threatening the viability of the NRM wolf population. These 
core areas are necessary for maintaining a viable, self-sustaining, and 
evolving repre