[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61770-61775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21344]



[[Page 61770]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding on 
Petitions to Establish the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population 
Segment of Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) and to Remove the Gray Wolf in the 
Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status 
review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), announce a 90-
day finding for two petitions--(1) the first that sought removal of the 
gray wolf from the designation of endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA); and (2) the second that 
requested to establish the northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population 
Segment (Rocky Mountain DPS) of gray wolf (Canis lupus) and to remove 
the gray wolf in the northern Rocky Mountain DPS from the Federal list 
of threatened and endangered species, pursuant to the ESA. Although 
only one of these petitions presented substantial information, we have 
considered the collective weight of evidence indicating that the 
northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves may qualify as a DPS 
and that delisting may be warranted. We are initiating a status review 
to determine if delisting the species is warranted. To ensure that the 
review is comprehensive, we are soliciting information and data 
regarding this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 17, 
2005. To be considered in the 12-month finding for this petitioned 
action, data, information, and comments should be submitted to us by 
December 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, written comments and materials, or 
questions concerning these petitions and this finding should be 
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf 
Recovery Coordinator, 100 N. Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana 59601. 
Comments on this finding also may be sent by electronic mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#227547515647504c6550435b754d4e44624455510c454d54"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="114674626574637f56637068467e7d77517766623f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>. The petition finding, supporting information, 
and comments are available for public inspection, by appointment, 
during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery 
Coordinator, at telephone number 406-449-5225, extension 204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Historically, wolves (Canis lupus) occupied all of the conterminous 
United States, except for arid deserts and mountaintops of the western 
United States and portions of the eastern and southeastern United 
States (Youngman and Goldman 1944; Hall 1981; Mech 1974; Nowak 2000). 
The gray wolf was eliminated from Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming by the 
1930s (Young and Goldman 1944). Thereafter, only isolated observations 
of individuals and non-breeding pairs were reported in the area. In 
1974, the USFWS listed the eastern timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) as 
threatened in Minnesota and the northern Rocky Mountain wolf (C. l. 
irremotus) as endangered in Montana and Wyoming under the ESA (16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (U.S. Department of the Interior 1974; 39 FR 1171, 
January 4, 1974). To eliminate problems with listing separate 
subspecies of the gray wolf whose taxonomy was contentious, and 
identifying relatively narrow geographic areas in which those 
subspecies were protected, on March 9, 1978, we published a rule (43 FR 
9607) relisting the gray wolf at the species level (C. lupus) as 
endangered throughout the conterminous 48 States and Mexico, except for 
Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified as threatened. In 1995 
and 1996, we reintroduced wolves from western Canada to remote public 
lands in central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park (Bangs and Fritts 
1996; Fritts et al. 1997; Bangs et al. 1998). Prior to this 
reintroduction of wolves, we determined that a few lone individual 
wolves but no packs remained in Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington. By the 
end of 2004, there were an estimated 835 wolves in 110 packs in the 
United States northern Rocky Mountains (USFWS et al. 2005). Sixty-six 
of these packs met our definition of a ``breeding pair'' (i.e., an 
adult male and an adult female that raise at least 2 pups until 
December 31 of the year of their birth) (USFWS et al. 1994; USFWS et 
al. 2005; 68 FR 15817, April 1, 2003). As noted in the 2003, 2004, and 
2005 Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Annual Reports, the USFWS will 
propose delisting (removal from protection under the ESA) once all 
provisions required for delisting are met, including adequate 
regulatory mechanisms in the form of State laws and wolf management 
plans that would reasonably assure that the gray wolf would not become 
threatened or endangered again.
    On April 1, 2003, we published a final rule revising the listing 
status of the gray wolf across most of the conterminous United States 
from endangered to threatened (68 FR 15804). On January 31, 2005, and 
August 19, 2005, the U.S. District Courts in Oregon and Vermont, 
respectively, concluded that the 2003 final rule was ``arbitrary and 
capricious'' and violated the ESA (National Wildlife Federation v. 
Norton, 1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005; Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 03-
1348-JO, D. OR 2005). The Courts' rulings invalidated the April 2003 
changes to the ESA listing for the gray wolf (National Wildlife 
Federation v. Norton; Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton). Therefore, the 
USFWS currently considers the classification of the gray wolf in the 
Rocky Mountains outside of areas designated as nonessential 
experimental populations to have reverted back to the endangered status 
that existed prior to the 2003 reclassification.
    On October 30, 2001, we received a petition dated October 5, 2001, 
from the Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc., (hereafter 
referred to as the Friends Petition) that sought removal of the gray 
wolf from the designation of endangered under the ESA (Karl Knuchel, 
P.C., A Professional Corporation Attorneys at Law in litt. 2001a). On 
November 16, 2001, we sent a letter to the attorney representing this 
group acknowledging the petition and requested clarification on several 
issues (T. J. Miller, USFWS, in litt. 2001). Additional correspondence 
in late 2001 provided clarification of their intent that the petition 
only apply to the Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho population and that the 
petition request full delisting of this population (Knuchel in litt. 
2001b). In January 2002, this petition was assigned to Region 6 of the 
USFWS for processing (T. J. Miller in litt. 2002). Since 2002, the 
USFWS has focused its limited wolf recovery funding and staff resources 
toward authoring regulations and reclassification proposals, including 
the completion of the 2003 downlisting rule discussed above; assisting 
the Department of Justice in litigation; preparation of administrative 
records; wolf recovery and management; responding to correspondence and 
Freedom of Information Act requests (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended by Pub. 
L. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048); and other administrative and legal 
mandates.
    On July 19, 2005, we received a petition dated July 13, 2005, from 
the

[[Page 61771]]

Office of the Governor, State of Wyoming and the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission (hereafter referred to as the Wyoming Petition) to revise 
the listing status for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) by establishing the 
northern Rocky Mountain DPS and to concurrently remove the gray wolf in 
the northern Rocky Mountain DPS from the Federal list of threatened and 
endangered species (Dave Freudenthal, Office of the Governor, State of 
Wyoming, in litt. 2005). On August 17, 2005, we provided a written 
response to the petitioner explaining our intention to complete a 90-
day finding on this petition as soon as possible (Ralph Morgenweck, 
USFWS , in litt. 2005).
    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that we make a finding on 
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. ``Substantial information'' is 
defined in 50 CFR 424.14(b) as ``that amount of information that would 
lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the 
petition may be warranted.'' Petitioners need not prove that the 
petitioned action is warranted to support a ``substantial'' finding; 
instead, the key consideration in evaluating a petition for 
substantiality involves demonstration of the reliability and adequacy 
of the scientific and commercial information supporting the action 
advocated by the petition. We do not conduct additional scientific and 
commercial research at this point, nor do we subject the petition to 
rigorous critical review regarding the delisting factors. If we find 
substantial scientific and commercial information exists to support the 
petitioned action, we are required to promptly commence a status review 
of the species (50 CFR 424.14). To the maximum extent practicable, this 
finding is to be made within 90 days of receipt of the petition, and 
the finding is to be published promptly in the Federal Register.

Species Information

    For detailed information on this species see the April 1, 2003, 
``Final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous 
United States'' (68 FR 15804). Additional information, including weekly 
gray wolf recovery status reports and the Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 
2005 Annual Report, are available online at http://westerngraywolf.fws.gov/.

Discussion of Information Presented by the Petitions and Readily 
Available in our Files

    The Friends Petition identified the organization requesting 
delisting, noted that the gray wolf was protected under the ESA, and 
requested removal of the species from the protections of the ESA. This 
two-page petition noted ``that substantial scientific and commercial 
information exists that supports the request,'' but failed to elaborate 
on this claim. The Friends Petition did not discuss--(1) whether the 
northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population constitutes a ``listable 
entity'' under the ESA (i.e., a species, a subspecies, or a Distinct 
Population Segment (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996)), or (2) any of the 
five factors considered in delisting actions outlined in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA. While the Friends Petition provided a collection of 
``exhibits'' in support of its request, the 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. Therefore, 
the remainder of this finding focuses on the assertions of the Wyoming 
Petition. Below we respond to each of the major assertions made in the 
Wyoming Petition, including the assertions of discreteness and 
significance of a potential DPS and the ESA's five listing factors.
    Both the Wyoming Petition and our discussion of the information in 
our files references scientific information in the April 1, 2003, 
``Final rule to reclassify and remove the gray wolf from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife in portions of the conterminous 
United States'' (68 FR 15804). Although this rule was vacated and 
enjoined by Oregon and Vermont Federal district courts, the scientific 
information discussed below, cited to the April 1, 2003, Federal 
Register, was not challenged in those courts. Therefore, we still view 
this document as a valid summary of our view of the science and a 
reliable summary of the information in our files. This 90-day finding 
is not a status assessment and does not constitute a status review 
under the ESA.

Distinct Population Segment

    Pursuant to the ESA, we shall 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. Under our DPS policy, we must consider three factors in a 
decision regarding the establishment of a possible DPS, including--(1) 
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of 
the taxon (i.e. Canis lupus); (2) the significance of the population 
segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) the population 
segment's conservation status in relation to the ESA's standards for 
listing (i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a 
species, endangered or threatened) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). What 
follows is not a formal DPS analysis. Instead, our finding considers 
whether the petition states a reasonable case that the petitioned 
population may be a listable entity.

Discreteness

    Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments, a population segment of a vertebrate species 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); and/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) (``the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'') of the ESA (61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996). Below we discuss three arguments for discreteness 
put forward by the Wyoming Petition, including differences in 
management among populations in the United States and Canada, 
physiological differences among populations, and geographic and 
ecological factors separating populations.
    Discreteness Information Provided by the Petitions--Management 
Differences Among the United States and Canada. The Wyoming Petition 
states that the northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population in the 
United States and Canada are discrete from each other based on 
differences in exploitation and conservation status. The Wyoming 
Petition provides no citations in support of this assertion.
    Information in Our Files. This assertion is consistent with the 
information in our files and previous USFWS determinations (68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003). On April 1, 2003, we published a Federal 
Register notice which stated, ``The Vertebrate Population Policy allows 
us to use international borders to delineate the

[[Page 61772]]

boundaries of a DPS even if the current distribution of the species 
extends across that border. Therefore, we will continue to use the 
United States--Canada border to mark the northern portions of the (DPS) 
* * * due to the difference in control of exploitation, conservation 
status, and regulatory mechanisms between the two countries. In 
general, wolf populations are more numerous and wide-ranging in Canada; 
therefore, wolves are not protected by Federal laws in Canada and are 
publicly trapped in most Canadian provinces'' (68 FR 15819, April 1, 
2003). Wolves in Canada are publicly harvested and subject to very 
liberal defense of property take in most provinces (Pletscher et al. 
1991; Mech and Boitani 2003; Bangs et al. 2004; Phillips et al. 2005).
    Discreteness Information Provided by the Petitions--Physiological 
Differences. The Wyoming Petition asserts that the northern Rocky 
Mountain population of gray wolves also is markedly separated from 
other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physiological 
(e.g., morphological) factors. The Wyoming Petition cites our 2003 
Federal Register notice (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003) and analyzes three 
of our sources (Brewster and Fritts 1994; Nowak 1994; Wayne et al. 
1994) in support of its statements that the northern United States 
Rocky Mountain wolf population is significantly larger than other wolf 
populations in the United States.
    Information in Our Files. As suggested by the Wyoming Petition, 
gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains differ physiologically from 
other United States wolf populations. The average male wolf in the 
northern Rockies weighs approximately 45 kilograms (kg) (100 pounds 
(lb)) (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). By contrast, the average male wolf 
in Wisconsin weighs 35 kg (77 lb) (Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources 1999; 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003) and the average historic 
weights of wild Mexican wolves ranged from 25 to 49 kg (54 to 99 lb) 
(Young and Goldman 1944). According to Gipson et al. (2002), wolves of 
the Northern Rocky Mountains are slightly larger and contain greater 
numbers of individuals with black pelts than other wolf populations 
within the continental United States. Thus, this assertion is 
consistent with the information in our files.
    Discreteness Information Provided in the Petitions--Physical and 
Ecological Factors. The Wyoming Petition asserts that the northern 
Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves is markedly separated from 
other wolf populations as a consequence of physical (geographic) and 
ecological factors. The Wyoming Petition cites to a sizable collection 
of literature (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Mech 1989; Mech et al. 1988; 
Oakleaf et al. 2003; Thiel 1985; USFWS 1987, 1994; USFWS et al. 2003, 
2004, 2005) suggesting that a broad region of unsuitable habitats 
surrounding the established northern Rocky Mountain population 
constitutes a significant physical separation that effectively isolates 
this population from distant, potentially suitable habitats.
    Information in Our Files. This assertion is consistent with the 
information in our files and previous USFWS determinations (68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003). On April 1, 2003, we published a Federal 
Register notice which stated, ``To date, we have no evidence that any 
wolves from any of [the United States wolf populations] have dispersed 
[into other United States wolf populations], although we expect such 
dispersals to occur. The current gray wolf populations * * * are 
separated from [other] gray wolf populations * * * by large areas that 
are not occupied by breeding populations of resident wild gray wolves. 
Although small numbers of dispersing individual gray wolves have been 
seen in some of these unoccupied areas, and it is possible that 
individual dispersing wolves can completely cross some of these gaps 
between occupied areas and may therefore join another wolf population, 
we believe that the existing geographic isolation of wolf populations * 
* * far exceeds the Vertebrate Population Policy's criterion for 
discreteness'' (68 FR 15818, April 1, 2003). Based on suitable habitat 
modeling (Oakleaf et al. 2005; Carroll et al. in prep.), genetic 
analysis (Forbes and Boyd 1997; Boyd and Pletscher 1999), and known 
wolf distribution and movement patterns (Bangs et al. 1996, 1998; 
Pletscher et al. 1991, 1998; Phillips et al. 2005; USFWS et al. 1994, 
2003, 2004, 2005), wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains appear 
discrete from other United States wolf populations.

Significance

    If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider 
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e., 
Canis lupus) to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this 
consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following--(1) 
Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete 
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of 
the taxon; (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents 
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more 
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic 
range; and/or (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs 
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The Wyoming Petition 
only presented information suggesting the loss of the northern Rocky 
Mountain gray wolf population would represent a significant loss in the 
range of the taxon. Below we discuss only this assertion.
    Information Provided in the Petitions on Significance. The Wyoming 
Petition suggests that the loss of the northern Rocky Mountain wolf 
population would create a significant gap in the taxon's range as this 
is one of only two self-sustaining, viable populations of gray wolves 
in the United States. The Wyoming Petition provides no citations in 
support of this assertion.
    Information in Our Files. The USFWS concurs with the assertion that 
the loss of this population would represent a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon. On April 1, 2003, we published a Federal Register 
notice which stated that the loss of any of the three wolf populations 
in the conterminous States ``would clearly produce huge gaps in current 
gray wolf distribution in the 48 States'' (68 FR 15819). Given historic 
occupancy of the conterminous States and the portion of the historic 
range the conterminous States represent, recovery of wolves in the 
lower 48 has long been viewed as important to the taxon (U.S. 
Department of the Interior 1974; 39 FR 1171, January 4, 1974; 43 FR 
9607, March 9, 1978; Mech and Boitani 2003).
    Although this 90-day finding has determined that the petition and 
other readily available information in our files present a reasonable 
case that the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves may be 
both discrete from other wolf populations and significant to the taxon, 
this finding expresses no final agency view (1) as to the ultimate 
issue of whether this population qualifies as a DPS; nor (2) where to 
draw the boundaries of a potential DPS.

Conservation Status

    What follows is not a formal status review under the ESA. Our 
finding considers only whether the petition and information in our 
files presents a reasonable case that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. Section 4 of the ESA of 1973 and regulations promulgated to 
implement the listing provisions of the ESA (50 CFR Part 424)

[[Page 61773]]

set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting 
species under the Federal list of endangered and threatened species. A 
species may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best 
scientific and commercial data available demonstrates that the species 
is no longer endangered or threatened because of--(1) extinction; (2) 
recovery; or (3) error in the original data used for classification of 
the species. The analysis for a delisting due to recovery must be based 
on the five factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, including--
(1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or 
predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 
(5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

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

    Information Provided in the Petitions on Factor A. The Wyoming 
Petition's discussion of Factor A cites to and quotes from the April 1, 
2003 Federal Register notice (68 FR 15804). The Wyoming Petition 
suggests that public lands and ungulate prey base remain secure in 
suitable habitat. Regarding secure habitat in the northwestern Montana, 
Central Idaho, and Greater Yellowstone Area recovery zones, the 2003 
Federal Register notice read, ``These areas of potential wolf habitat 
are secure and no foreseeable habitat-related threats prevent them from 
supporting a wolf population that exceeds recovery levels'' (68 FR 
15845, April 1, 2003). Regarding ungulates, the 2003 Federal Register 
notice read, ``The States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming have managed 
resident ungulate populations for decades and maintained them at 
densities that would support a recovered wolf population. There is no 
foreseeable condition that would cause a decline in ungulate 
populations significant enough to affect a recovered wolf population'' 
(68 FR 15845, April 1, 2003). The Wyoming Petition's discussion of this 
issue concludes with the suggestion that the analysis of foreseeable 
impacts to habitat done by the USFWS in 2003 remains valid in 2005.
    Information in Our Files. Although our 2003 analysis described 
threats to habitat and range for a downlisting, a situation where many 
of the protections of the ESA would have remained in place, many of the 
same principles apply to delisting. According to Oakleaf et al. (2005) 
and Carroll et al. (in prep), public lands and ungulate prey base in 
northern Rocky Mountain wolf habitat appear largely secure. Thus, the 
USFWS finds that the petition's discussion of Factor A presents 
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that 
delisting the species may be warranted.

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

    Information Provided in the Petitions on Factor B. The Wyoming 
Petition's discussion of Factor B cites to and quotes from the final 
wolf downlisting rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Wyoming 
Petition suggests that commercial, recreational, scientific, and 
educational take of wolves, their pelts, or other parts is believed to 
be rare. The Wyoming Petition notes that such utilization will be 
controlled by State regulatory mechanisms described in State wolf 
management plans for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (70 FR 1289, January 
6, 2005). The Wyoming Petition goes on to say that in National Parks, 
post-delisting removal of wolves for commercial, recreational, and 
educational purposes will be prohibited and post-delisting utilization 
for scientific purposes will also be extremely rare (U.S.C. 16, Chapter 
1, Sub Chapter V, Sect. 26). Finally, the Wyoming Petition notes that 
National Park non-lethal utilization of wolves will be limited in order 
to minimize impacts to wolves.
    Information in Our Files. Although commercial, recreational, 
scientific, and educational take has been rare since listing and is 
likely to continue to be rare (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), adequate 
State plans are necessary to regulate this issue post-delisting (Bangs 
et al. 1998, 2004, 2005). To date, only the States of Idaho and Montana 
have approved management plans for gray wolves (70 FR 1289, January 6, 
2005). The USFWS has concerns with portions of Wyoming's State law and 
wolf management plan relating to this factor (USFWS Administrative 
Record 2004). This issue is discussed further under Factor D.

C. Disease or Predation

    Information Provided in the Petitions on Disease. The Wyoming 
Petition's discussion of disease cites to and quotes from the final 
wolf downlisting rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Wyoming 
Petition suggests that although parvovirus, canine distemper, mange, 
and brucellosis have all been documented in wolves, none appear to be a 
significant factor affecting wolf population dynamics in the northern 
Rocky Mountains (USFWS 1994 as in 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; Johnson 
1992a, 1992b as in 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Wyoming Petition 
notes that disease and parasite occurrence require diligent monitoring 
and appropriate follow up for the foreseeable future (Brand et al. 1995 
as in 68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003).
    Information in Our Files. As of 2003, disease did not appear to be 
having significant impacts on wolf population dynamics (68 FR 15804, 
April 1, 2003). However, a recent outbreak of mange has caused wolf 
mortality and reproductive failure in several packs in the Greater 
Yellowstone Area and is under investigation (Jimenez et al. in prep.). 
While we view the information presented in the Petition as substantial, 
additional evaluation of this issue is necessary.
    Information Provided in the Petitions on Natural Predation. The 
Wyoming Petition's discussion of predation by other wildlife cites to 
and quotes from the final wolf downlisting rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 
2003). The Wyoming Petition suggests that predation by other wildlife 
occasionally occurs (Mech and Nelson 1989 as in 68 FR 15804, April 1, 
2003), but is not believed to be a significant mortality source (68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003).
    Information in Our Files. This assertion is consistent with the 
information in our files and previous USFWS determinations (68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003). No wild animals habitually prey on gray wolves. 
Wolves are occasionally killed by prey that they are attacking (Mech 
and Nelson 1989), but those instances are rare. Wolf conflicts with 
mountain lions, grizzly bears, and black bears rarely result in the 
death of either species. Predation by other wildlife does not appear to 
have significant impacts on wolf population dynamics (Bangs et al. 
1998; Smith et al. in prep.; USFWS et al. 2005).
    Information Provided in the Petitions on Human Predation. The 
Wyoming Petition's discussion of human predation cites to and quotes 
from the final wolf downlisting rule for a discussion of this issue up 
to 2003 (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). The Wyoming Petition notes that 
since the 2003 analysis, 27 wolves were killed in 2003 throughout the 
northern Rocky Mountain region from human causes other than control 
actions (USFWS et al. 2004) and that, in 2004, 54 wolves were killed 
from human causes other than control actions (USFWS et al. 2005). 
However, the Wyoming Petition suggests the total number of wolves 
killed are not preventing the population

[[Page 61774]]

from increasing; in fact, wolf populations have increased from 663 
individuals in 2002, to 761 in 2003, to 835 in 2004 (USFWS et al. 2003, 
2004, 2005). Finally, the Wyoming Petition notes that legal harvest by 
hunters will be regulated under State laws, as described in the State 
management plans for gray wolves.
    Information in Our Files. Adequate State management is necessary to 
regulate this issue post-delisting (Bangs et al. 2004, 2005). To date, 
only the States of Idaho and Montana have approved management plans for 
gray wolves (70 FR 1289, January 6, 2005). The USFWS has concerns with 
portions of Wyoming's State law and wolf management plan relating to 
this factor (USFWS Administrative Record 2004). This issue is discussed 
further under Factor D.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Information Provided in the Petitions on Factor D. The Wyoming 
Petition asserts that the regulatory mechanisms currently provided in 
Wyoming Statute 23-1-304 and the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan 
(2003) are sufficient to reasonably assure Wyoming's share of the 
population will remain recovered into the foreseeable future. The 
Wyoming Petition suggests that--(1) the Wyoming management plan can be 
implemented within existing authorities (State Attorney General in 
litt. 2003); (2) the USFWS has overstated risks associated with the 
initial classification of gray wolves as a ``predatory animal''; and 
(3) the Commission will reclassify wolves as ``trophy game'' if 
necessary.
    Information in Our Files. Based on our review of the State 
management plans, peer review comments, and the State's responses to 
those comments, USFWS has determined that both the Montana and Idaho 
wolf management plans are adequate to maintain their share and 
distribution of the tri-State wolf population above recovery levels (70 
FR 1289, January 6, 2005). However, we have concerns with portions of 
Wyoming's State law and wolf management plan (USFWS Administrative 
Record 2004). The USFWS has determined that, for the Wyoming statute 
and its State plan to constitute an adequate regulatory mechanism, in 
lieu of listing under the ESA, they must satisfy three conditions. 
First, Wyoming's predatory animal status for wolves must be changed 
(Steve Williams, USFWS, in litt. 2004). Second, to constitute an 
adequate regulatory mechanism, Wyoming State law and plan must clearly 
commit to managing for at least 15 wolf packs in the State (Williams, 
USFWS, in litt. 2004). Finally, the Wyoming definition of a ``pack'' 
should be consistent among the three States and be biologically based 
(Williams, USFWS, in litt. 2004).

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Information Provided in the Petitions on Factor E. The Wyoming 
Petition's discussion of Factor E cites to and quotes from the final 
wolf downlisting rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003), noting that ``the 
primary determinant of the long-term status of gray wolf populations in 
the United States will be human attitudes toward this large predator. 
These attitudes are based on the conflicts between human activities and 
wolves, concern with the perceived danger the species may pose to 
humans, its symbolic representation of wilderness, the economic effect 
of livestock losses, the emotions regarding threats to pets, the 
conviction that the species should never be a target of sport hunting 
or trapping, and wolf traditions of Native American tribes.''
    Information in Our Files. This assertion is consistent with the 
information in our files and previous USFWS determinations. Public 
support for wolf recovery will be the primary determinant of the long-
term status of gray wolf populations in the United States (68 FR 15804, 
April 1, 2003). As noted in the 2003 Federal Register notice, 
``national support is evident for wolf recovery in the northern U.S. 
Rocky Mountains. With the continued help of private conservation 
organizations, States, and tribes, we can continue to foster public 
support to maintain viable populations in * * * the West'' (68 FR 
15804, April 1, 2003; Bangs et al. 2004).

Finding

    Based on the information presented in the petitions and information 
in our files, it is reasonable to infer that the gray wolf population 
in the northern Rocky Mountains appears to have experienced a 
significant recovery in terms of current population numbers and 
distribution. At the end of 2004, 835 wolves existed in 110 packs in 
the northern Rocky Mountains (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; USFWS et al. 
2005). Sixty-six of these packs met our definition of a breeding pair. 
USFWS determined that a minimum of 30 or more breeding pairs of wolves, 
comprising 300 or more individuals in a metapopulation with some 
genetic exchange between subpopulations, with an equitable distribution 
among the 3 States for at least 3 successive years, constitutes a 
viable and recovered wolf population (USFWS et al. 1994; 68 FR 15804, 
April 1, 2003). This criterion was met at the end of 2002 and has been 
surpassed every year since (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003; USFWS et al. 
2003, 2004, 2005).
    On the whole, we find that the Wyoming petition presents 
substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the 
northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf population may qualify as a DPS and 
that this potential DPS may warrant delisting. Beyond substantial 
population and distributional information indicating the northern Rocky 
Mountain gray wolf population has met its biological recovery goals, 
the Wyoming petition presented substantial information regarding 
several of the five factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 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. Although only one of these petitions 
presented substantial information, we have considered the collective 
weight of evidence and are initiating a 12-month status review. 
Although our January 2003 determination that Wyoming's regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate is still valid, we will fully evaluate this 
issue in the status review and welcome improvements to Wyoming's 
Statutes and the Wyoming Gray Wolf Management Plan made within the 12-
month status review time period.

Information Solicited

    When we make a finding that substantial scientific and commercial 
information is presented to indicate that delisting a species may be 
warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status 
of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based 
on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting 
information on the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolves. 
We request any additional data, comments, and suggestions from the 
public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties 
concerning the status of the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray 
wolves. We are seeking information regarding the species' historical 
and current status and distribution, its biology and ecology, ongoing 
conservation measures for the species and its habitat, and threats to 
the species and its habitat including the adequacy of regulatory 
mechanisms. If you wish to comment or

[[Page 61775]]

provide information, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this finding to the Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).
    Our practice is to make comments and materials provided, including 
names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review 
during regular business hours. Respondents may request that we withhold 
a respondent's identity, to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us 
to withhold your name or address, you must state this request 
prominently at the beginning of your submission. However, we will not 
consider anonymous comments. To the extent consistent with applicable 
law, we will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and 
from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials 
of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in 
their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for 
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the 
address listed above under ADDRESSES.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: October 17, 2005.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-21344 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>