61770 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 

WesternGrayWolf@fws.gov. 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 

61772 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 selfsustaining, 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) 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 habitatrelated 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 

61774 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 206 / Wednesday, October 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 051017269–5269–01; I.D. 

100705C] 

RIN 0648–AT54 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Cape Sarichef 

Research Restriction Area Opening for 

the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to open the 

Cape Sarichef Research Restriction Area 

in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (BSAI) to directed 

fishing for groundfish using trawl, pot, 

and hook-and-line gear from March 15, 

2006, through March 31, 2006. Because 

NMFS’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

(AFSC) will not conduct research in this 

area in 2006, closure of the Cape 

Sarichef Research Restriction Area is 

not needed. This action is intended to 

relieve an unnecessary restriction on 

groundfish fisheries and allow the 

optimum utilization of fishery 

resources, in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed 

rule also would remove the regulations 

for the Cape Sarichef Research 

Restriction Area, as well as regulations 

for the Chiniak Gully Research Area 

because both research projects have 

ended. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule 

must be received by November 25, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to 

Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Lori Durall. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, AK. 

• E-mail: 0648–at54–

Sarichef@noaa.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following document 

identifier: Cape Sarichef RIN 

0648-AT54. E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes. 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions at that site for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668. 

Copies of the regulatory impact 

review (RIR), prepared for this action 

are available from NMFS at the above 

address or from the NMFS Alaska 

Region website at www.fakr.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228 or 

becky.carls@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

groundfish fisheries in the exclusive 

economic zone of the BSAI and Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) are managed by NMFS 

under the Fishery Management Plans 

(FMPs) for Groundfish of the BSAI and 

Groundfish of the GOA. The FMPs were 

prepared by the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMPs 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

Background and Need for Action 

In October 2002, the Council adopted 

a regulatory amendment to implement a 

seasonal closure to directed fishing for 

groundfish by vessels using trawl, pot, 

or hook-and-line gear in a portion of the 

waters off Cape Sarichef just north of 

Unimak Pass in the Aleutians (68 FR 

11004, March 7, 2003). The purpose of 

that action was to support an AFSC 

research project testing the hypothesis 

that commercial trawl fishing imposed 

localized depletion on stocks of Pacific 

cod. The results of the research project 

had the potential to provide information 

on the impacts of fishing on Pacific cod 

stocks, and on Steller sea lion forage 

resources. That research was scheduled 

to occur in each of four consecutive 

years (2003 through 2006) between 

March 15 and March 31. The closure of 

this area to pot, hook-and-line, and 

trawl gear users is applicable through 

March 31, 2006. 

In June 2005, AFSC staff reported to 

the Council that their research results 

over the first three years were so 

unambiguous and consistent that they 

were ending the study one year earlier 

than originally planned. The results of 

the Cape Sarichef study are available on 

the Internet at www.afsc.noaa.gov/ 

Quarterly/amj2005/divrptsREFM6.htm. 

Because the study would not be 

conducted in 2006, AFSC staff indicated 

that the special closure of the study area 

for March 15–31, 2006, would not be 

needed. The Council recommended and 

NMFS is proposing to remove the 

closure specified in § 679.22(a)(11). 

Maintaining the closure in 2006 would