Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Removing This Distinct Population Segment From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 6106-6139 [07-487]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 6105]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

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

[[Page 6106]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU53


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

Public Hearings

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Gray wolves (Canis lupus) are the largest wild members of the dog 
family (Canidae). Adult gray wolves range from 18-80 kilograms (kg) 
(40-175 pounds (lb)) depending upon sex and region (Mech 1974, p. 1). 
In the NRM, adult male gray wolves average over 45 kg (100 lb), but may 
weigh up to 60 kg (130 lb). Females weigh slightly less than males. 
Wolves' fur color is frequently a grizzled gray, but it can vary from 
pure white to coal black (Gipson et al. 2002, p. 821).
    Gray wolves have a circumpolar range including North America, 
Europe and Asia. As Europeans began settling the United States, they 
poisoned, trapped, and shot wolves, causing this once-widespread 
species to be eradicated from most of its range in the 48 conterminous 
States (Mech 1970, pp.

[[Page 6107]]

31-34; McIntyre 1995, pp. 1-461). Gray wolf populations were eliminated 
from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as adjacent southwestern 
Canada by the 1930s (Young and Goldman 1944, p. 414).
    Wolves primarily prey on medium and large mammals. Wolves have a 
social structure, normally living in packs of 2 to 12 animals. In the 
NRM, pack sizes average about 10 wolves in protected areas, but a few 
complex packs have been substantially bigger in some areas of 
Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (Smith et al. 2006, p. 243; Service et 
al. 2006, Tables 1-3). Packs typically occupy large distinct 
territories 518-1,295 square kilometers (km2) (200-500 
square miles (mi2)) and defend these areas from other wolves 
or packs. Once a given area is occupied by resident wolf packs, it 
becomes saturated and wolf numbers become regulated by the amount of 
available prey, intraspecies conflict, other forms of mortality, and 
dispersal. Dispersing wolves may cover large areas as lone animals as 
they try to join other packs or attempt to form their own pack in 
unoccupied habitat. Dispersal distances in the NRM average about 97 
kilometers (km) (60 miles (mi)), but dispersals over 805 km (500 mi) 
have been documented (Boyd 2006; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1102).
    Typically, only the top-ranking (``alpha'') male and female in each 
pack breed and produce pups (Packard 2003, p. 38; Smith et al. 2006, 
pp. 243-4; Service et al. 2006, Tables 1-3). Females and males 
typically begin breeding as 2-year-olds and may annually produce young 
until they are over 10 years old. Litters are typically born in April 
and range from 1 to 11 pups, but average around 5 pups (Service et al. 
1989-2006, Tables 1-3). Most years, four of these five pups survive 
until winter (Service et al. 1989-2006, Tables 1-3). Wolves can live 13 
years (Holyan et al. 2005, p. 446) but the average lifespan in the NRM 
is less than 4 years (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). Pup production and 
survival can increase when wolf density is lower and food availability 
per wolf increases (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). Breeding members also 
can be quickly replaced either from within or outside the pack (Packard 
2003, p. 38; Brainerd 2006). Consequently, wolf populations can rapidly 
recover from severe disruptions, such as very high levels of human-
caused mortality or disease. After severe declines, wolf populations 
can more than double in just 2 years if mortality is reduced; increases 
of nearly 100 percent per year have been documented in low-density 
suitable habitat (Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 181-183; Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species see the 
``Biology and Ecology of Gray Wolves'' section of the April 1, 2003, 
final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous 
United States (2003 Reclassification Rule) (68 FR 15804).

Recovery

    Recovery Planning and the Selection of Recovery Criteria--Shortly 
after listing we formed the interagency wolf recovery team to complete 
a recovery plan for the NRM population (Service 1980, p. i; Fritts et 
al. 1995, p. 111). The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan (Rocky Mountain Plan) was 
approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 (Service 
1987, p. i). Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are 
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other 
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on 
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. 
Overall, recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring adaptive 
management and judging the degree of recovery of a species is also an 
adaptive management process.
    The Rocky Mountain Plan (Service 1987, p. 57) specifies a recovery 
criterion of 10 breeding pairs of wolves (defined in 1987 as 2 wolves 
of opposite sex and adequate age, capable of producing offspring) for 3 
consecutive years in each of 3 distinct recovery areas--(1) 
northwestern Montana (Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob 
Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 
and private lands), (2) central Idaho (Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, 
Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth Wilderness Areas; and 
adjacent, mostly Federal, lands), and (3) the YNP area (including the 
Absaroka-Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas; and adjacent public and private lands). The Rocky Mountain Plan 
states that if 2 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding pairs for 3 
successive years, gray wolves in the NRM can be reclassified to 
threatened status and if all 3 recovery areas maintain 10 breeding 
pairs for 3 successive years, the NRM wolf population can be considered 
fully recovered and can be considered for delisting. The Plan also 
states that individual recovery areas meeting recovery objectives can 
be reclassified to threatened status and consideration can be given to 
reclassifying such a population to threatened under similarity of 
appearance regulations after special regulations are established and a 
State management plan is in place for that population (Service 1987, 
pp. 19-20).
    The 1994 environmental impact statement (EIS) reviewed wolf 
recovery in the NRM and the adequacy of the recovery goals (Service 
1994, pp. 6:68-78). The EIS indicated that the 1987 recovery goal was, 
at best, a minimum recovery goal, and that modifications were warranted 
on the basis of more recent information about wolf distribution, 
connectivity, and numbers. This review concluded that, at a minimum, 
the recovery goal should be, ``Thirty or more breeding pairs (i.e., an 
adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups 
that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the 
previous breeding season) comprising some 300+ wolves in a 
metapopulation (a population that exists as partially isolated sets of 
subpopulations) with genetic exchange between subpopulations should 
have a high probability of long-term persistence'' (Service 1994, pp. 
6:75). We believe that a metapopulation of this size and distribution 
among the three areas of core suitable habitat in the NRM DPS would 
result in a wolf population that is representative, resilient, and 
redundant and would fully achieve our recovery objectives.
    We conducted another review of what constitutes a recovered wolf 
population in late 2001 and early 2002 (Bangs 2002). Based on the 
review, we adopted the 1994 EIS's more relevant and stringent 
definition of wolf population viability and recovery (Service 1994, p. 
6:75) and began using entire States, in addition to recovery areas, to 
measure progress toward recovery goals (Service et al. 2002, Table 4). 
We have determined that an essential part of achieving recovery is a 
well-distributed number of wolf packs and individual wolves among the 
three States and the three recovery zones. While uniform distribution 
is not necessary, a well-distributed population with no one State 
maintaining a disproportionately low number of packs or number of 
individual wolves is needed.
    Fostering Recovery--In 1982, a wolf pack from Canada began to 
occupy Glacier National Park along the United States-Canada border. In 
1986, the first litter of pups documented in over 50 years was born in 
the Park (Ream et al. 1989, pp. 39-40). Also in 1986, a pack denned 
just east of the Park on the Blackfeet Reservation, but was not 
detected until 1987, when they began to depredate livestock (Bangs et 
al. 1995,

[[Page 6108]]

p. 131). The number of wolves resulting from this ``natural'' recovery 
in northwestern Montana steadily increased for the next decade (Service 
et al. 2006, Table 4).
    In 1995 and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from southwestern Canada 
to remote public lands in central Idaho and YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, 
pp. 785-786; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Bangs et al. 1998, pp. 407-9). 
These wolves were classified as nonessential experimental populations 
under section 10(j) of the Act to increase management flexibility and 
address local and State concerns (59 FR 60252 and 60266, November 22, 
1994). This reintroduction and accompanying management programs greatly 
expanded the numbers and distribution of wolves in the NRM. Because of 
the reintroduction, wolves soon became established throughout central 
Idaho and the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) (Bangs et al. 1998, pp. 
787-789; Service et al. 2006, Table 4).
    Monitoring and Managing Recovery--By 1989, we formed an Interagency 
Wolf Working Group (Working Group), composed of Federal, State, and 
Tribal agency personnel (Bangs 1991, p. 7; Fritts et al. 1995, p. 109; 
Service et al. 1989, p. 1). The Working Group, whose membership has 
evolved as wolf range has expanded, conducted four basic recovery 
tasks, in addition to the standard enforcement functions associated 
with the take of a listed species. These tasks were: (1) Monitor wolf 
distribution and numbers; (2) control wolves that attacked livestock by 
moving them, conducting other non-lethal measures, or by killing them; 
(3) conduct research on wolf relationships to ungulate prey, other 
carnivores and scavengers, livestock, and people; and (4) provide 
accurate science-based information to the public through reports and 
mass media so that people could develop their opinions about wolves and 
wolf management from an informed perspective (Service et al. 1989-2006, 
pp. 1-3).
    The size and distribution of the wolf population is estimated by 
the Working Group each year and, along with other information, is 
published in interagency annual reports (Service et al. 1989-2006, 
Table 4). Since the early 1980s, the Service and our cooperating 
partners have radio-collared and monitored over 814 wolves in the NRM 
to assess population status, conduct research, and to reduce/resolve 
conflicts with livestock. The Working Group's annual population 
estimates represent the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding year-end NRM gray wolf population size and trends, as well as 
distributional and other information.
    Recovery by State--We measure wolf recovery by the number of 
breeding pairs because wolf populations are maintained by packs that 
successfully raise pups. We use ``breeding pairs'' to describe 
successfully reproducing packs (Service 1994, pp. 6:67; Bangs 2002). 
Breeding pairs are only measured in winter because most wolf mortality 
occurs in spring/summer/fall (illegal killing, agency control, and 
disease/parasites) and winter is the beginning of the annual courtship 
and breeding season for wolves. Often we do not know if a specific pack 
actually contains an adult male, adult female and two pups in winter, 
but there is a strong correlation between wolf pack size then and its 
probability of being classified as a breeding pair. The group size of 
packs of unknown composition in winter can be used to estimate their 
breeding pair status (Ausband 2006). Different habitat characteristics 
result in slightly different probabilities of breeding pair status in 
each State. However, regardless of which State, overall the probability 
of a pack of wolves having a 90 percent chance of being a breeding pair 
does not occur until there are at least nine wolves in a pack in winter 
(Ausband 2006). In the past we had primarily used packs of known 
composition in winter to estimate the number that meet our breeding 
pair recovery criteria. However, now we can use the best information 
currently available and use pack size in winter as a surrogate to 
reliably identify their contribution toward meeting our breeding pair 
recovery criteria and to better predict the effect of managing for 
certain pack sizes on wolf population recovery.
    At the end of 2000, the NRM population first met its numerical and 
distributional recovery goal of a minimum of 30 ``breeding pairs'' (an 
adult male and an adult female wolf that have produced at least 2 pups 
that survived until December 31 of the year of their birth, during the 
previous breeding season) and over 300 wolves well-distributed among 
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 
2001, Table 4). This minimum recovery goal was again exceeded in 2001, 
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 (Service et al. 2002-2006, Table 4). 
Because the recovery goal must be achieved for 3 consecutive years, the 
temporal element of recovery was not achieved until the end of 2002 
(Service et al. 2003, Table 4). By the end of 2006, the NRM wolf 
population had achieved its numerical and distributional recovery goal 
for 7 consecutive years (Service et al. 2001-2006, Table 4; 68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003; 71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006).
    In 2000, 8 breeding pairs and approximately 97 wolves were known to 
occur in Montana; 12 breeding pairs and approximately 153 wolves were 
known to occur in Wyoming; and 10 breeding pairs and 187 wolves were 
known to occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2001, Table 4). In 2001, 7 
breeding pairs and approximately 123 wolves were known to occur in 
Montana; 13 breeding pairs and approximately 189 wolves were known to 
occur in Wyoming; and 14 breeding pairs and 251 wolves were known to 
occur in Idaho (Service et al. 2002, Table 4). In 2002, 17 breeding 
pairs and approximately 183 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 18 
breeding pairs and approximately 217 wolves were known to occur in 
Wyoming; and 14 breeding pairs and 216 wolves were known to occur in 
Idaho (Service et al. 2003, Table 4). In 2003, 10 breeding pairs and 
approximately 182 wolves were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding 
pairs and approximately 234 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 
25 breeding pairs and 345 wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service 
et al. 2004, Table 4). In 2004, 15 breeding pairs and approximately 153 
wolves were known to occur in Montana; 24 breeding pairs and 
approximately 260 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 27 
breeding pairs and 422 wolves were known to occur in Idaho (Service et 
al. 2005, Table 4). In 2005, 19 breeding pairs and approximately 256 
wolves were known to occur in Montana; 16 breeding pairs and 
approximately 252 wolves were known to occur in Wyoming; and 36 
breeding pairs and 512 wolves were known to occur in Idaho, for a total 
of 71 breeding pairs and 1,020 wolves (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). 
In late 2006, preliminary estimates indicate there are 283 wolves in at 
least 22 breeding pairs in Montana (C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.), at 
least 650 wolves in about 42 breeding pairs in Idaho (S. Nadeau, IDFG, 
pers. comm.), and 310 wolves in 25 breeding pairs in Wyoming (M. 
Jimenez, Service, and D. Smith, NPS, pers. comm.) combining to at least 
1,243 wolves in over 89 breeding pairs in the NRM wolf population. The 
NRM wolf population increased an average of 26 percent annually from 
1995-2005 (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). Figure 1 illustrates wolf 
population trends by State from 1979 to 2005.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6109]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE07.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    The following section discusses recovery within each of the three 
major recovery areas. Because the recovery areas cross State lines, the 
population estimates may sum differently.
    Recovery in the Northwestern Montana Recovery Area--The 
Northwestern Montana Recovery Area (>49,728 km\2\ (>19,200 mi\2\)) 
includes Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and 
Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public and private 
lands in northern Montana and the northern Idaho panhandle. 
Reproduction first occurred in northwestern Montana in 1986. The 
natural ability of wolves to find and quickly recolonize empty habitat, 
the interim control plan, and the interagency recovery program combined 
to effectively promote an increase in wolf numbers. By 1996, the number 
of wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 7 known breeding pairs. 
However, since 1997, the number of breeding groups and number of wolves 
has fluctuated widely, varying from 4-12 breeding pairs and from 49-130 
wolves (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). Our 1998 estimate was a minimum 
of 49 wolves in 5 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 1999, Table 4). 
In 1999, and again in 2000, 6 known breeding pairs produced pups, and 
the northwestern Montana population increased to about 63 wolves 
(Service et al. 2000, 2001, Table 4). In 2001, we estimated that 84 
wolves in 7 known breeding pairs occurred; in 2002, there were an 
estimated 108 wolves in 12 known breeding pairs; in 2003, there were an 
estimated 92 wolves in 4 known breeding pairs; in 2004, there were an 
estimated 59 wolves in 6 known breeding pairs; and in 2005, there were 
an estimated 130 wolves in 11 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 
2002-2006, Table 4) (See Figure 1). In 2006, preliminary estimates 
indicate there are about 149 wolves in at least 12 breeding pairs in 
northwestern Montana (C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.) and for the first 
time about 10 wolves in two packs (1 breeding pair) were documented in 
the endangered area of the Idaho Panhandle (S. Nadeau, IDFG, pers. 
comm.).
    The Northwestern Montana Recovery Area has sustained fewer wolves 
than the other recovery areas because there is less suitable habitat. 
Wolf packs in this area may be near their local social and biological 
carrying capacity. Some of the variation in our wolf population 
estimates for northwestern Montana is due to the difficulty of counting 
wolves in the areas' thick forests. Wolves in northwestern Montana prey 
mainly on white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and pack size is 
smaller, which also makes packs more difficult to detect (Bangs et al. 
1998, p. 878). Increased monitoring efforts in northwestern Montana by 
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) in 2005 were likely responsible 
for some of the sharp increase in the estimated wolf population. MFWP 
has led wolf management in this area since February 2004. It appears 
that wolf numbers in northwestern Montana are likely to fluctuate 
around 100 wolves. Since 2001, this area has maintained an average of 
nearly 96 wolves and about 8 known breeding pairs (Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4).
    Northwestern Montana's wolves are demographically and genetically 
linked to both the wolf population in Canada and in central Idaho 
(Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 547-8; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1105-
1106). Wolf dispersal into northwestern Montana from both directions 
will continue to supplement this segment of the overall wolf 
population, both demographically and genetically (Boyd 2006; Forbes and 
Boyd 1996, p. 1082; Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 1226; Boyd et al. 1995, p. 
140).
    Wolf conflicts with livestock have fluctuated with wolf population 
size and prey population density (Service et al. 2005, Table 5). For 
example, in 1997, immediately following a severe winter that reduced 
white-tailed deer populations in northwestern Montana, wolf conflicts 
with livestock increased dramatically, and the wolf population

[[Page 6110]]

declined (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 878). Wolf numbers increased as wild 
prey numbers rebounded. Unlike YNP or the central Idaho Wilderness, 
northwestern Montana lacks a large core refugium that contains large 
numbers of overwintering wild ungulates. Therefore, wolf numbers are 
not ever likely to be as high in northwestern Montana as they are in 
central Idaho or the GYA. However, the population has persisted for 
nearly 20 years and is robust today (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). 
State management, pursuant to the Montana State wolf management plan, 
will ensure this population continues to persist (see Factor D).
    Recovery in the Central Idaho Recovery Area--The Central Idaho 
Recovery Area (53,600 km\2\ [20,700 mi\2\]) includes the Selway 
Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, Frank Church River of No Return, and Sawtooth 
Wilderness Areas; adjacent to mostly Federal lands in central Idaho; 
and adjacent parts of southwest Montana (Service 1994, p. iv). In 
January 1995, 15 young adult wolves were captured in Alberta, Canada, 
and released by the Service in central Idaho (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 
409; Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7). In January 1996, an additional 20 
wolves from British Columbia were released (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787). 
Central Idaho contains the greatest amount of highly suitable wolf 
habitat compared to either northwestern Montana or the GYA (Oakleaf et 
al. 2006, p. 559). In 1998, the central Idaho wolf population consisted 
of a minimum of 114 wolves, including 10 known breeding pairs (Bangs et 
al. 1998, p. 789). By 1999, it had grown to about 141 wolves in 10 
known breeding pairs (Service et al. 2000, Table 4). By 2000, this 
population had 192 wolves in 10 known breeding pairs, and by 2001, it 
had climbed to about 261 wolves in 14 known breeding pairs (Service et 
al. 2001, 2002, Table 4). In 2002, there were 284 wolves in 14 known 
breeding pairs; in 2003, there were 368 wolves in 26 known breeding 
pairs; in 2004, there were 452 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs and, 
by the end of 2005, there were 512 wolves in 36 known breeding pairs 
(Service et al. 2003-2006, Table 4). As in the Northwestern Montana 
Recovery Area, some of the Central Idaho Recovery Area's increase in 
its estimated wolf population in 2005 was due to an increased 
monitoring effort by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (See 
Figure 1). In 2006, we estimated there were 713 wolves in at least 46 
breeding pairs in central Idaho (S. Nadeau, IDFG, C. Sime, MFWP, pers. 
comm.).
    Recovery in the Greater Yellowstone Area--The GYA recovery area 
(63,700 km2 [24,600 mi2]) includes YNP; the 
Absaroka Beartooth, North Absaroka, Washakie, and Teton Wilderness 
Areas (the National Park/Wilderness units); and adjacent public and 
private lands in Wyoming; and adjacent parts of Idaho and Montana 
(Service 1994, p. iv). The wilderness portions of the GYA are rarely 
used by wolves due to high elevation, deep snow, and low productivity 
in terms of sustaining year-round wild ungulate populations (Service et 
al. 2006, Figure 3). In 1995, 14 wolves from Alberta, representing 3 
family groups, were released in YNP (Bangs and Fritts 1996, p. 409; 
Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Phillips and Smith 1996, pp. 33-43). Two of 
the three groups produced young in late April. In 1996, this procedure 
was repeated with 17 wolves from British Columbia, representing 4 
family groups. Two of the groups produced pups in late April. Finally, 
10 5-month old pups removed from northwestern Montana were released in 
YNP in the spring of 1997 (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 787).
    By 1998, the wolves had expanded from YNP into the GYA with a 
population that consisted of 112 wolves, including 6 breeding pairs 
that produced 10 litters of pups (Service et al. 1999, Table 4). The 
1999 population consisted of 118 wolves, including 8 known breeding 
pairs (Service et al. 2000, Table 4). In 2000, the GYA had 177 wolves, 
including 14 known breeding pairs, and there were 218 wolves, including 
13 known breeding pairs, in 2001 (Service et al. 2001, 2002, Table 4). 
In 2002, there were an estimated 271 wolves in 23 known breeding pairs; 
in 2003, there were an estimated 301 wolves in 21 known breeding pairs; 
in 2004, there were an estimated 335 wolves in 30 known breeding pairs; 
and in 2005, there were an estimated 325 wolves in 20 known breeding 
pairs (Service et al. 2003-2006, Table 4) (See Figure 1). In 2006, we 
estimated there were 371 wolves in at least 30 breeding pairs in the 
GYA (D. Smith, NPS, M. Jimenez, Service, C. Sime, MFWP, pers. comm.).
    Wolf numbers in the GYA were stable in 2005, but known breeding 
pairs dropped by 30 percent to only 20 pairs (Service et al. 2006, 
Table 4). The population recovered somewhat in 2006, primarily because 
wolves outside YNP in WY grew to about 174 wolves in 15 breeding pairs 
(M. Jimenez, pers. comm.). Most of this decline occurred in YNP (which 
declined from 171 wolves in 16 known breeding pairs in 2004, to 118 
wolves in 7 breeding pairs in 2005 (Service et al. 2005, 2006, Table 4) 
and likely occurred because: (1) Highly suitable habitat in YNP is 
saturated with wolf packs; (2) conflict among packs appears to be 
limiting population density; (3) there are fewer elk (Cervus 
canadensis) than when reintroduction took place (White and Garrott 
2006, p. 942; Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259); and (4) a suspected, but 
as yet unconfirmed, outbreak of disease, canine parvovirus (CPV) or 
canine distemper, reduced pup survival to 20 percent in 2005 (Service 
et al. 2006, Table 2; Smith et al. 2006, p. 244). Additional 
significant growth in the National Park/Wilderness portions of the 
Wyoming wolf population is unlikely because suitable wolf habitat is 
saturated with resident wolf packs. In 2006, we estimated there were 
about 136 wolves in 10 breeding pairs in YNP (D. Smith, NPS, pers. 
comm.). Maintaining wolf populations above recovery levels in the GYA 
segment of the NRM area will likely depend on wolf packs living outside 
the National Park/Wilderness portions of Wyoming.
    For detailed information on the history of NRM wolf recovery, 
recovery planning (including defining appropriate recovery criteria), 
population monitoring (through the end of 2005), and cooperation and 
coordination with our partners in achieving recovery, see the 
``Recovery'' section of the August 1, 2006, 12-month finding on a 
petition to establish and delist the NRM gray wolf population 
(including population estimates through the end of 2005) (71 FR 43411-
43413).

Previous Federal Action

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

[[Page 6111]]

Wyoming (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994). The Central Idaho 
Experimental Population Area consists of that portion of Idaho that is 
south of Interstate 90 and west of Interstate 15; and that portion of 
Montana south of Interstate 90, west of Interstate 15 and south of 
Highway 12 west of Missoula (59 FR 60266, November 22, 1994). This 
designation assisted us in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects 
in central Idaho and the GYA (59 FR 60252, November 22, 1994). On 
January 6, 2005, we revised the regulations under section 10(j) and 
liberalized management options for problem wolves (70 FR 1286). We also 
encouraged State and Tribal leadership in wolf management in the 
nonessential experimental population areas (70 FR 1286, January 6, 
2005) where States and Tribes had Service-approved wolf management 
plans.
    The wolf population in the NRM achieved its numerical and 
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2001, 
Table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved at the 
end of 2002 (Service et al. 2001-2003, Table 4). Prior to delisting, 
the Service required that Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming develop wolf 
management plans to provide assurances that adequate regulatory 
mechanisms would exist should the Act's federal protections be removed. 
The Service determined that Montana and Idaho's laws and wolf 
management plans were adequate to assure the Service that their share 
of the NRM wolf population would be maintained above recovery levels 
and approved those two State plans. However, we determined that 
problems with the Wyoming legislation and plan, and inconsistencies 
between the law and management plan did not allow us to approve 
Wyoming's approach to wolf management (Williams 2004). In response, 
Wyoming litigated this issue (Wyoming U.S. District Court 04-CV-0123-J 
and 04-CV-0253-J consolidated). The Wyoming Federal District Court 
dismissed the case on procedural grounds (360 F. Supp 2nd 1214 March 
18, 2005). Wyoming appealed that decision but the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals agreed with the District Court decision on April 3, 2006 
(442 F. 3rd 1262).
    On October 30, 2001, we received a petition from the Friends of the 
Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc., that sought removal of the NRM 
gray wolf from endangered status under the Act (Knuchel 2001). On July 
19, 2005, we received a petition dated July 13, 2005, from the Office 
of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission to revise the listing status for the gray wolf by 
establishing the NRM DPS and to remove the gray wolf in the NRM DPS 
from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species (Freudenthal 
2005). On October 26, 2005, we published a 90-day finding that 
considered the collective weight of evidence and initiated a 12-month 
status review (70 FR 61770, October 26, 2005). On August 1, 2006, we 
announced a 12-month finding that the petitioned action (delisting in 
all of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming) was not warranted because Wyoming 
State law and its wolf management plan did not provide the necessary 
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Wyoming's numerical and 
distributional share of a recovered NRM wolf population would be 
conserved (71 FR 43410, August 1, 2006).
    On February 8, 2006, we published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) announcing our intention to conduct a rulemaking to 
establish a DPS of the gray wolf in the NRM and to remove this DPS from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Species, if Wyoming adopts a 
State law and a State wolf management plan that is approved by the 
Service (71 FR 6634).
    For detailed information on previous Federal actions see the ANPR 
(71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006) and the 2003 Reclassification Rule (68 
FR 15804, April 1, 2003).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

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

Discreteness and Significance of the Proposed DPS

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

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be 
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions--(1) is markedly separated from other populations of the 
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

Defining the Boundaries of the Proposed NRM DPS

    Our DPS policy allows for artificial or manmade boundary such as a 
road or highway to be used as a boundary of convenience in order to 
clearly identify the geographic area included within a DPS designation. 
The boundaries of the proposed NRM DPS include all of Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, and a small 
part of north central Utah. Specifically, the DPS includes that portion 
of Washington east of Highway 97 and Highway 17 north of Mesa and that 
portion of Washington east of Highway 395 south of Mesa. It includes 
that portion of Oregon east of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of 
Burns Junction and that portion of Oregon east of Highway 95 south of 
Burns Junction. Finally, the DPS includes that portion of Utah east of 
Highway 84 and north of Highway 80. The center of these roads will be 
deemed the border of the DPS (see Figure 2).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6112]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08FE07.001

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

[[Page 6113]]

2006). These data indicate the average dispersal distance of wolves 
from the NRM for the last 10 years was about 97 km (60 mi) (Boyd 2006). 
We determined that 180 mi (290 km), three times the average dispersal 
distance, was a break-point in our data for unusually long-distance 
dispersal out from existing wolf pack territories. Only 8 wolves (none 
of which subsequently bred) have dispersed farther and remained in the 
United States. No wolf traveling that far has ever come back to the 
core population in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming. Only dispersal from the 
NRM packs to areas within the United States was considered in these 
calculations because we were trying to determine the appropriate DPS 
boundaries within the United States. Dispersers to Canada were 
irrelevant because the Canadian border is to form the northern edge of 
the DPS. Thus, we plotted the average dispersal distance and three 
times the average dispersal distance out from existing wolf pack 
territories. The resulting map indicated a wide-band of likely wolf 
dispersal that might be frequent enough to result in additional pack 
establishment from the core wolf population given the availability of 
nearby suitable habitat. Our specific data on wolf dispersal in the NRM 
may not be applicable to other areas of North America (Mech and Boitani 
2003, p. 13-16).
    We also examined suitable wolf habitat in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 555-558) and throughout the western 
United States (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 538, 2006, pp. 27-30) by 
comparing the biological and physical characteristics of areas 
currently occupied by wolf packs with the characteristics of adjacent 
areas that remain unoccupied by wolf packs. The basic findings and 
predictions of those models (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559; Carroll et 
al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32) were similar in many 
respects. Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM DPS is typically 
characterized by public land, mountainous forested habitat, abundant 
year-round wild ungulate populations, lower road density, lower numbers 
of domestic livestock that were only present seasonally, few domestic 
sheep (Ovis sp.), low agricultural use, and low human populations (see 
Factor A below under Summary of Factors Affecting the Species). The 
models indicate a large block of suitable wolf habitat exists in 
central Idaho and the GYA, and to a lesser extent in northwestern 
Montana. These findings support the recommendations of the 1987 wolf 
recovery plan (Service 1987) that identified those three areas as the 
most likely locations to support a recovered wolf population. The 
models indicate there is little suitable habitat within the portion of 
the NRM DPS in Washington, Oregon, or Utah (see Factor A).
    Unsuitable habitat also is important in determining the boundaries 
of our DPS. Model predictions by Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) and 
Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 540-541, 2006, p. 27) and our observations 
during the past 20 years (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93; Service et al. 
2006, Figures 1-4, Table 4) indicate that non-forested rangeland and 
croplands associated with intensive agricultural use (prairie and high 
desert) preclude wolf pack establishment and persistence. This 
unsuitability is due to chronic conflict with livestock and pets, local 
cultural intolerance of large predators, and wolf behavioral 
characteristics that make them extremely vulnerable to human-caused 
mortality in open landscapes (see Factor A). We looked at the 
distribution of large expanses of unsuitable habitat that would form a 
`barrier' or natural boundary separating the current population from 
both the southwestern and midwestern wolf populations and from the core 
of any other possible wolf population that might develop in the 
foreseeable future in the northwestern United States.
    Within the NRM DPS, we included the eastern parts of Washington and 
Oregon and a small portion of north central Utah, because--(1) these 
areas are within a 97- to 290-km (60- to 180-mi) band from the core 
wolf population where dispersal is likely; (2) lone dispersing wolves 
have been found in these areas in recent times (Boyd 2006); (3) these 
areas contain some suitable habitat (see Factor A for a more in-depth 
discussion of suitable habitat); and (4) the potential for connectivity 
exists between the relatively small and fragmented habitat patches in 
these areas and the large blocks of suitable habitat in the NRM DPS. If 
wolf packs do establish in these areas, they would likely be more 
connected to the core populations in central Idaho and northwestern 
Wyoming than to any future wolf populations that might become 
established in other large blocks of suitable habitat outside the NRM 
DPS. As noted earlier, large swaths of unsuitable habitat would isolate 
these populations from other suitable habitat patches to the west or 
south.
    Although we have received reports of individual and wolf family 
units in the North Cascades of Washington (Almack and Fitkin 1998, pp. 
7-13), agency efforts to confirm them were unsuccessful and to date no 
individual wolves or packs have ever been confirmed there (Boyd and 
Pletscher 1999, p. 1096; Boyd 2006). Intervening unsuitable habitat 
makes it highly unlikely that wolves from the NRM population have 
dispersed to the North Cascades of Washington in recent history. 
However, if the wolf were to be delisted in the NRM DPS, it would 
remain protected by the Act as endangered outside the DPS.
    We propose to include all of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho in the NRM 
DPS because (1) their State regulatory frameworks apply State-wide; and 
(2) expanding the proposed DPS beyond a 97- to 290-km (60- to 180-mi) 
band of likely dispersal to include the entire State adds only 
unsuitable habitat. Although including all of Wyoming in the NRM DPS 
results in including portions of the Sierra Madre, the Snowy, and the 
Laramie Ranges, we do not consider these areas to be suitable wolf 
habitat. Oakleaf et al. (2006, pp. 558-559; Oakleaf 2006) chose not to 
analyze these areas of southeast Wyoming because they are fairly 
intensively used by livestock and are surrounded with, and interspersed 
by, private land, making pack establishment unlikely. While Carroll et 
al. (2003, p. 541; 2006, p. 32) optimistically predicted these areas 
were suitable habitat, the model predicted that under current 
conditions these areas were largely sink habitat and that by 2025 
(within the foreseeable future) they were likely to be ranked as low 
occupancy because of human population growth and road development. We 
chose not to extend the NRM DPS border beyond eastern Montana and 
Wyoming, although those adjacent portions of North Dakota and South 
Dakota only contain unsuitable habitat.
    Given the available information on potentially suitable habitat, 
expansion of the DPS to include Colorado or larger portions of Utah 
would have required significant expansion of the DPS south and west. 
Given current occupancy, and consideration of the significant portion 
of the range language in the Act's definition of threatened and 
endangered, we concluded that a smaller DPS centered around occupied 
suitable habitat was more appropriate.
    Markedly Separated from Other Populations of the Taxon--The eastern 
edge of the proposed NRM DPS (see Figure 2) is about 644 km (400 mi) 
from the western edge of the area currently occupied by the Western 
Great Lakes wolf population (eastern Minnesota) and is separated from 
it by hundreds of miles of unsuitable habitat (See discussion of 
suitable habitat in Factor A). The southern edge of the NRM DPS

[[Page 6114]]

border is about 724 km (450 mi) from the nonessential experimental 
populations of wolves in the southwestern United States with vast 
amounts of unoccupied marginal or unsuitable habitat separating them. 
Although individual wolves have occasionally been sighted west of the 
DPS boundary (likely individuals dispersing from Idaho or Canada), no 
wolf packs are known to occur west of the proposed DPS. No wolves from 
other U.S. populations are known to have dispersed as far as the 
borders of the NRM DPS.
    Although dispersal distance data for North America (Fritts 1983, 
pp. 166-167; Missouri Department of Conservation 2001, pp. 1-2; Ream et 
al. 1991, pp. 351-352; Boyd and Pletscher 1999, p. 1094; Boyd 2006) 
show that gray wolves can disperse over 805 km (500 mi) from existing 
wolf populations, the average dispersal of NRM wolves is about 97 km 
(60 mi). Only 8 of nearly 200 confirmed NRM wolf dispersal events from 
1994 through 2004 have been over 290 km (180 mi) (Boyd 2006). Six of 
these eight confirmed United States long-distance dispersers remained 
within the proposed DPS. None of those long-distance wolves found mates 
nor survived long enough to breed in the United States (Boyd 2006).
    Of the three wolves that dispersed into eastern Oregon, two died 
and one was relocated by the Service back to central Idaho. Of the two 
wolves that dispersed into eastern Washington, one died and the other 
moved north into Canada. A wolf that dispersed to northern Utah was 
incidentally captured by a coyote trapper and relocated back to Wyoming 
by the Service in late 2002. Another wolf that dispersed into the same 
area of northern Utah was incidentally killed in a coyote trap in 2006. 
The first wolf confirmed to have dispersed (within the United States) 
beyond the border of the proposed NRM DPS was killed by a vehicle 
collision along Interstate 70 in north-central Colorado in spring 2004. 
Although not confirmed, in early 2006, video footage of a black wolf-
like canid was taken near Walden in northern Colorado, suggesting 
another possible dispersing wolf had traveled into Colorado. The 
subsequent status or location of that animal is unknown. Finally, in 
spring 2006, the carcass of a male black wolf was found along 
Interstate 90 in western South Dakota. Genetic testing confirmed it was 
a wolf that had dispersed from the Yellowstone area. We expect that 
occasional lone dispersing wolves will continue to disperse beyond the 
currently occupied wolf habitat area in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as 
well as into States adjacent to the NRM DPS, but that pack development 
and persistence outside the proposed NRM DPS is highly unlikely in the 
foreseeable future.
    No connectivity currently exists between the three United States 
gray wolf populations, nor are there any resident wolf packs in 
intervening areas. While it is theoretically possible that a lone wolf 
might transverse over 644 km (400 mi) from one population to the other, 
movement between these populations has never been documented and is 
extremely unlikely because of both the distance and the large gaps in 
suitable habitat between the populations. Furthermore, the DPS Policy 
does not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations, 
but instead requires ``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional 
individual wolves or packs disperse among populations, the NRM DPS 
could still display the required discreteness. Based on the information 
presented above, we have determined that NRM gray wolves are markedly 
separated from all other gray wolves in the United States.
    Management Differences Among the United States and Canadian Wolf 
Populations--The DPS Policy allows us to use international borders to 
delineate the boundaries of a DPS if there are differences in control 
of exploitation, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms between 
the countries. Significant differences exist in management between 
U.S.-Canadian wolf populations. Therefore, we will continue to use the 
United States-Canada border to mark the northern boundary of the DPS 
due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation status, 
and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries. About 52,000 to 
60,000 wolves occur in Canada where suitable habitat is abundant 
(Boitani 2003, p. 322). Because of this abundance, protection and 
intensive management are not necessary to conserve the wolf in Canada. 
This contrasts with the situation in the United States, where, to date, 
intensive management has been necessary to recover the wolf. Wolves in 
Canada are not protected by Federal laws and are only minimally 
protected in most Canadian provinces (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 546). 
If delisted, States in the NRM would carefully monitor and manage to 
retain populations at or above the recovery goal (see Factor D below).

Analysis for Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon to which 
it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this consideration may include, 
but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete 
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the 
taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence 
that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving 
natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historic range; and/or (4) evidence 
that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other 
populations of the species in its genetic characteristics. Below we 
address Factors 1 and 2. Factors 3 and 4 do not apply to the proposed 
NRM DPS and thus are not included in our analysis for significance.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Within the range of holarctic 
wolves, the NRM has among the highest diversity of large predators 
occupying the same areas as a large variety of native ungulate prey 
species, resulting in complex ecological interaction between the 
ungulate prey, predator, and scavenger groups (Smith et al. 2003, p. 
331). In the NRM DPS, gray wolves share habitats with black bears 
(Ursus americanus), grizzly bears (U. arctos horribilis), cougars 
(Felis concolor), lynx (Lynx canadensis), wolverine (Gulo gulo), 
coyotes (Canis latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxus), bobcats (Felis 
rufus), fisher (Martes pennanti), and marten (Martes americana). The 
unique and diverse assemblage of native prey include elk, mule deer 
(Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer, moose (Alces alces), woodland 
caribou (Rangifer caribou), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), mountain 
goats (Oreamnos americanus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra 
americana), bison (Bison bison) (only in the GYA), and beaver (Castor 
canadensis). This complexity leads to unique ecological cascades in 
some areas, such as in YNP (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; Robbins 
2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753). For example, 
wolves appear to be changing elk behavior and elk relationships and 
competition with other ungulates and other predators (e.g., cougars) 
that did not occur when wolves were absent. These complex interactions 
could be increasing streamside willow production and survival (Ripple 
and Beschta 2004, p. 755), which in turn can affect beaver and nesting 
by riparian birds (Nievelt 2001). This suspected pattern of wolf-

[[Page 6115]]

caused changes also may be occurring with scavengers, whereby wolf 
predation is providing a year-round source of food for a diverse 
variety of carrion feeders (Wilmers et al. 2003, p. 996). The wolf 
population in the NRM has significantly extended the range of the gray 
wolf in the continental United States into a much more diverse, 
ecologically complex, and unique assemblage of species than is found 
elsewhere within historical wolf habitat in the northern hemisphere, 
including Europe and Asia.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Loss of the NRM wolf 
population would represent a significant gap in the holarctic range of 
the taxon. Wolves once lived throughout most of North America. Wolves 
have been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their North 
American range. The loss of the NRM wolf population would represent a 
significant gap in the species' holarctic range in that this loss would 
create a 15-degree latitudinal or over 1,600-km (1,000-mi) gap across 
the Rocky Mountains between the Mexican wolf and wolves in Canada. If 
this potential gap were realized, substantial cascading ecological 
impacts would occur in that area (Smith et al. 2003, pp. 334-338; 
Robbins 2004, pp. 80-81; Campbell et al. 2006, pp. 747-753).
    Given the wolf's historic occupancy of the conterminous States and 
the portion of the historic range the conterminous States represent, 
recovery in the lower 48 States has long been viewed as important to 
the taxon (39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). The 
proposed NRM DPS is significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 
of only 3 populations of wolves in the lower 48 States and constitutes 
nearly 20 percent of all wolves in the lower 48 States.
    We conclude, based on our analysis of the best available scientific 
information, that the NRM DPS is significant to the taxon in that NRM 
wolves exist in a unique ecological setting and their loss would 
represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. Therefore, the 
NRM DPS meets the criterion of significance under our DPS policy.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

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

``Range''

    The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its 
range'' refers to the range in which a species currently exists, not to 
the historical range of the species where it once existed. The context 
in which the phrase is used is crucial. Under the Act's definitions, a 
species is ``endangered'' only if it ``is in danger of extinction'' in 
the relevant portion of its range. The phrase ``is in danger'' denotes 
a present-tense condition of being at risk of a future, undesired 
event. To say that a species ``is in danger'' in an area that is 
currently unoccupied, such as unoccupied historical range, would be 
inconsistent with common usage. Thus, ``range'' must mean ``currently-
occupied range,'' not ``historical range.'' This interpretation of 
``range'' is further supported by the fact that section 4(a)(1)(A) of 
the Act requires us to consider the ``present'' or ``threatened'' 
(i.e., future), rather than the past, ``destruction, modification, or 
curtailment'' of a species' habitat or range in determining whether a 
species is endangered or threatened.
    However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to conclude, 
without any analysis or explanation that the ``range'' referred to in 
the SPR phrase includes the historical range of the species. The court 
stated that a species ``can be extinct `throughout * * * a significant 
portion of its range' if there are major geographical areas in which it 
is no longer viable but once was,'' and then faults the Secretary for 
n