6106 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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— 

http://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 oncewidespread species to be eradicated 

from most of its range in the 48 

conterminous States (Mech 1970, pp. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 AbsarokaBeartooth, 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 welldistributed 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, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6108 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonlethal 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6109 

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 km2 (>19,200 mi2)) includes 

Glacier National Park; the Great Bear, 

Bob Marshall, and Lincoln Scapegoat 

Wilderness Areas; and adjacent public 

and private lands in northern Montana 

and the northern Idaho panhandle. 

Reproduction first occurred in 

northwestern Montana in 1986. The 

natural ability of wolves to find and 

quickly recolonize empty habitat, the 

interim control plan, and the 

interagency recovery program combined 

to effectively promote an increase in 

wolf numbers. By 1996, the number of 

wolves had grown to about 70 wolves in 

7 known breeding pairs. However, since 

1997, the number of breeding groups 

and number of wolves has fluctuated 

widely, varying from 4–12 breeding 

pairs and from 49–130 wolves (Service 

et al. 2006, 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP08FE07.000</GPH>
6110 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 km2 [20,700 

mi2]) 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 yearround 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6112 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2EP08FE07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 breakpoint in our data for unusually longdistance 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6114 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 StatesCanada 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 wolfVerDate Aug<31>2005 17:12 Feb 07, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\08FEP2.SGM 08FEP2

pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 not ‘‘at least 

explain[ing] her conclusion that the area 

in which the species can no longer live 

is not a significant portion of its range.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This 

would suggest that the range we must 

analyze in assessing endangerment 

includes unoccupied historical range—

i.e., the places where the species was 

once viable but no longer exists. 

The statute does not support this 

interpretation. This interpretation is 

based on what appears to be an 

inadvertent misquote of the relevant 

statutory language. In addressing this 

issue, the Ninth Circuit states that the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

species is ‘‘extinct throughout * * * a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Id. If 

that were true, we would have to study 

the historical range. But that is not what 

the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit 

quotes the statute correctly elsewhere in 

its opinion. Under the Act, we are not 

to determine if a species is ‘‘extinct 

throughout * * * a significant portion 

of its range,’’ but are to determine if it 

‘‘is in danger of extinction throughout 

* * * a significant portion of its range.’’

A species cannot presently be ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in that portion of 

its range where it ‘‘was once viable but 

no longer is’’—if by the latter phrase the 

court meant lost historical habitat. In 

that portion of its range, the species has 

by definition ceased to exist. In such 

situations, it is not ‘‘in danger of 

extinction’’; it is extinct. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Although we must focus on the range 

in which the species currently exists, 

data about the species’ historical range 

and how the species came to be extinct 

in that location may be relevant in 

understanding or predicting whether a 

species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in 

its current range and therefore relevant 

to our 5 factor analysis. But the fact that 

it has ceased to exist in what may have 

been portions of its historical range does 

not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in a significant 

portion of the range where it currently 

exists. For the purposes of this notice 

we consider the range of the gray wolf 

to be the entire geographic area 

delineated by the boundaries of the 

NRM DPS. 

‘‘Significant’’

The Act does not clearly indicate 

what portion(s) of a species’ range 

should be considered ‘‘significant.’’

Most dictionaries list several definitions 

of ‘‘significant.’’ For example, one 

standard dictionary defines 

‘‘significant’’ as ‘‘important,’’

‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘a noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ or 

‘‘suggestive’’ (Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary 1088 10th ed. 

2000). If it means a ‘‘noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ then we 

would have to focus on the size of the 

range in question, either in relation to 

the rest of the range or perhaps even in 

absolute terms. If it means ‘‘important,’’

then we would have to consider factors 

in addition to size in determining a 

portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ For example, would a key 

breeding ground of species be 

‘‘significant,’’ even if it was only a small 

part of the species’ entire range? 

One district court interpreted the term 

to mean ‘‘a noticeably or measurably 

large amount’’ without analysis or any 

reference to other alternate meanings, 

including ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘meaningful.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. 

Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). We 

consider the court’s interpretation to be 

unpersuasive because the court did not 

explain why we could not employ 

another, equally plausible definition of 

‘‘significant.’’ It is impossible to 

determine from the word itself, even 

when read in the context of the entire 

statute, which meaning of ‘‘significant’’

Congress intended. Moreover, even if it 

were clear which meaning was 

intended, ‘‘significant’’ would still 

require interpretation. For example, if it 

were meant to refer to size, what size 

would be ‘‘significant’’: 30 percent, 60 

percent, 90 percent? Should the 

percentage be the same in every case or 

for each species? Moreover, what 

factors, if any, would be appropriate to 

consider in making a size 

determination? Is size all by itself 

‘‘significant,’’ or does size only become 

‘‘significant’’ when considered in 

combination with other factors? On the 

other hand, if ‘‘significant’’ were meant 

to refer to importance, what factors 

would need to be considered in 

deciding that a particular portion of a 

species’ range is ‘‘important’’ enough to 

trigger the protections of the Act? 

Where there is ambiguity in a statute, 

as with the meaning of ‘‘significant,’’ the 

agency charged with administering the 

statute, in this case the Service, has 

broad discretion to resolve the 

ambiguity and give meaning to the term. 

As the Supreme Court has stated: 

In Chevron, this Court held that 

ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s 

jurisdiction to administer are delegations of 

authority to the agency to fill the statutory 

gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps, 

the Court explained, involves difficult policy 

choices that agencies are better equipped to 

make than courts. If a statute is ambiguous, 

and if the implementing agency’s 

construction is reasonable, Chevron requires 

a federal court to accept the agency’s 

construction of the statute, even if the 

agency’s reading differs from what the court 

believes is the best statutory interpretation. 

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. 

Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 

980 (2005) (internal citations omitted). 

We have broad discretion in defining 

what portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ No ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases, and we may 

consider factors other than simply the 

size of the range portion in defining 

what is ‘‘significant.’’ In light of the 

general ecosystems conservation 

purposes and findings in section 2 of 

the Act, out goal is to define 

‘‘significant’’ in such a way as to insure 

the conservation of the species 

protected by the Act. In determining 

whether a range portion is significant, 

we consider the ecosystems on which 

the species that use that range depend 

as well as the values listed in the Act 

that would be impaired or lost if the 

species were to become extinct in that 

portion of the range or in the range as 

a whole. 

However, our discretion in defining 

‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited. The 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while 

acknowledging that we have ‘‘a wide 

degree of discretion in delineating’’

what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’

appeared to set outer limits of that 

discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the one 

hand, it rejected what it called a 

quantitative approach to defining 

‘‘significant,’’ where a ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases. 258 F.3d. at 

1143. As the court explained: 

First, it simply does not make sense to 

assume that the loss of a predetermined 

percentage of habitat or range would 

necessarily qualify a species for listing. A 

species with an exceptionally large historical 

range may continue to enjoy healthy 

population levels despite the loss of a 

substantial amount of suitable habitat. 

Similarly, a species with an exceptionally 

small historical range may quickly become 

endangered after the loss of even a very small 

percentage of habitat. 

The Ninth Circuit concluded that 

what is ‘‘significant’’ must ‘‘necessarily 

be determined on a case by case basis,’’

and must take into account not just the 

size of the range but also the biological 

importance of the range to the species. 

258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other end of 

the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected 

what it called ‘‘the faulty definition 

offered by us,’’ a definition that holds 

that a portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant’’ only if the threats faced by 

the species in that area are so severe as 

to threaten the viability of the species as 

a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It thus 

appears that within the two outer 

boundaries set by the Ninth Circuit, we 

have wide discretion to give the 

definitive interpretation of the word 

‘‘significant’’ in the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’

Based on these principles, we 

consider the following factors in 

determining whether a portion of a 

range is ‘‘significant’’—quality, quantity, 

and distribution of habitat relative to the 

biological requirements of the species; 

the historical value of the habitat to the 

species; the frequency of use of the 

habitat; the uniqueness or importance of 

the habitat for other reasons, such as 

breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, 

or suitability for population expansion; 

genetic diversity; and other biological 

factors. We focus on portions of a 

species’ range that are important to the 

conservation of the species, such as 

‘‘recovery units’’ identified in approved 

Section 4 recovery plans; unique habitat 

or other ecological features that provide 

adaptive opportunities that are of 

conservation importance to the species; 

and ‘‘core’’ populations that generate 

additional individuals of a species that 

can, over time, replenish depleted 

populations or stocks at the periphery of 

the species’ range. We do not apply the 

term ‘‘significant’’ to portions of the 

species’ range that constitute lessproductive peripheral habitat, 

artificially-created habitat, or areas 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6117 

where wildlife species have established 

themselves in urban or suburban 

settings— such portions of the species’

range are not ‘‘significant,’’ in our view, 

to the conservation of the species as 

required by the Act. 

In order to finalize this rule as 

proposed, Wyoming would have to 

adopt a State law and wolf management 

plan that would adequately conserve a 

recovered wolf population into the 

foreseeable future in the significant 

portion of range outside the National 

Parks in northwestern Wyoming. If 

Wyoming takes these steps and provides 

the Service with a statute and wolf 

management plan that we approve and 

which contains the necessary adequate 

regulatory measures, it is our intent to 

reopen the public comment period with 

respect to this proposed rule in order to 

receive comments on the Wyoming 

statute and wolf management plan 

before we would issue a final rule. 

However, if Wyoming has not taken 

these steps by the date that a final 

decision is to be made, we have 

carefully considered the requirements of 

the Act and the record before us and 

concluded that an alternative approach 

may be in order. Specifically, it would 

then be our intention instead to 

reclassify the portions of the DPS in the 

States of Idaho and Montana, 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah as ‘‘not 

listed.’’ We would also reclassify the 

portion of Wyoming that is not a 

significant portion of the range and the 

portion that is in the National Parks in 

Wyoming as ‘‘not listed’’. The DPS 

would no longer exist. The significant 

portion of the range that exists outside 

the National Parks within the State of 

Wyoming would continue to be listed as 

‘‘nonessential experimental’’ based on 

the biologically significant nature of that 

portion of the species’ range and the 

continuing unacceptable level of threats 

that occur under the State’s current 

statute and management plan. 

Accordingly, we request that comments 

also be submitted which specifically 

address this alternative as well as the 

proposal to establish this DPS. 

The following analysis examines all 

significant factors currently affecting the 

NRM wolf population or likely to affect 

it within the foreseeable future. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The NRM DPS is approximately 

980,803 km2 (378,690 mi2) and includes 

411,308 km2 (158,807 mi2) of Federal 

land (42 percent); 53,701 km2 (20,734 

mi2) of State land (5 percent); 39,026 

km2 (15,068 mi2) of Tribal land (4 

percent); and 467,604 km2 (180,543 mi2) 

of private land (48 percent). The DPS 

contains large amounts of three 

Ecoregion Divisions—Temperate Steppe 

(prairie) (312,148 km2 [120,521 mi2]); 

Temperate Steppe Mountain (forest) 

(404,921 km2 [156,341 mi2]); and 

Temperate Desert (high desert) (263,544 

km2 [101,755 mi2]) (Bailey 1995, p. iv). 

The following analysis focuses on 

suitable habitat within the DPS and 

currently occupied areas (which may 

include intermittent unsuitable habitat). 

Finally, unsuitable habitat, ungulate 

populations, and connectivity are 

discussed. 

Suitable Habitat—Wolves once 

occupied or transited most, if not all, of 

the proposed NRM DPS. However, 

much of the wolf’s historical range 

within this area has been modified for 

human use and is no longer suitable 

habitat. We have reviewed the quality, 

quantity, and distribution of habitat 

relative to the biological requirements of 

wolves; the historic value of the habitat 

to wolves; the frequency of use of the 

habitat; the uniqueness or importance of 

the habitat for other reasons, such as 

breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, 

or suitability for population expansion; 

genetic diversity; and other biological 

factors. In doing so we used two 

relatively new models, Oakleaf et al. 

(2006, pp. 555–558) and Carroll et al. 

(2006, pp. 27–31), to help us gauge the 

current amount and distribution of 

suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Both 

models ranked areas as suitable habitat 

if they had characteristics that suggested 

they might have a 50 percent or greater 

chance of supporting wolf packs. 

Suitable wolf habitat in the NRM was 

typically characterized by both models 

as public land with mountainous, 

forested habitat that contains abundant 

year-round wild ungulate populations, 

low road density, low numbers of 

domestic livestock that are only present 

seasonally, few domestic sheep, low 

agricultural use, and few people. 

Unsuitable wolf habitat was typically 

just the opposite (i.e., private land, flat 

open prairie or desert, low or seasonal 

wild ungulate populations, high road 

density, high numbers of year-round 

domestic livestock including many 

domestic sheep, high levels of 

agricultural use; and many people). 

Despite their similarities, these two 

models had substantial differences in 

their analysis area, layers, inputs, and 

assumptions. As a result, the Oakleaf et 

al. (2006, p. 559) and Carroll et al. 

(2006, p. 33) models predicted different 

amounts of theoretically suitable wolf 

habitat where their models overlapped 

(i.e., portions of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming). 

Oakleaf’s basic model was a more 

intensive effort that only looked at 

potential wolf habitat in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming (Oakleaf et al. 

2006, p. 555). It used roads accessible to 

two-wheel and four-wheel vehicles, 

topography (slope and elevation), land 

ownership, relative ungulate density 

(based on State harvest statistics), cattle 

(Bos sp.) and sheep density, vegetation 

characteristics (ecoregions and land 

cover), and human density to comprise 

its geographic information system (GIS) 

layers. Oakleaf analyzed the 

characteristics of areas occupied and not 

occupied by NRM wolf packs through 

2000 to predict what other areas in the 

NRM might be suitable or unsuitable for 

future wolf pack formation (Oakleaf et 

al. 2006, p. 555). In total, Oakleaf et al. 

(2006, p. 559) ranked 170,228 km2

(65,725 mi2) as suitable habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

In contrast, Carroll’s model analyzed 

a much larger area (all 12 western States 

and northern Mexico) in a less specific 

way (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). 

Carroll’s model used density and type of 

roads, human population density and 

distribution, slope, and vegetative 

greenness as ‘‘pseudo-habitat’’ to 

estimate relative ungulate density to 

predict associated wolf survival and 

fecundity rates (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

29). The combination of the GIS model 

and wolf population parameters were 

then used to develop estimates of 

habitat theoretically suitable for wolf 

pack persistence. In addition, Carroll 

predicted the potential effect on suitable 

wolf habitat of increased road 

development and human density 

expected by 2025 (Carroll et al. 2006, 

pp. 30–31). Within the proposed DPS, 

Carroll et al. (2006, pp. 27–31) ranked 

277,377 km2 (107,096 mi2) as suitable 

including 105,993 km2 (40,924 mi2) in 

Montana; 82,507 km2 (31,856 mi2) in 

Idaho; 77,202 km2 (29,808 mi2) in 

Wyoming; 6,620 km2 (2,556 mi2) in 

Oregon; 4,286 km2 (1,655 mi2) in Utah; 

and 769 km2 (297 mi2) in Washington. 

Approximately 96 percent of the 

suitable habitat (265,703 km2 (102,588 

mi2)) within the DPS occurred in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

According to the Carroll model, 

approximately 28 percent of the NRM 

DPS would be ranked as suitable habitat 

(Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 27–31). 

We believe that the Carroll et al. 

(2006, pp. 31–34) model tended to be 

more liberal in identifying suitable wolf 

habitat under current conditions than 

either the Oakleaf (et al. 2006, pp. 558–

560) model or our field observations 

indicate is realistic, but Carroll’s model 

provided a valuable relative measure 

across the western United States upon 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

which comparisons could be made. The 

Carroll model did not incorporate 

livestock density into its calculations as 

the Oakleaf model did (Carroll et al. 

2006, pp. 27–29; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 

556). Thus, this model ignores the fact 

that in situations where livestock and 

wolves both live in the same area, there 

will be some livestock losses, some wolf 

losses, and some wolf removal to reduce 

the rate of conflict. During the past 20 

years, wolf packs have been unable to 

persist in areas intensively used for 

livestock production, primarily because 

of agency control of problem wolves and 

illegal killing. 

Furthermore, many of the more 

isolated primary habitat patches that the 

Carroll model predicted as currently 

suitable were predicted to be unsuitable 

by the year 2025, indicating they were 

likely on the lower end of what ranked 

as suitable habitat in that model (Carroll 

et al. 2006, p. 32). Because these types 

of areas were typically small and 

isolated from the core population 

segments, we do not believe they are 

currently suitable habitat based upon on 

our data on wolf pack persistence for 

the past 10 years (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 

788; Service et al. 1999–2006, Figure 1). 

Even if one views these habitat areas as 

suitable, they are not a significant 

portion of the range. 

Despite the substantial differences in 

each model’s analysis area, layers, 

inputs, and assumptions, both models 

predicted that most suitable wolf habitat 

in the NRM was in northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA, 

and in the area currently occupied by 

the NRM wolf population. They also 

indicated that these three areas were 

connected. However, northwest 

Montana and Idaho were more 

connected to each other than the GYA, 

and collectively the three core areas 

were surrounded by large areas of 

unsuitable habitat. 

These models are useful in 

understanding the relative proportions 

and distributions of various habitat 

characteristics and their relationships to 

wolf pack persistence, rather than as 

predictors of absolute acreages or areas 

that can actually be occupied by wolf 

packs. Additionally, both models 

generally support earlier predictions 

about wolf habitat suitability in the 

NRM (Service 1980, p. 9; 1987, p. 7; 

1994, p. vii). Because theoretical models 

only define suitable habitat as those 

areas that have characteristics with a 50 

percent or more chance of supporting 

wolf packs, it is impossible to give an 

exact acreage of suitable habitat that can 

actually be successfully occupied by 

wolf packs. It is important to note that 

these areas also have up to a 50 percent 

chance of not supporting wolf packs. 

We considered data on the location of 

suitable wolf habitat from a number of 

sources in developing our estimate of 

suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. 

Specifically, we considered the 

locations estimated in the 1987 wolf 

recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 23), the 

primary analysis areas analyzed in the 

1994 Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for the GYA (63,700 km2 [24,600 

mi2]) and central Idaho (53,600 km2

[20,700 mi2]) (Service 1994, p. iv), 

information derived from theoretical 

models by Carroll et al. (2006, p. 25) and 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 554), our nearly 

20 years of field experience managing 

wolves in the NRM, and locations of 

persistent wolf packs since recovery has 

been achieved. Collectively, this 

evidence leads us to concur with the 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) model’s 

predictions that the most important 

habitat attributes for wolf pack 

persistence are forest cover, public land, 

high elk density, and low livestock 

density. Therefore, we believe that 

Oakleaf’s calculations of the amount 

and distribution of suitable wolf habitat 

available for persistent wolf pack 

formation, in the parts of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming analyzed, 

represents the most reasonably realistic 

prediction of suitable wolf habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. We do 

not predict that changes in habitat 

quantity, quality, and distribution of 

suitable habitat nor land-uses in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of range in the NRM DPS will 

threaten wolf population recovery. 

However, Oakleaf predicted that most of 

the suitable habitat in the GYA recovery 

area outside the National Parks is in 

northwestern Wyoming. Additionally, 

an important component of suitable 

habitat is a reduction or lack of risk to 

excessive human-caused mortality. 

Therefore, that area of northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks 

that is listed as ‘‘predatory animal’’

under Wyoming state law and plan 

would sustain such a high level of 

excessive human-caused mortality that 

otherwise suitable wolf habitat there 

would be rendered unsuitable and the 

range of the GYA segment of the NRM 

wolf population would fall below that 

needed to assure its continued existence 

into the future. 

The area that we conclude is suitable 

habitat is generally depicted in 

Oakleaf’s et al. (2006) map on page 559. 

Although some areas outside this 

depiction have been temporarily 

occupied and used by wolves, or even 

packs, we consider them to be 

unsuitable habitat because wolf packs 

have generally failed to persist there 

long enough to be categorized as 

breeding pairs and successfully 

contribute toward our recovery goals. 

Generally this area of suitable habitat is 

located in western Montana, Idaho 

north of Interstate 84, and the NW 

corner of Wyoming, east of state 

highway 120, along the western border 

of the Wind River Reservation, and 

USDA Forest Service lands north of 

Boulder, WY. Although Carroll 

determined there may be some 

potentially suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM DPS outside of Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming, we believe it is 

marginally suitable at best and is 

insignificant to wolf population 

recovery because it occurs in small 

isolated fragmented areas. Therefore, we 

consider such areas as containing 

unsuitable habitat and that dispersing 

wolves attempting to colonize those 

areas are unlikely to significantly 

contribute to population recovery. 

Significant Portion of Range—We 

determined whether a portion of the 

species range is significant based on the 

biological needs of the species and the 

nature of the threats to the species. As 

stated above, the factors we used to 

determine significance include, but may 

not be limited to the following: quality, 

quantity, and distribution of habitat 

relative to the biological requirements of 

the species; the historic value of the 

habitat to the species; the frequency of 

use of the habitat; the uniqueness or 

importance of the habitat for other 

reasons, such as breeding, feeding, 

migration, wintering, or suitability for 

population expansion; genetic diversity 

(the loss of genetically based diversity 

may substantially reduce the ability of 

the species to respond and adapt to 

future environmental changes or 

perturbations); and other biological 

factors. In determining whether a 

portion of a species’ range is significant 

we have also considered the portion’s 

contribution to the representation 

(involves conserving the breadth of the 

genetic makeup of the species to 

conserve its adaptive capabilities; 

populations in peripheral areas may be 

important in terms of affecting future 

evolutionary processes), resilience (a 

species ability to recover from periodic 

disturbances or environmental 

variability; this is often related to 

habitat quality because it is assumed 

that the species is most resilient in its 

best habitat), or redundancy (ensuring a 

sufficient number of populations to 

provide a margin of safety for the 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events) of the species as a whole. 

After careful examination of the NRM 

DPS in the context of our definition of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6119 

‘‘significant portion of the range’’ we 

have determined that portions of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming each constitute 

a biologically significant portion of the 

NRM DPS because: (1) Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming contain the lion’s share of 

suitable habitat within the DPS 

(approximately 96 percent of suitable 

habitat within the DPS according to 

Carroll (2006) (see Factor A below); (2) 

the suitable habitat within portions of 

these 3 States is of sufficient quality, 

extent, and distribution to support a 

viable wolf metapopulation (Service 

1980, pp. 12–13; Service 1987, pp. 12, 

23; Service 1994, pp. v, 3:1–109, 4:1–

103; Carroll et al. 2003, p. 541; Carroll 

et al. 2006, p. 32; Oakleaf et al. 2006, 

pp. 70–71); (3) suitable habitat in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming currently 

support all of the known wolf breeding 

pairs in the NRM (Service et al. 2006, 

Figure 1); and (4) maintenance of at 

least 30 breeding pairs and 300 wolves 

well distributed among these States, 

long considered necessary to maintain a 

viable wolf population in the NRM 

(Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, pp. 

6:74–75; Bangs 2002, pp. 1–7), requires 

maintenance of wolf breeding pairs in 

each State. The ability to declare the 

NRM wolf population recovered at such 

relatively modest recovery goals is 

dependent as much on its overall 

distribution as simply maintaining at 

least 30 breeding pairs and at least 300 

wolves in the three recovery areas/ 

states. Therefore, that is the reason a 

significant portion of range is dependent 

on each of the three states contributing 

its share of suitable habitat. Current 

predatory animal status in Wyoming 

would jeopardize the GYA significant 

portion of range and the overall NRM 

wolf population. Thus, if Wyoming fails 

to modify its regulatory framework, the 

Act’s protections will be necessary to 

ensure the GYA portion of the NRM 

wolf population is maintained above 

recovery levels into the foreseeable 

future. 

Suitable habitat within the occupied 

area, particularly between the 

population segments, is important to 

maintain the overall population and is 

a significant portion of the range in the 

DPS. Habitat on the outer edge of the 

metapopulation is not capable of 

supporting wolf breeding pairs, is 

insignificant to maintaining the NRM 

wolf population’s viability, and is not a 

significant portion of the range. 

Oakleaf et al. (2006, p. 559) predicted 

that roughly 148,599 km2 (57,374 mi2) 

or 87 percent of Wyoming’s, Idaho’s, 

and Montana’s suitable habitat was 

within the area we describe as the area 

currently occupied by the NRM wolf 

population. Substantial threats to this 

area would have the effect of 

threatening the viability of the NRM 

wolf population. These core areas are 

necessary for maintaining a viable, selfsustaining, and evolving representative 

metapopulation in order for the NRM 

wolf population to persist into the 

foreseeable future. We believe the 

remaining unoccupied, roughly 13 

percent, of theoretical suitable wolf 

habitat (as described by Oakleaf et al. 

2006, p. 561) is not capable of 

supporting wolf breeding pairs, is 

insignificant to maintaining the NRM 

wolf population’s viability, and is not a 

significant portion of the range. We 

nevertheless considered potential 

threats to this area. 

Additionally, the portions of Oregon, 

Washington, and Utah within the DPS 

are not a significant portion of the NRM 

DPS because: (1) These portions of 

Oregon, Washington, and Utah contain 

only about 4 percent of suitable habitat 

within the DPS (Carroll 2005); (2) 

habitat in these States is generally lower 

quality and more fragmented (Carroll et 

al. 2006, p. 541); (3) Oregon, 

Washington, and Utah do not currently 

support any wolf packs (although, on 

occasion, a few dispersing wolves have 

been documented in these areas) 

(Service et al. 1989–2006, Tables 1–3); 

and (4) if wolf packs did form in these 

areas, they might contribute to a viable 

wolf population in the NRM, but would 

not be essential for its continued 

existence. 

In summary, a total of about 275,533 

km2 (106,384 mi2) of occupied habitat in 

parts of western Montana (125,208 km2

[48,343 mi2]), Idaho (116,309 km2

[44,907 mi2]), and northwestern 

Wyoming (34,017 km2 [13,134 mi2]) 

(Service et al. 2005, Figure 1) are a 

significant portion of range in the NRM 

DPS. All other areas in the NRM DPS 

are not a significant portion of range. 

This area is roughly western Montana 

west of I–15 and North of I–90, Idaho 

north of I–84 and in Wyoming west of 

state highway 120, along the western 

border of the Wind River Reservation, 

and USDA Forest Service lands north of 

Boulder, WY to the Idaho border. More 

specifically, this area of northwestern 

Wyoming is described as: the junction 

of U.S. Highway 120 and the Wyoming/ 

Montana State line; running southerly 

along state Highway 120 to the Greybull 

River; southwesterly up said river to the 

Wood River; running southwesterly up 

said river to the U.S. Forest Service 

boundary; following the U.S. Forest 

Service boundary southerly to the 

northern boundary of the Wind River 

Indian Reservation; following the 

Reservation boundary westerly, then 

southerly across U.S. Highway 26/287 to 

the Continental Divide; following the 

Continental Divide southeasterly to 

Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; following 

the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek and 

then Boulder Creek westerly to the U.S. 

Forest Service boundary; following the 

U.S. Forest Service boundary 

northwesterly to its intersection with 

U.S. Highway 189/191; following U.S. 

Highway 189/91 northwesterly to the 

intersection with Wyoming state 

highway 22 in the town of Jackson; 

following Wyoming state highway 22 

westerly to the Wyoming/Idaho State 

line. 

The significant portion of range for 

the NRM wolf population includes 

habitat where there are large blocks of 

contiguous public land; habitat is 

primarily forest in Temperate Steppe 

Regime Mountains (Bailey 1995); elk 

and/or white-tailed and mule deer are 

common; livestock are primarily cattle, 

grazed seasonally, and are at lower 

density than on private land; road 

density is low; and human presence is 

low or seasonal. The amount, 

connectivity, and location of these 

habitat characteristics in western 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA is 

sufficient to support a metapopulation 

of at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 

gray wolves equitably distributed in 

western Montana, central Idaho and 

northwestern Wyoming. These areas in 

the NRM DPS are depicted in Figure 2. 

We do not predict that changes in 

habitat quantity, quality, or distribution 

of suitable habitat nor land-uses in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of range in the NRM DPS will 

threaten wolf population recovery. 

Unoccupied Suitable Habitat—Habitat 

suitability modeling indicates the NRM 

core recovery areas are atypical of other 

habitats in the western United States 

because suitable habitat in those core 

areas occurs in such large contiguous 

blocks (Service 1987, p. 7; Larson 2004, 

p. 49; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 35; Oakleaf 

et al. 2006, p. 559). It is likely that 

without core refugia areas like YNP and 

the central Idaho wilderness that 

provide a steady influx of dispersing 

wolves, other potentially suitable wolf 

habitat would not be capable of 

sustaining wolf packs. Some habitat 

ranked by models as suitable that is 

adjacent to core refugia may be able to 

support wolf packs, while some 

theoretically suitable habitat that is 

farther away from a strong source of 

dispersing wolves may not be able to 

support persistent packs. This fact is 

important to consider as suitable 

habitat, as defined by the Carroll (et al. 

2006, p. 30) and Oakleaf (et al. 2006, p. 

559) models, only has a 50 percent or 

greater chance of being successfully 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

occupied by wolf packs. Therefore, 

model predictions regarding habitat 

suitability do not always translate into 

successful wolf occupancy and wolf 

breeding pairs. 

Strips and smaller (less than 2,600 

km2 [1,000 mi2]) patches of theoretically 

suitable habitat (Carroll et al. 2006, p. 

34; Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 559) (typically 

isolated mountain ranges) often possess 

higher mortality risk for wolves because 

of their enclosure by, and proximity to, 

areas of high mortality risk. This 

phenomenon, in which the quality and 

quantity of suitable habitat is 

diminished because of interactions with 

surrounding less-suitable habitat, is 

known as an edge effect (Mills 1995, pp. 

400–401). Edge effects are exacerbated 

in small habitat patches with high 

perimeter-to-area ratios (i.e., those that 

are long and narrow, like isolated 

mountain ranges) and in long-distance 

dispersing species, like wolves, because 

they are more likely to encounter 

surrounding unsuitable habitat 

(Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2128). 

Because of edge effects, some habitat 

areas outside the core areas may rank as 

suitable in models but are unlikely to 

actually be successfully occupied by 

wolf packs. For these reasons, we 

believe that the NRM wolf population 

will remain centered in the three 

recovery areas. These core population 

segments will continue to provide a 

constant source of dispersing wolves 

into surrounding areas, supplementing 

wolf packs in adjacent but less secure 

suitable habitat. 

Currently Occupied Habitat—The area 

‘‘currently occupied’’ by the NRM wolf 

population was calculated by drawing a 

line around the outer points of radiotelemetry locations of all known wolf 

pack territories in 2004 (n=110) (Service 

et al. 2005, Figure 1). We defined 

occupied wolf habitat as that area 

confirmed as being used by resident 

wolves to raise pups or that is 

consistently used by two or more 

territorial wolves for longer than 1 

month (Service 1994, pp. 6:5–6). We 

relied upon 2004 wolf monitoring data 

(Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). The 

overall distribution of wolf packs has 

been similar since 2000, despite a wolf 

population that has more than doubled 

(Service et al. 2001–2006, Figure 1; 

Bangs et al. in pressb). Because the 

States, except Wyoming, have 

committed to maintain a wolf 

population above the minimum 

recovery levels (first achieved in 2000) 

we expect this general distribution will 

be maintained. We do not believe the 

Wyoming state law and plan provide 

enough assurance that the significant 

portion of range outside the National 

Parks in northwestern Wyoming would 

remain occupied by enough wolf 

breeding pairs to maintain that segment 

of the metapopulation above recovery 

levels. However, if Wyoming does not 

modify its management plan and law, 

that portion of the wolf population will 

be maintained through the protections 

afforded by the Act in the significant 

portion of the wolves’ range outside of 

the National Parks in Wyoming. 

Occupied habitat changed little (about 5 

percent) from 2004 (275,533 km2

[106,384 mi2]) to 2005 (260,535 km2

[100,593 mi2]) (Service et al. 2006, 

Figure 1), so we used the currently 

occupied habitat analysis from the 

February 8, 2006 ANPR (71 FR 6634) for 

this proposed rule (Bangs et al. in 

pressb). 

We included areas between the core 

recovery segments as occupied wolf 

habitat because they are important for 

connectivity between segments even 

though wolf packs did not persist in 

certain portions of these areas. While 

models ranked some of this habitat as 

unsuitable, those intervening areas are 

important to maintaining the 

metapopulation structure because 

dispersing wolves routinely travel 

through those areas (Service 1994, pp. 

6:5–6; Bangs 2002, p. 3). This would 

include areas such as the Flathead 

Valley and other smaller valleys 

intensively used for agriculture, and a 

few of the smaller, isolated mountain 

ranges surrounded by agricultural lands 

in west-central Montana. 

As of the end of 2004, we estimated 

approximately 275,533 km2 (106,384 

mi2) of occupied habitat in parts of 

Montana (125,208 km2 [48,343 mi2]), 

Idaho (116,309 km2 [44,907 mi2]), and 

Wyoming (34,017 km2 [13,134 mi2]) 

(Service et al. 2005, Figure 1). Although 

currently occupied habitat includes 

some prairie (4,488 km2 [1,733 mi2]) and 

some high desert (24,478 km2 [9,451 

mi2]), wolf packs did not use these 

habitat types successfully (Service et al. 

2005, Figure 1). Since 1986, no 

persistent wolf pack has had a majority 

of its home range in high desert or 

prairie habitat. Landownership in the 

occupied habitat area is 183,485 km2

(70,844 mi2) Federal (67 percent); 

12,217 km2 (4,717 mi2) State (4.4 

percent); 3,064 km2 (1,183 mi2) Tribal 

(1.7 percent); and 71,678 km2 (27,675 

mi2) private (26 percent) (Service et al. 

2005, Figure 1). 

We determined that the current wolf 

population resembles a three-segment 

metapopulation and that the overall area 

used by the NRM wolf population has 

not significantly expanded since the 

population achieved recovery. Stagnant 

distribution patterns indicate there is 

probably limited suitable habitat for the 

NRM wolf population to expand 

significantly beyond its current borders. 

Carroll’s model predicted that 165,503 

km2 (63,901 mi2) of suitable habitat (62 

percent) was within the occupied area; 

however, the model’s remaining 

potentially suitable habitat (38 percent) 

was often fragmented and in smaller, 

more isolated patches (Carroll et al. 

2006, p. 35). 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming must 

each manage for 15 breeding pairs and 

maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 

100 wolves in mid-winter to ensure 

long-term viability of the NRM gray wolf 

population. The NRM wolf population 

occupies nearly 100 percent of the 

recovery areas recommended in the 

1987 recovery plan (i.e., central Idaho, 

the GYA, and the northwestern Montana 

recovery areas) (Service 1987, p. 23) and 

nearly 100 percent of the primary 

analysis areas (the areas where suitable 

habitat was believed to exist and the 

wolf population would live) analyzed 

for wolf reintroduction in central Idaho 

and the GYA (Service 1994, p. 1:6). 

Because of this success and the 

continued management of public lands 

in the significant portion of range in the 

NRM DPS for high ungulate densities, 

low to moderate road and livestock 

densities, and other factors contributing 

to successful wolf occupancy, we 

conclude that the threats to habitat 

under Factor A are not substantial 

enough to threaten or endanger wolf 

populations within the NRM in the 

foreseeable future. 

Potential Threats Affecting a 

Significant Portion of Range—

Establishing a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM did not require 

land-use restrictions or curtailment of 

traditional land-uses because there was 

enough suitable habitat, enough wild 

ungulates, and sufficiently few livestock 

conflicts to recover wolves under 

existing conditions (Bangs et al. 2004, 

pp. 95–96). We do not believe that any 

traditional land-use practices in the 

NRM need be modified to maintain a 

recovered NRM wolf population into the 

foreseeable future. We do not anticipate 

overall habitat changes in the NRM 

occurring at a magnitude that will 

threaten wolf recovery in the foreseeable 

future because 70 percent of the suitable 

habitat is in public ownership that is 

managed for multiple uses, including 

maintenance of viable wildlife 

populations (Carroll et al. 2003, p. 542; 

Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 560). 

The GYA and central Idaho recovery 

areas, 63,714 km2 (24,600 mi2) and 

53,613 km2 (20,700 mi2), respectively, 

are primarily composed of public lands 

(Service 1994, p. iv) and are the largest 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6121 

contiguous blocks of suitable habitat 

within the proposed NRM DPS. Central 

Idaho and the GYA provide secure 

habitat and abundant ungulate 

populations with about 99,300 

ungulates in the GYA and 241,400 in 

central Idaho (Service 1994, pp. viii–ix). 

These areas provide optimal suitable 

habitat to help maintain a viable wolf 

population (Service 1994, p. 1:4). The 

central Idaho recovery area has 24,281 

km2 (9,375 mi2) of designated 

wilderness at its core (Service 1994, p. 

3:85). The GYA recovery area has a core 

including over 8,094 km2 (3,125 mi2) in 

YNP and, although less useful to wolves 

due to high elevation, about 16,187 km2

(6,250 mi2) of designated wilderness 

(Service 1994, p. 3:45). These areas are 

in public ownership, and no foreseeable 

habitat-related threats would prevent 

them from anchoring a wolf population 

that exceeds recovery levels. 

While the northwestern Montana 

recovery area (>49,728 km2 [>19,200 

mi2]) (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 786) also has 

a core of suitable habitat (Glacier 

National Park and the Bob Marshal 

Wilderness Complex), it is not as high 

quality, as large, or as contiguous as that 

in either central Idaho or GYA. The 

primary reason for this is that ungulates 

do not winter throughout the area 

because it is higher in elevation. Most 

wolf packs in northwestern Montana 

live west of the Continental Divide, 

where forest habitats are a fractured mix 

of private and public lands (Service et 

al. 1989–2006, Figure 1). This mix 

exposes wolves to higher levels of 

human-caused mortality, and thus this 

area supports smaller and fewer wolf 

packs. Wolf dispersal into northwestern 

Montana from the more stable resident 

packs in the core protected area (largely 

the North Fork of the Flathead River 

along the eastern edge of Glacier 

National Park and the few large river 

drainages in the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness Complex) helps to maintain 

that segment of the NRM wolf 

population. Wolves also disperse into 

northwestern Montana from Canada and 

some packs have trans-boundary 

territories, helping to maintain the NRM 

population (Boyd et al. 1995). 

Conversely, wolf dispersal from 

northwestern Montana into Canada, 

where wolves are much less protected, 

continues to draw some wolves into 

vacant or low-density habitats in 

Canada where they are subject to legal 

hunting (Bangs et al. 1998, p. 790). 

Despite mortalities that occur in 

Canada, the trans-boundary movements 

of wolves and wolf packs led to the 

establishment of wolves in Montana, 

and will continue to have an overall 

positive effect on wolf genetic diversity 

and demography in the northwest 

Montana segment of the NRM wolf 

population. 

Within occupied suitable habitat, 

enough public land exists so that NRM 

wolf populations can be maintained 

above recovery levels. Most important 

suitable wolf habitat is in public 

ownership, and the States and Federal 

land-management agencies are likely to 

continue to manage habitat that will 

provide forage and security for high 

ungulate populations, sufficient cover 

for wolf security, moderate and seasonal 

levels of livestock grazing, and low road 

density. Carroll et al. (2003, p. 541; 

2006, p. 31) predicted future wolf 

habitat suitability under several 

scenarios through 2025, including 

increased human population growth 

and road development. Those threats 

were not predicted to alter wolf habitat 

suitability in the proposed NRM DPS 

enough to cause the wolf population to 

fall below recovery levels in the 

foreseeable future. 

The recovery plan (Service 1987, p. 

13), the metapopulation structure 

recommended by the 1994 EIS (Service 

1994, pp. 6:74–75), and subsequent 

investigations (Bangs 2002, p. 3) 

recognize the importance of habitat 

connectivity between northwestern 

Montana, central Idaho, and the GYA. 

There appears to be enough habitat 

connectivity between occupied wolf 

habitat in Canada, northwestern 

Montana, Idaho, and (to a lesser extent) 

the GYA to ensure exchange of 

sufficient numbers of dispersing wolves 

to maintain demographic and genetic 

diversity in the NRM wolf 

metapopulation (Oakleaf et al. 2006, p. 

559; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 32; Wayne 

2005; Boyd 2006). To date, from radiotelemetry monitoring, we have 

documented routine wolf movement 

between Canada and northwestern 

Montana (Pletscher et al. 1991, p. 544; 

Boyd and Pletscher 1999, pp. 1095–

1096), occasional wolf movement 

between Idaho and Montana, and at 

least 11 wolves have traveled into the 

GYA (Wayne 2005; Boyd et al. 1995, pp. 

iii–3–1; Boyd 2006). Because we know 

only about the 30 percent of the wolf 

population that has been radio-collared, 

additional dispersal has undoubtedly 

occurred. This documentation 

demonstrates that current habitat 

conditions allow dispersing wolves to 

occasionally travel from one recovery 

area to another. Finally, the Montana 

State plan (the key State regarding 

connectivity) commits to maintaining 

natural connectivity to ensure the 

genetic integrity of the NRM wolf 

population by promoting land uses, 

such as traditional ranching, that 

enhance wildlife habitat and 

conservation. 

Another important factor in 

maintaining wolf populations is the 

native ungulate population. Wild 

ungulate prey in these three areas are 

composed mainly of elk, white-tailed 

deer, mule deer, moose, and (only in the 

GYA) bison. Bighorn sheep, mountain 

goats, and pronghorn antelope also are 

common but not important, at least to 

date, as wolf prey. In total, 100,000–

250,000 wild ungulates are estimated in 

each NRM State where wolf packs 

currently exist (Service 1994, pp. viii–

ix). The States in the NRM DPS have 

managed resident ungulate populations 

for decades and maintain them at 

densities that would easily support a 

recovered wolf population. We know of 

no foreseeable condition that would 

cause a decline in ungulate populations 

significant enough to threaten the 

recovered status of the NRM wolf 

population. 

Cattle and sheep are at least twice as 

numerous as wild ungulates even on 

public lands (Service 1994, p. viii). The 

only areas lacking livestock large 

enough to support wolf packs are YNP, 

Glacier National Park, some adjacent 

USFS Wilderness Areas, and parts of 

Wilderness Areas in central Idaho and 

northwestern Montana. Consequently, 

every wolf pack outside these areas has 

interacted with some livestock, 

primarily cattle. Livestock and livestock 

carrion are routinely used by wolves, 

but management discourages chronic 

use of livestock as prey. Conflict 

between wolves and livestock has 

resulted in the annual removal of some 

wolves (Bangs and Shivik 1991, pg 2; 

Bangs et al. 1995, p. 131; 2004, p. 92; 

2005a, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 2006, 

Table 5a). This issue is discussed 

further under Factors D and E. 

Therefore, except for Wyoming’s 

predatory animal status, we do not 

foresee that impacts to suitable and 

potentially suitable habitat will occur at 

levels that will significantly affect wolf 

numbers or distribution or affect 

population recovery and long-term 

viability in the NRM. Occupied suitable 

habitat is secured by core recovery areas 

in northwestern Montana, central Idaho, 

and the GYA, except for the area of 

northwestern Wyoming outside the 

National Parks. These areas include 

Glacier National Park, Grand Teton 

National Park, YNP, numerous USFS 

Wilderness Areas, and other State and 

Federal lands. These areas will continue 

to be managed for high ungulate 

densities, moderate rates of seasonal 

livestock grazing, moderate-to-low road 

densities associated with abundant 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

native prey, low potential for livestock 

conflicts, and security from excessive 

unregulated human-caused mortality. 

The core recovery areas also are within 

proximity to one another and have 

enough public land between them to 

ensure sufficient connectivity into the 

foreseeable future. 

No significant threats to the 

significant portion of range in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming are known to 

exist in the foreseeable future, except for 

Wyoming’s predatory animal status. 

These areas have long been recognized 

as the most likely areas to successfully 

support 30 or more breeding pairs of 

wolves, comprising 300 or more 

individuals in a metapopulation with 

some genetic exchange between 

subpopulations (Service 1980, pp. 1–4; 

1987, p. 23; 1994, pp. 6, 74–75; 71 FR 

6634, February 8, 2006). Unsuitable 

habitat and small fragmented areas of 

suitable habitat away from these core 

areas, largely represent geographic 

locations where wolves are likely to 

persist in low numbers, if at all. 

Although such areas may historically 

have contained suitable habitat (and 

may contribute to a healthy wolf 

population in the NRM), wolf packs in 

these areas are not important or 

necessary for maintaining a viable, selfsustaining, and evolving representative 

wolf population in the NRM into the 

foreseeable future. These areas are not a 

significant portion of the range for the 

NRM wolf population. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

As detailed below, overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes have not been a 

significant threat to the NRM wolf 

population. Mortality rates caused by 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes are not 

anticipated to exceed sustainable levels 

following delisting. These activities 

have not been a threat to the viability of 

the wolves in the past and we have no 

reason to believe that they would 

become a threat to the viability of the 

wolves in the foreseeable future. 

However, as discussed later in Factor D, 

we have determined that human-caused 

mortality associated with Wyoming’s 

current management strategy for treating 

delisted wolves as ‘‘predatory animals’’

would exceed sustainable levels if the 

species were delisted in the State. 

Since their listing under the Act, no 

gray wolves have been legally killed or 

removed from the wild in the NRM for 

commercial, recreational, or educational 

purposes. In the NRM, about 3 percent 

of the wolves captured for scientific 

research, nonlethal control, and 

monitoring have been accidentally 

killed (Bangs et al. in pressa). Some 

wolves may have been illegally killed 

for commercial use of the pelts and 

other parts, but we believe illegal 

commercial trafficking in wolf pelts or 

wolf parts is rare. Illegal capture of 

wolves for commercial breeding 

purposes also is possible, but we have 

no evidence that it occurs in the NRM. 

We believe the prohibition against 

‘‘take’’ provided for by Section 9 of the 

Act has discouraged and minimized the 

illegal killing of wolves for commercial 

or recreational purposes. Although 

Federal penalties under Section 11 of 

the Act will not apply if delisting is 

finalized, other Federal laws will still 

protect wildlife in National Parks and 

on other Federal lands (Service 1994, 

pp. 1:5–9). In addition, the States and 

Tribes have similar laws and regulations 

that protect game or trophy animals 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, and educational 

purposes (See Factor D for a more 

detailed discussion of this issue and 

world wide web links to applicable 

State laws and regulations). We believe 

these laws will continue to provide a 

strong deterrent to illegal killing of 

wolves by the public as they have been 

effective in State-led conservation 

programs for other resident wildlife 

such as black bears and mountain lions. 

In addition, the State fish and game 

agencies, National Parks, other Federal 

agencies, and most Tribes have welldistributed experienced cadres of 

professional law enforcement officers to 

help enforce State, Federal, and Tribal 

wildlife regulations (See Factor D). 

Scientific Research and Monitoring—

From 1984 to 2005, the Service and our 

cooperating partners captured about 814 

NRM wolves for monitoring, nonlethal 

control, and research purposes with 23 

accidental deaths. If NRM wolves were 

delisted, the States, National Parks, and 

Tribes would continue to capture and 

radio-collar wolves in the NRM area for 

monitoring and research purposes in 

accordance with their State wolf 

management plans (See ‘‘Factor D’’ and 

‘‘Post-Delisting Monitoring’’ sections). 

We expect that capture-caused mortality 

by Federal agencies, universities, States, 

and Tribes conducting wolf monitoring, 

nonlethal control, and research will 

remain below 3 percent of the wolves 

captured, and will be an insignificant 

source of mortality to the wolf 

population. 

Education—We are unaware of any 

wolves that have been removed from the 

wild for solely educational purposes in 

recent years. Wolves that are used for 

such purposes are usually the captivereared offspring of wolves that were 

already in captivity for other reasons. 

However, States may get requests to 

place wolves that would otherwise be 

euthanized in captivity for research or 

educational purposes. Such requests 

have been, and will continue to be, rare; 

would be closely regulated by the State 

wildlife management agencies through 

the requirement for State permits for 

protected species; and would not 

substantially increase human-caused 

wolf mortality rates. 

Commercial and Recreational Uses—

In Idaho and Montana, any legal take 

after delisting would be regulated by 

State or Tribal law so that it would not 

threaten each State’s share of the NRM 

wolf population (See Factor D). 

Currently, Wyoming State law does not 

regulate human-caused mortality to 

wolves throughout most of Wyoming 

(see Factor D for a more detailed 

description of this issue). This 

unaddressed threat was one of the 

primary reasons the Service did not 

approve the final Wyoming Plan (71 FR 

43410, August 1, 2006; WGFD 2003; 

Williams 2004). If Wyoming changes its 

law and plan in a satisfactory manner, 

this will no longer be a threat. 

Because wolves are highly territorial, 

wolf populations in saturated habitat 

naturally limit further population 

increases through wolf-to-wolf conflict 

or dispersal to unoccupied habitat. Wolf 

populations can maintain themselves 

despite a sustained human-caused 

mortality rate of 30 percent or more per 

year (Keith 1983; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 

182–184), and human-caused mortality 

can replace up to 70 percent of natural 

mortality (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 186). 

Wolf pups can be successfully raised by 

other pack members and breeding 

individuals can be quickly replaced by 

other wolves (Brainerd 2006). 

Collectively, these factors means that 

wolf populations are quite resilient to 

human-caused mortality if it can be 

regulated. 

Montana and Idaho would regulate 

human-caused mortality to manipulate 

wolf distribution and overall population 

size to help reduce conflicts with 

livestock and, in some cases, human 

hunting of big game, just as they do for 

other resident species of wildlife. Idaho 

and Montana, and some Tribes in those 

States, would allow regulated public 

harvest of surplus wolves in the NRM 

wolf population for commercial and 

recreational purposes by regulated 

private and guided hunting and 

trapping. Such take and any commercial 

use of wolf pelts or other parts would 

be regulated by State or Tribal law (See 

discussion of State laws and plans 

under Factor D). The regulated take of 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6123 

those surplus wolves would not affect 

wolf population recovery or viability in 

the NRM because the States of Montana 

and Idaho (and Wyoming, if its plan is 

approved in the future) would allow 

such take only for wolves that are 

surplus to achieving the State’s 

commitment to maintaining a recovered 

population. 

State laws in Washington, Oregon, 

and Utah do not allow public take of 

wolves for recreational or commercial 

purposes. Regulated hunting and 

trapping are traditional and effective 

wildlife management tools that may be 

applied to help achieve State and Tribal 

wolf management objectives as needed. 

In summary, the States have 

organizations and regulatory and 

enforcement systems in place to limit 

human-caused mortality of wolves 

(except for Wyoming at this time). 

Montana’s and Idaho’s State plans 

commit these States to regulate all take 

of wolves, including that for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, and 

educational purposes, and will 

incorporate any Tribal harvest as part of 

the overall level of allowable take to 

ensure that the wolf population does not 

fall below the NRM wolf population’s 

numerical and distributional recovery 

levels. Wyoming’s current State 

regulatory framework would not 

adequately regulate human-caused 

mortality so Wyoming’s portion of a 

recovered wolf population will be 

maintained through the protections 

afforded by the Act, unless Wyoming 

updates its State law and management 

plan. The States and Tribes have 

humane and professional animal 

handling protocols and trained 

personnel that will ensure that 

population monitoring and research 

results in limited unintentional 

mortalities. Furthermore, the State 

permitting process for captive wildlife 

and animal care will ensure that few, if 

any wolves will be removed from the 

wild solely for educational purposes. . 

We do not predict that changes in 

threats to wolves from overuse for 

commercial, scientific or educational 

purposes in all or a significant portion 

of range in the NRM DPS will threaten 

wolf population recovery for the 

foreseeable future. In the significant 

portion of the range in northwestern 

Wyoming, either an approved state law 

and plan or the Act’s protection will 

provide the necessary conservation 

measures and adequate regulation of 

these potential threats into the 

foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

As discussed in detail below, a wide 

range of diseases may affect the NRM 

wolves. However, no diseases are of 

such magnitude that the population is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. Similarly, 

predation does not pose a significant 

threat to the NRM wolf population. The 

rates of mortality caused by disease and 

predation are well within acceptable 

limits, and we do not expect those rates 

to change appreciably if NRM wolves 

are delisted. More information on 

disease and predation are discussed 

below. 

Disease—The NRM wolves are 

exposed to a wide variety of diseases 

and parasites that are common 

throughout North America. Many 

diseases (viruses and bacteria, many 

protozoa and fungi) and parasites 

(helminthes and arthropods) have been 

reported for the gray wolf, and several 

of them have had significant, but 

temporary impacts during wolf recovery 

in the 48 conterminous States (Brand et 

al. 1995, p. 428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–

214). The EIS on gray wolf 

reintroduction identified disease impact 

as an issue, but did not evaluate it 

further, as it appeared to be insignificant 

(Service 1994, pp. 1:20–21). 

Infectious disease induced by 

parasitic organisms is a normal feature 

of the life of wild animals, and the 

typical wild animal hosts a broad multispecies community of potentially 

harmful parasitic organisms (Wobeser 

2002, p. 160). We fully anticipate that 

these diseases and parasites will follow 

the same pattern seen in other areas of 

North America (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

428–429; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 445; 

Kreeger 2003, pp. 202–204) and will not 

significantly threaten wolf population 

viability. Nevertheless, because these 

diseases and parasites, and perhaps 

others, have the potential to impact wolf 

population distribution and 

demographics, careful monitoring (as 

per the State wolf management plans) 

will track such events. Should such an 

outbreak occur, human-caused mortality 

would be regulated over an appropriate 

area and time period to ensure wolf 

population numbers in the NRM DPS 

are maintained above recovery levels in 

those portions of the DPS. 

CPV infects wolves, domestic dogs 

(Canis familiaris), foxes (Vulpes spp.), 

coyotes, skunks (Mephitis mephitis), 

and raccoons (Procyon lotor). The 

population impacts of CPV occur via 

diarrhea-induced dehydration leading to 

abnormally high pup mortality 

(Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61). Clinical CPV is 

characterized by severe hemorrhagic 

diarrhea and vomiting; debility and 

subsequent mortality is a result of 

dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, 

and shock. The CPV has been detected 

in nearly every wolf population in 

North America including Alaska 

(Johnson et al. 1994, p. 270; Bailey et al. 

1995, p. 441; Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; 

Kreeger 2003, pp. 210–211), and 

exposure in wolves is thought to be 

almost universal. Currently, nearly 100 

percent of the wolves handled by 

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) (Atkinson 2005) had blood 

antibodies indicating exposure to CPV. 

The CPV contributed to low pup 

survival in the northern range of YNP in 

1999, and was suspected to have done 

so again in 2005 (Smith et al. 2006, p. 

244). Preliminary monitoring data 

suggest 2006 pup production and 

survival in YNP returned to normal 

levels (Smith 2006). The impact of such 

disease outbreaks to the overall NRM 

wolf population has been localized and 

temporary, as has been documented 

elsewhere (Bailey et al. 1995, p. 441; 

Brand et al. 1995, p. 421; Kreeger 2003, 

pp. 210–211). 

Canine distemper is an acute, fevercausing disease of carnivores caused by 

a paramyxo-virus (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

It is common in domestic dogs and 

some wild canids, such as coyotes and 

foxes in the NRM (Kreeger 2003, p. 209). 

The seroprevalence in North American 

wolves is about 17 percent (Kreeger 

2003, p. 209). Nearly 85 percent of 

Montana wolf blood samples analyzed 

in 2005 had blood antibodies indicating 

non-lethal exposure to canine distemper 

(Atkinson 2005). Mortality in wolves 

has been documented in Canada 

(Carbyn 1982, p. 109), Alaska (Peterson 

et al. 1984, p. 31; Bailey et al. 1995, p. 

441), and in a single Wisconsin pup 

(Wydeven and Wiedenhoeft 2003, p. 7). 

Distemper is not a major mortality factor 

in wolves, because despite exposure to 

the virus, affected wolf populations 

demonstrate good recruitment (Brand et 

al. 1995, pp. 420–421). Mortality from 

canine distemper has only been 

confirmed once in NRM wolves despite 

their high exposure to it, but we suspect 

it contributed to the high pup mortality 

documented in the northern GYA in 

spring 2005. 

Lyme disease, caused by a spirochete 

bacterium, is spread primarily by deer 

ticks (Ixodes dammini). Host species 

include humans, horses (Equus 

caballus), dogs, white-tailed deer, mule 

deer, elk, white-footed mice 

(Peromyscus leucopus), eastern 

chipmunks (Tamias striatus), coyotes, 

and wolves. Lyme disease has not been 

reported from wolves beyond the Great 

Lakes regions (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources 1999, p. 61). In those 

populations, it does not appear to cause 

adult mortality, but might be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

suppressing population growth by 

decreasing wolf pup survival. 

Sarcoptic mange is caused by a mite 

(Sarcoptes scabeii) that infests the skin. 

The irritation caused by feeding and 

burrowing mites results in intense 

itching, resulting in scratching and 

severe fur loss, which can lead to 

mortality from exposure during severe 

winter weather or secondary infections 

(Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). Advanced 

sarcoptic mange can involve the entire 

body and can cause emaciation, 

decreased flight distance, staggering, 

and death (Kreeger 2003, p. 207). In a 

long-term Alberta wolf study, higher 

wolf densities were correlated with 

increased incidence of mange, and pup 

survival decreased as the incidence of 

mange increased (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 

427–428). Mange has been shown to 

temporarily affect wolf population 

growth rates and perhaps wolf 

distribution (Kreeger 2003, p. 208). 

Mange has been detected in, and 

caused mortality to, wolves in the NRM, 

but almost exclusively in the GYA, and 

primarily east of the Continental Divide 

(Jimenez 2006). Those wolves likely 

contracted mange from coyotes or fox 

whose populations experience 

occasional outbreaks. In southwestern 

Montana, 1 of 12 packs in 2003, 4 of 17 

packs in 2004, and 11 of 18 packs in 

2005, showed evidence of mange, 

although not all members of every pack 

appeared infested (Jimenez 2006b). In 

Wyoming, east of the YNP, 1 of 8 packs 

in 2003, 2 of 9 packs in 2003 and 2004, 

and none of 13 packs in 2005, showed 

evidence of mange (Jimenez 2006). 

Mange has not been confirmed in 

wolves from Idaho or northwestern 

Montana (Jimenez 2006). 

In packs with the most severe 

infestations, pup survival appeared low, 

and some adults died (Jimenez 2006). In 

addition, we euthanized three wolves 

with severe mange. We predict that 

mange in the NRM will act as it has in 

other parts of North America (Brand et 

al. 1995, pp. 427–428; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

207–208) and not threaten wolf 

population viability. Evidence suggests 

NRM wolves will not be infested on a 

chronic population-wide level given the 

recent response of Wyoming wolf packs 

that naturally overcame a mange 

infestation. 

Dog-biting lice (Trichodectes canis) 

commonly feed on domestic dogs, but 

can infest coyotes and wolves (Schwartz 

et al. 1983, p. 372; Mech et al. 1985, p. 

404). The lice can attain severe 

infestations, particularly in pups. The 

worst infestations can result in severe 

scratching, irritated and raw skin, 

substantial hair loss particularly in the 

groin, and poor condition. While no 

wolf mortality has been confirmed, 

death from exposure and/or secondary 

infection following self-inflicted trauma, 

caused by inflammation and itching, 

appears possible. Dog-biting lice were 

first confirmed in NRM wolves on two 

members of the Battlefield pack in the 

Big Hole Valley of southwestern 

Montana in 2005, and on a wolf in 

south-central Idaho in early 2006, but 

their infestations were not severe 

(Service et al. 2006, p. 15). The source 

of this infestation is unknown, but was 

likely domestic dogs. 

Rabies, canine heartworm (Dirofilaria 

immitus), blastomycosis, brucellosis, 

neosporsis, leptospirosis, bovine 

tuberculosis, canine coronavirus, 

hookworm, tapeworm, coccidiosis, and 

canine hepatitis have all been 

documented in wild gray wolves, but 

their impacts on future wild wolf 

populations are not likely to be 

significant (Brand et al. 1995, pp. 419–

429; Johnson 1995a, pp. 5–73, 1995b, 

pp. 5–49; Mech and Kurtz 1999, p. 305; 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources 1999, p. 61; Kreeger 2003, pp. 

202–214). Canid rabies caused local 

population declines in Alaska (Ballard 

and Krausman 1997, p. 242) and may 

temporarily limit population growth or 

distribution where another species, such 

as arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus), act as 

a reservoir for the disease. Range 

expansion could provide new avenues 

for exposure to several of these diseases, 

especially canine heartworm, rabies, 

bovine tuberculosis, and possibly new 

diseases such as chronic wasting disease 

and West Nile virus, further 

emphasizing the need for vigilant 

disease monitoring programs. 

Because several of the diseases and 

parasites are known to be spread by 

wolf-to-wolf contact, their incidence 

may increase if wolf densities increase. 

However, because wolf densities appear 

to be stabilizing (Service et al. 2006, 

Table 1 & Figure 1), wolf-to-wolf 

contacts will not likely lead to a 

continuing increase in disease 

prevalence. The wolves’ exposure to 

these types of organisms may be most 

common outside of the core population 

areas, where domestic dogs are most 

common, and lowest in the core 

population areas because wolves tend to 

flow out of, not into, saturated habitats. 

Despite this dynamic, we assume that 

most NRM wolves have some exposure 

to most diseases and parasites in the 

system. Diseases or parasites have not 

been a significant threat to wolf 

population recovery in the NRM to date, 

and we have no reason to believe that 

they will become a significant threat to 

their viability in the foreseeable future. 

In terms of future monitoring, each 

State has committed to monitor the 

NRM wolf population for significant 

disease and parasite problems. These 

State wildlife health programs often 

cooperate with Federal agencies and 

universities and usually have both 

reactive and proactive wildlife health 

monitoring protocols. Reactive strategies 

are the periodic intensive investigations 

after disease or parasite problems have 

been detected through routine 

management practices, such as pelt 

examination, reports from hunters, 

research projects, or population 

monitoring. Proactive strategies often 

involve ongoing routine investigation of 

wildlife health information through 

collection and analysis of blood and 

tissue samples from all or a sub-sample 

of wildlife carcasses or live animals that 

are handled. We do not believe that 

diseases or changes in disease 

monitoring by the states or tribes in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of range in the NRM DPS will 

threaten wolf population recovery. 

Natural Predation—There are no wild 

animals that routinely prey on gray 

wolves (Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 259–

260). Occasionally wolves have been 

killed by large prey such as elk, deer, 

bison, and moose (Mech and Nelson 

1989, p. 207; Smith et al. 2006, p. 247; 

Mech and Peterson 2003, p. 134), but 

those instances are few. Since the 1980s, 

wolves in the NRM have died from 

wounds they received while attacking 

prey on about a dozen occasions (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 247). That level of 

mortality could not significantly affect 

wolf population viability or stability. 

Since NRM wolves have been 

monitored, only three wolves have been 

confirmed killed by other large 

predators. Two adults were killed by 

mountain lions, and one pup was killed 

by a grizzly bear (Jimenez 2006a). 

Wolves in the NRM inhabit the same 

areas as mountain lions, grizzly bears, 

and black bears, but conflicts rarely 

result in the death of either species. 

Wolves evolved with other large 

predators, and no other large predators 

in North America, except humans, have 

the potential to significantly impact 

wolf populations. 

Other wolves are the largest cause of 

natural predation among wolves. 

Numerous mortalities have resulted 

from territorial conflicts between wolves 

and about 3 percent of the wolf 

population is removed annually by 

territorial conflict in the NRM wolf 

population (Smith 2005). Wherever wolf 

packs occur, including the NRM, some 

low level of wolf mortality will result 

from territorial conflict. Wolf 

populations tend to regulate their own 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6125 

density. Consequently territorial conflict 

is highest in saturated habitats. That 

cause of mortality is infrequent and 

does not result in a level of mortality 

that would significantly affect a wolf 

population’s viability in the NRM 

(Smith 2005). 

Human-caused Predation—Wolves are 

very susceptible to human-caused 

mortality, especially in open habitats 

such as those that occur in the western 

United States (Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). 

An active eradication program is the 

sole reason that wolves were extirpated 

from the NRM (Weaver 1978, p. i). 

Humans kill wolves for a number of 

reasons. In all locations where people, 

livestock, and wolves coexist, some 

wolves are killed to resolve conflicts 

with livestock (Fritts et al. 2003, p. 310; 

Woodroffe et al. 2005, pp. 86–107, 345–

7). Occasionally, wolf killings are 

accidental (e.g., wolves are hit by 

vehicles, mistaken for coyotes and shot, 

or caught in traps set for other animals) 

(Bangs et al. 2005a, p. 346). Some of 

these accidental killings are reported to 

State, Tribal, and Federal authorities. 

However, many wolf killings are 

intentional, illegal, and are never 

reported to authorities. Wolves do not 

appear particularly wary of people or 

human activity, and that makes them 

very vulnerable to human-caused 

mortality (Mech and Boitani 2003, pp. 

300–302). In the NRM, mountain 

topography concentrates both wolf and 

human activity in valley bottoms (Boyd 

and Pletscher 1999, p. 1105), especially 

in winter, which increases wolf 

exposure to human-caused mortality. 

The number of illegal killings is difficult 

to estimate and impossible to accurately 

determine because they generally occur 

in areas with few witnesses. Often the 

evidence has decayed by the time the 

wolf’s carcass is discovered or the 

evidence is destroyed or concealed by 

the perpetrators. While human-caused 

mortality, including illegal killing, has 

not prevented population recovery, it 

has affected NRM wolf distribution 

(Bangs et al. 2004, p. 93). In the past 20 

years, no wolf packs have successfully 

established and persisted solely in open 

prairie or high desert habitats that are 

used for intensive agriculture 

production (Service et al. 2006, Figure 

1). 

As part of the interagency wolf 

monitoring program and various 

research projects, up to 30 percent of the 

NRM wolf population has been radiocollared since the 1980s (Bangs et al. in 

press). The annual survival rate of 

mature wolves in northwestern Montana 

and adjacent Canada from 1984 through 

1995 was 80 percent (Pletscher et al. 

1997, p. 459); 84 percent for resident 

wolves and 66 percent for dispersers. 

That study found 84 percent of wolf 

mortality to be human-caused. Bangs et 

al. (1998, p. 790) found similar 

statistics, with humans causing most of 

the wolf mortality in the NRM. Radiocollared wolves in the largest blocks of 

remote habitat without livestock, such 

as central Idaho and YNP, had annual 

survival rates around 80 percent (Smith 

et al., 2006 p. 245). Wolves outside of 

large remote areas had survival rates as 

low as 54 percent in some years (Smith 

et al. 2006, p. 245). This percentage is 

among the lower end of adult wolf 

survival rates that an isolated 

population can sustain (Fuller et al. 

2003, p. 185). 

These survival rates may be biased. 

Wolves are more likely to be radiocollared if they come into conflict with 

people, so the proportion of mortality 

caused by agency depredation control 

actions could be overestimated by radiotelemetry data. People who illegally kill 

wolves may destroy the radio-collar, so 

the proportion of illegal mortality could 

be underestimated. However, wolf 

populations have continued to expand 

in the face of ongoing levels of humancaused mortality. 

An ongoing preliminary analysis of 

the survival data among NRM radiocollared wolves (n=716) (Smith 2005) 

from 1984 through 2004 indicates that 

about 26 percent of adult-sized wolves 

die every year, so annual adult survival 

averages about 74 percent, which 

typically allows wolf population growth 

(Keith 1983, p. 66; Fuller et al. 2003, p. 

182). Humans caused just over 75 

percent of all radio-collared wolf deaths 

(Smith 2005). This type of analysis does 

not estimate the cause or rate of survival 

among pups younger than 7 months of 

age because they are too small to radiocollar. Agency control of problem 

wolves and illegal killing are the two 

largest causes of wolf death; combined 

these causes remove nearly 20 percent 

of the population annually and are 

responsible for a majority of all known 

wolf deaths (Smith et al. 2006, p. 245). 

Wolf mortality from agency control of 

problem wolves (which includes legal 

take by private individuals under 

defense of property regulations in rules 

promulgated under section 10(j) of the 

Act) is estimated to remove around 10 

percent of adult radio-collared wolves 

annually. From 1995 through 2005, 30 

wolves were legally killed by private 

citizens under Federal defense of 

property regulations (Service 1994, pp. 

2:13–14; 70 FR 1285, January 6, 2005) 

that are similar to Idaho and Montana 

State laws that would take effect and 

direct take of problem wolves by both 

the public and agencies if wolves were 

delisted. Agency control removed 396 

problem wolves from 1987 through 

2005, indicating that private citizen take 

(about 7 percent) under State defense of 

property laws would not significantly 

increase the overall rate of problem wolf 

removal (Bangs et al. in press a, pp. 19–

20). 

A comparison of the overall wolf 

population and the number of problem 

wolves removed indicates agency 

control removes, on average, about 7 

percent of the overall wolf population 

annually (Service et al. 2006, Table 5). 

Wolf mortality under State and Tribal 

defense of property regulations 

incidental to other legal activities, 

agency control of problem wolves, and 

legal hunting and trapping would be 

regulated by Montana, Idaho, and Tribes 

(and in Wyoming if it changes its law 

and management plan) if the Act’s 

protections were removed. Specifically, 

the States would ensure that recovery 

levels are met after delisting, while the 

Service would continue to have 

oversight in the significant portion of 

the range in northwestern Wyoming 

outside the National Parks unless, or 

until, the State has a statute and plan 

that adequately conserves wolves in the 

State and the northwestern Wyoming 

wolf population is delisted in a separate 

rulemaking. This issue is discussed 

further below under Factor D. 

The overall causes and rates of annual 

wolf mortality are affected by several 

variables. Wolves in higher quality 

suitable habitat, such as remote, forested 

areas with few livestock (like National 

Parks), have higher survival rates. 

Wolves in unsuitable habitat and areas 

without substantial refugia have higher 

overall mortality rates. Mortality rates 

also vary depending on whether the 

wolves are resident pack members or 

dispersers, if they have a history with 

livestock depredation, or have been 

relocated (Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1506). 

However, overall wolf mortality has 

been low enough since 1987 that the 

wolf population in the NRM has 

steadily increased. The wolf population 

is now nearly three times as numerous 

as needed to meet recovery levels and 

is distributed throughout most suitable 

habitat within the DPS (Service 1987, p. 

23; Service 1994, p. 1:6). 

If the NRM wolf population were to 

be delisted, State management would 

likely increase the mortality rate outside 

National Parks, National Wildlife 

Refuges, and Tribal reservations, from 

its current level of about 26 percent 

annually (Smith 2005). Wolf mortality 

as high as 50 percent annually may be 

sustainable (Fuller et al. 2003, p. 185). 

Idaho and Montana have the regulatory 

authorization and commitment to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

regulate human-caused mortality so that 

the wolf population remains above its 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goals. If Wyoming changes its law and 

management plan consistent with the 

Service’s recommendations, it will also 

sufficiently regulate human-caused 

mortality. If no changes occur, excessive 

human-caused mortality as allowed 

under state law would alone remain a 

threat to wolves in a significant portion 

of the range in Wyoming outside the 

National Parks. However, if a new 

Wyoming regulatory framework cannot 

be approved by the Service, then the 

Act’s protections will remain in effect 

and they will provide adequate 

assurance into the foreseeable future 

that human-caused mortality will not 

become a threat to wolves in all or a 

significant portion of their range in 

Wyoming. This issue is discussed 

further below under Factor D. 

In summary, human-caused mortality 

to adult radio-collared wolves in the 

NRM, which averages about 20 percent 

per year (Smith 2006), still allows for 

rapid wolf population growth. The 

protection of wolves under the Act 

promoted rapid initial wolf population 

growth in suitable habitat. Idaho and 

Montana have committed to continue to 

regulate human-caused mortality so that 

it does not reduce the NRM wolf 

population below recovery levels. 

Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, 

and Utah have adequate laws and 

regulations to ensure that the NRM wolf 

population remains above recovery 

levels (see Factor D). Each post-delisting 

management entity (State, Tribal, and 

Federal) has experienced and 

professional wildlife staff to ensure 

those commitments can be 

accomplished. 

D. The Adequacy or Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 

To address this factor, we compare 

the current regulatory mechanisms 

within the proposed NRM DPS to the 

future mechanisms that would provide 

the framework for wolf management 

after delisting. These regulatory 

mechanisms are carried out by the State 

governments included in the DPS. Idaho 

and Montana’s wolf management 

programs are designed to maintain a 

recovered wolf population while 

minimizing damage caused by it by 

allowing for removal of wolves in areas 

of chronic conflict or in unsuitable 

habitat. The three States with occupied 

habitat have proposed wolf management 

plans that would govern how wolves are 

to be managed if delisted. As discussed 

below, we have approved Idaho’s and 

Montana’s plans because these States 

have proposed management objectives 

that would maintain at least 10 breeding 

pairs and 100 wolves per State by 

managing for a safety margin of 15 

breeding pairs in each State. We expect 

Wyoming to adopt a State law and wolf 

management plan that will adequately 

conserve a recovered wolf population 

into the foreseeable future by the time 

we finalize this proposed rule. However, 

at this time, we have been unable to 

approve the Wyoming law and plan 

because it does not provide for 

sustainable levels of protection 

(Williams 2004; 71 FR 43427–43432, 

August 2, 2006). Any wolf conservation 

by the Tribes and the States of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be 

beneficial, but is not necessary to either 

achieving or maintaining a recovered 

wolf population in the NRM DPS. 

Current Wolf Management 

The 1980 and 1987 NRM wolf 

recovery plans (Service 1980, p. 4; 1987, 

p. 3) recognized that conflict with 

livestock was the major reason that 

wolves were extirpated and that 

management of conflicts was a 

necessary component of wolf 

restoration. The plans also recognized 

that control of problem wolves was 

necessary to maintain local public 

tolerance of wolves and that removal of 

some wolves would not prevent the 

wolf population from achieving 

recovery. In 1988, the Service developed 

an interim wolf control plan that 

applied to Montana and Wyoming 

(Service 1988, p. 1); the plan was 

amended in 1990 to include Idaho and 

eastern Washington (Service 1990, p. 1). 

We analyzed the effectiveness of those 

plans in 1999, and revised our 

guidelines for management of problem 

wolves listed as endangered (Service 

1999, p. 1). Evidence showed that most 

wolves do not attack livestock, 

especially larger livestock such as adult 

horses and cattle, but wolf presence 

around livestock will result in some 

level of depredation (Bangs et al. 2005, 

pp. 348–350). Therefore, we developed 

a set of guidelines under which 

depredating wolves could be harassed, 

moved, or killed by agency officials 

(Service 1999, pp. 39–40). The control 

plans were based on the premise that 

agency wolf control actions would affect 

only a small number of wolves, but 

would sustain public tolerance for nondepredating wolves, thus enhancing the 

chances for successful population 

recovery (Mech 1995, pp. 276–276). Our 

assumptions have proven correct, as 

wolf depredation on livestock and 

subsequent agency control actions have 

remained at low levels, and the wolf 

population has expanded its 

distribution and numbers far beyond, 

and more quickly than, earlier 

predictions (Service 1994, p. 2:12; 

Service et al. 2006, Table 4). 

The conflict between wolves and 

livestock has resulted in the average 

annual removal of 7–10 percent of the 

wolf population (Bangs et al. 1995, p. 

130; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 92; Bangs et 

al. 2005a, pp. 342–344; Service et al. 

2006, Tables 4, 5; Smith 2005). We 

estimate illegal killing removed another 

10 percent of the wolf population, and 

accidental and unintentional humancaused deaths have removed 1 percent 

of the population annually (Smith 

2005). Even with this level of mortality, 

populations have expanded rapidly 

(Service et al. 2006, Table 5). Despite 

the more liberal regulations, all suitable 

areas for wolves have been filled with 

resident packs (Service et al. 2006, 

Figure 1). The outer NRM wolf pack 

distribution has remained largely 

unchanged since the end of 2000 

(Service et al. 2001–2006, Figure 1). 

If the wolf population continues to 

expand, wolves will increasingly 

disperse into unsuitable areas that are 

intensively used for livestock 

production. A higher percentage of 

wolves in those areas will become 

involved in conflicts with livestock, and 

a higher percentage of those wolves will 

probably be removed to reduce future 

livestock damage. In 2006, about 12 

percent of the NRM wolf population 

was removed because of conflicts with 

livestock but it still increased over 20 

percent. Human-caused mortality would 

have to remove 34 percent or more of 

the wolf population annually before 

population growth would cease (Fuller 

et al. 2003, pp. 184–185). Preliminary 

wolf survival data from radio-telemetry 

studies suggests that adult wolf 

mortality resulting from conflict could 

be doubled to an average of 14–20 

percent annually and still not 

significantly impact wolf population 

recovery (Smith 2005). The State 

management laws and plans would 

balance the level of wolf mortality with 

the recovery goals in each State. 

Regulatory Assurances Within the 

Proposed NRM DPS 

In 1999, the Governors of Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming agreed that 

regional coordination in wolf 

management planning among the States, 

Tribes, and other jurisdictions would be 

necessary to ensure timely delisting. 

They signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding to facilitate cooperation 

among the three States in developing 

adequate State wolf management plans 

so that delisting could proceed. In this 

agreement, all three States committed to 

maintain at least 10 breeding pairs and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6127 

100 wolves per State. The States were to 

develop their pack definitions to 

approximate the current breeding pair 

definition. Governors from the three 

States renewed that agreement in April 

2002. 

The wolf population in the NRM 

achieved its numerical and 

distributional recovery goals at the end 

of 2000. The temporal portion of the 

recovery goal (maintaining numerical 

and distributional recovery goals for the 

3 consecutive years) was achieved at the 

end of 2002. Because the primary threat 

to the wolf population (human 

predation and other take) still has the 

potential to significantly impact wolf 

populations if not adequately managed, 

the Service needs regulatory assurances 

that the States will manage for 

sustainable mortality levels before we 

can remove the Act’s protections. 

Therefore, we requested that the States 

of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

prepare State wolf management plans to 

demonstrate how they would manage 

wolves after the protections of the Act 

were removed. Wolf management for the 

Tribes and the States of Washington, 

Oregon, and Utah will be beneficial, but 

is not necessary to either achieving or 

maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM. The Service 

provided varying degrees of funding and 

assistance to the States while they 

developed their wolf management 

plans. Several issues key to our 

approval of State plans include 

regulations that would allow regulatory 

control of take, a pack definition 

biologically consistent with the 

Service’s definition of a breeding pair, 

and the ability to realistically manage 

State wolf populations and the number 

of breeding pairs above recovery levels. 

The final Service determination of the 

adequacy of those three key State 

management plans was based on the 

combination of Service knowledge of 

State law, the State management plans, 

wolf biology, our experience managing 

wolves for the last 20 years, peer review 

of the State plans, and the States’

response to peer review. Those State 

plans can be viewed at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. 

After our analysis of the State laws, 

the State plans, and other factors, 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 following delisting. 

Therefore, we approved those two State 

plans. However, 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 (Bangs 2004a; Williams 

2004; FR 71:43410). Though we have 

not approved Wyoming’s current plan, 

we anticipate that Wyoming will revise 

its statute and develop a plan that we 

can approve prior to finalizing this 

proposed rule. Tribal and State 

management (in the portions of 

Washington, Oregon, and Utah included 

in the proposed DPS) also are discussed 

below. If Wyoming changes its law and 

management plan consistent with the 

Service’s recommendations, it will 

sufficiently regulate human-caused 

mortality, just as the Montana and Idaho 

regulatory frameworks now do. If 

acceptable changes do not occur to the 

Wyoming regulatory framework, then 

the potential for excessive humancaused mortality as allowed under 

Wyoming state law would remain the 

lone threat to wolves in a significant 

portion of the range in Wyoming outside 

the National Parks. Therefore, if a new 

Wyoming regulatory framework cannot 

be approved by the Service, then the 

Act’s protections will remain in effect in 

a significant portion of the range outside 

the National Parks in Wyoming and they 

will provide adequate assurance into the 

foreseeable future that human-caused 

mortality will not become a threat to 

wolves in all or a significant portion of 

their range in northwestern Wyoming. 

Montana—The gray wolf was listed 

under the Montana Nongame and 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1973 (87–5–101 MCA). Senate Bill 163, 

passed by the Montana Legislature and 

signed into law by the Governor in 

2001, establishes the current legal status 

for wolves in Montana. Upon Federal 

delisting, wolves would be classified 

and protected under Montana law as a 

‘‘Species in Need of Management’’ (87–

5–101 to 87–5–123). Such species are 

primarily managed through regulation 

of all forms of human-caused mortality 

in a manner similar to trophy game 

animals like mountain lions and black 

bears. The MFWP and the Commission 

would then finalize more detailed 

administrative rules, as is typically done 

for other resident wildlife, but they 

must be consistent with the approved 

Montana wolf plan and State law. 

Classification as a ‘‘Species in Need of 

Management’’ and the associated 

administrative rules under Montana 

State law create the legal mechanism to 

protect wolves and regulate humancaused mortality beyond the immediate 

defense of life/property situations. Some 

illegal human-caused mortality would 

still occur, but is to be prosecuted under 

State law and Commission regulations. 

In 2001, the Governor of Montana 

appointed the Montana Wolf 

Management Advisory Council to advise 

MFWP regarding wolf management after 

the species is removed from the lists of 

Federal and State-protected species. In 

August 2003, MFWP completed a Final 

EIS and recommended that the Updated 

Advisory Council alternative be selected 

as Montana’s Final Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan 

(Montana 2003, p. 131). See http:// 

www.fwp.state.mt.us to view the MFWP 

Final EIS and the Montana Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

Under the management plan, the wolf 

population would be maintained above 

the recovery level of 10 breeding pairs 

by managing for a safety margin of 15 

breeding pairs. MFWP would manage 

problem wolves in a manner similar to 

the control program currently being 

implemented in the experimental 

population area in southern Montana, 

whereby landowners and livestock 

producers on public land can shoot 

wolves seen attacking livestock or dogs, 

and agency control of problem wolves is 

incremental and in response to 

confirmed depredations. State 

management of conflicts would become 

more protective of wolves and no public 

hunting would be allowed when there 

were fewer than 15 breeding pairs. 

Wolves would not be deliberately 

confined to any specific areas of 

Montana, but their distribution and 

numbers would be managed adaptively 

based on ecological factors, wolf 

population status, conflict mitigation, 

and human social tolerance. The MFWP 

plan commits to implement its 

management framework in a manner 

that encourages connectivity among 

wolf populations in Canada, Idaho, 

GYA, and Montana to maintain the 

overall metapopulation structure. Wolf 

management would include population 

monitoring, routine analysis of 

population health, management in 

concert with prey populations, law 

enforcement, control of domestic 

animal/human conflicts, consideration 

of a wolf-damage compensation 

program, research, and information and 

public outreach. Montana’s plan 

(Montana 2003, p. 132) predicts that 

under State management, the wolf 

population would increase to between 

328 and 657 wolves with approximately 

27 to 54 breeding pairs by 2015. 

An important ecological factor 

determining wolf distribution in 

Montana is the availability and 

distribution of wild ungulates. Montana 

has a rich, diverse, and widely 

distributed prey base on both public and 

private lands. The MFWP has and will 

continue to manage wild ungulates 

according to Commission-approved 

policy direction and species 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

management plans. The plans typically 

describe a management philosophy that 

protects the long-term sustainability of 

the ungulate populations, allows 

recreational hunting of surplus game, 

and aims to keep the population within 

management objectives based on 

ecological and social considerations. 

The MFWP takes a proactive approach 

to integrate management of ungulates 

and carnivores. Ungulate harvest is to be 

balanced with maintaining sufficient 

prey populations to sustain Montana’s 

segment of a recovered wolf population. 

Ongoing efforts to monitor populations 

of both ungulates and wolves will 

provide credible, scientific information 

for wildlife management decisions. 

State regulations would allow agency 

management of problem wolves by 

MFWP and USDA–WS; take by private 

citizens in defense of private property; 

and, when the population is above 15 

packs, some regulated hunting of 

wolves. Montana wildlife regulations 

allowing take in defense of private 

property are similar to the 2005 

experimental population regulations, 

whereby landowners and livestock 

grazing permittees can shoot wolves 

seen attacking or molesting livestock or 

pets as long as such incidents are 

reported promptly and subsequent 

investigations confirm that livestock 

were being attacked by wolves. The 

MFWP has enlisted and directed 

USDA–WS in problem wolf 

management, just as the Service has 

done since 1987. 

When the Service reviewed and 

approved the Montana wolf plan, we 

stated that Montana’s wolf management 

plan would maintain a recovered wolf 

population and minimize conflicts with 

other traditional activities in Montana’s 

landscape. The Service has every 

confidence that Montana would 

implement the commitments it has 

made in its current laws, regulations, 

and wolf plan. In June 2005, MFWP 

signed a Cooperative Agreement with 

the Service, and it now manages all 

wolves in Montana subject to general 

oversight by the Service. 

Idaho—The Idaho Fish and Game 

Commission (Idaho Commission) has 

authority to classify wildlife under 

Idaho Code 36–104(b) and 36–201. The 

gray wolf was classified as endangered 

by the State until March 2005, when the 

Idaho Commission reclassified the 

species as a big game animal under 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 

(13.01.06.100.01.d). The big game 

classification would take effect upon 

Federal delisting, and until then, wolves 

will be managed under Federal status. 

As a big game animal, State regulations 

would adjust human-caused wolf 

mortality to ensure recovery levels are 

exceeded. Title 36 of the Idaho statutes 

currently has penalties associated with 

illegal take of big game animals. These 

rules are consistent with the 

legislatively adopted Idaho Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan 

(IWCMP) (IWCMP 2002) and big game 

hunting restrictions currently in place. 

The IWCMP states that wolves will be 

protected against illegal take as a big 

game animal under Idaho Code 36–

1402, 36–1404, and 36–202(h). 

The IWCMP was written with the 

assistance and leadership of the Wolf 

Oversight Committee established in 

1992 by the Idaho Legislature. Many 

special interest groups including 

legislators, sportsmen, livestock 

producers, conservationists, and IDFG 

personnel were involved in the 

development of the IWCMP. The 

Service provided technical advice to the 

Committee and reviewed numerous 

drafts before the IWCMP was finalized. 

In March 2002, the IWCMP was adopted 

by joint resolution of the Idaho 

Legislature. The IWCMP can be found 

at: http://www.fishandgame.idaho.gov/ 

cms/wildlife/wolves/wolf_plan.pdf. 

The IWCMP calls for IDFG to be the 

primary manager of wolves after 

delisting; like Montana, to maintain a 

minimum of 15 packs of wolves to 

maintain a substantial margin of safety 

over the 10 breeding pair minimum; and 

to manage them as a viable selfsustaining population that will never 

require relisting under the Act. Wolf 

take would be more liberal if there are 

more than 15 packs and more 

conservative if there are fewer than 15 

packs in Idaho. The wolf population 

would be managed by defense of 

property regulations similar to those 

now in effect under the Act. Public 

harvest would be incorporated as a 

management tool when there are 15 or 

more packs in Idaho to help mitigate 

conflicts with livestock producers or big 

game populations that outfitters, guides, 

and others hunt. The IWCMP allows 

IDFG to classify the wolf as a big game 

animal or furbearer, or to assign a 

special classification of predator, so that 

human-caused mortality can be 

regulated. In March 2005, the Idaho 

Commission proposed that, upon 

delisting, the wolf would be classified 

as a big game animal with the intent of 

managing wolves similar to black bears 

and mountain lions, including regulated 

public harvest when populations are 

above 15 packs. The IWCMP calls for 

the State to coordinate with USDA–WS 

to manage depredating wolves 

depending on the number of wolves in 

the State. It also calls for a balanced 

educational effort. 

Elk and deer populations are managed 

to meet biological and social objectives 

for each herd unit according to the 

State’s species management plans. The 

IDFG will manage both ungulates and 

carnivores, including wolves, to 

maintain viable populations of each. 

Ungulate harvest would be focused on 

maintaining sufficient prey populations 

to sustain viable wolf and other 

carnivore populations and hunting. 

IDFG has conducted research to better 

understand the impacts of wolves and 

their relationships to ungulate 

population sizes and distribution so that 

regulated take of wolves can be used to 

assist in management of ungulate 

populations and vice versa. 

The Mule Deer Initiative in southeast 

Idaho was implemented by IDFG in 

2005, to restore and improve mule deer 

populations. Though most of the 

initiative lies outside current wolf range 

and suitable wolf habitat in Idaho, 

improving ungulate populations and 

hunter success will decrease negative 

attitudes toward wolves. When mule 

deer increase, some wolves may move 

into the areas that are being highlighted 

under the initiative. Habitat 

improvements within much of southeast 

Idaho would focus on improving mule 

deer conditions. The Clearwater Elk 

Initiative also is an attempt to improve 

elk numbers in the area of the 

Clearwater Region in north Idaho where 

currently IDFG has concerns about the 

health of that once-abundant elk herd. 

Wolves are currently classified as 

endangered under Idaho State law, but 

if delisted under the Act, they would be 

classified and protected as big game 

under Idaho fish and game code. 

Human-caused mortality would be 

regulated as directed by the IWCMP to 

maintain a recovered wolf population. 

The Service has every confidence that 

Idaho would implement the 

commitments it has made in its current 

laws, regulations, and wolf plan. In 

January 2006, the Governor of Idaho 

signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Secretary of the 

Interior that provided the IDFG the 

power to manage all Idaho wolves. 

Wyoming—In 2003, Wyoming passed 

a very specific and detailed State law 

that would designate wolves as ‘‘trophy 

game’’ in YNP, Grand Teton National 

Park, John D. Rockefeller Memorial 

Parkway, and the adjacent USFSdesignated Wilderness Areas once the 

wolf is delisted from the Act. Wolves in 

other portions of the State would 

alternate back-and-forth between 

‘‘trophy game’’ and ‘‘predatory animal’’

status based on oscillating population 

numbers. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6129 

A large portion of the area 

permanently designated as ‘‘trophy 

game’’ actually has little to no value to 

wolf packs because it is not suitable 

habitat for wolves and, thus, is rarely 

used (GYA wilderness, and much of 

eastern and southern YNP) (Jimenez 

2006c). For example, many of the 

wilderness areas are rarely used by 

wolves because of their high elevation, 

deep snow, and low ungulate 

productivity. The ‘‘trophy game’’ status 

would allow the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Commission (Wyoming 

Commission) and Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) to regulate 

methods of take, hunting seasons, types 

of allowed take, and numbers of wolves 

that could be killed. 

The State law requires that when 

there are 7 or more wolf packs in 

Wyoming ‘‘primarily’’ (this term is 

undefined) outside of National Park/ 

Wilderness Areas or there are 15 or 

more wolf packs anywhere in Wyoming, 

all wolves in Wyoming outside of the 

National Park/Wilderness units would 

be classified as predatory animals. 

When wolves are classified as a 

‘‘predatory animal’’ they are under the 

jurisdiction of the Wyoming Department 

of Agriculture and may be taken by 

anyone, anywhere in the predatory 

animal area, at any time, without limit, 

and by any means (including shoot-onsight; baiting; possible limited use of 

poisons; bounties and wolf-killing 

contests; locating and killing pups in 

dens including use of explosives and 

gas cartridges; trapping; snaring; aerial 

gunning; and use of other mechanized 

vehicles to locate or chase wolves 

down). Wolves are very susceptible to 

unregulated human-caused mortality, 

which would be the situation if they 

were to be designated as predatory 

animals. Wolves are unlike coyotes in 

that wolf behavior and reproductive 

biology results in wolves being 

extirpated in the face of extensive 

human-caused mortality. These types 

and levels of take would most likely 

prevent wolf packs from persisting in 

areas of Wyoming where they are 

classified as predatory, even in 

otherwise suitable habitat. 

Wolves in other parts of Wyoming 

could be classified as trophy game only 

when populations dipped below 7 packs 

outside of the National Park/Wilderness 

units and there were fewer than 15 

packs in Wyoming. When this situation 

occurs, the Wyoming Commission 

would determine how large an area to 

designate as trophy game in order to 

reasonably ensure seven packs are 

located in Wyoming, primarily outside 

the National Park/Wilderness units, at 

the end of the calendar year. Moreover, 

because many southern and eastern 

YNP packs leave the National Park/ 

Wilderness Areas in winter and 

regularly utilize habitat on nonwilderness public lands and some 

private lands, these packs would be 

subject to unregulated and unlimited 

human-caused mortality to the extent 

wolves are classified as predatory in 

these lands. Wolf packs are highly 

territorial and are reluctant to trespass 

on other pack territories (Mech and 

Boitani 2003, p. 19–34). A distribution 

of wolf packs outside Yellowstone 

National Park may be necessary to act as 

a biological fence to reduce Park pack 

movements out of the Park. If packs 

outside the Park are removed, that may 

cause their in-Park neighbors to 

investigate their absence, and thus 

expose those Park packs to the same 

mortality sources that removed their 

neighbors. The security of Park packs 

may partly rely on having at least one 

layer of neighboring packs outside the 

Park Units. 

The above restrictions present the 

very real possibility that Wyoming 

would not be able to maintain its share 

of a recovered wolf population, despite 

Wyoming’s proposal to default to trophy 

game status when wolf populations get 

below 15 packs (defined as simply 5 

wolves traveling together at any time of 

year). For example, in 2004, under 

Wyoming Law, the YNP wolf 

population (171 wolves in 16 confirmed 

breeding pairs) would have triggered 

predatory status outside the National 

Parks/Wilderness Areas and allowed for 

the elimination of all wolf packs outside 

YNP (89 wolves in 8 breeding pairs) 

(Service et al. 2005, Figure 3). In 2005, 

disease and other factors caused a 

natural reduction of the YNP wolf 

population to 118 wolves in 7 breeding 

pairs (Service et al. 2006, Table 4). The 

year 2005 marked the first time 

successful wolf packs outside the 

National Park/Wilderness Areas (134 

wolves in 9 breeding pairs) contributed 

more to Wyoming’s overall share of the 

recovered NRM wolf population than 

those in YNP (118 wolves in 7 breeding 

pairs) (Service et al. 2005, Table 2; 2006, 

Table 2). However, if all wolves outside 

the National Parks/Wilderness Areas 

had been eliminated in 2004 or early 

2005, as allowed by state law, the 

Wyoming segment of the NRM wolf 

population would have fallen 3 

breeding pairs below the 10 breeding 

pair recovery level in Wyoming by the 

end of 2005 (Service et al. 2006, Table 

2). 

The State law and plan (WGFD 2003) 

calls for intensive monitoring using 

standard methods and a review of the 

Wyoming wolf population’s status every 

90 days. While WGFD would have 

authority to manage wolves when they 

are classified as trophy game, that 

authority would end if the number of 

packs increased to 15 in the State or if 

there were 7 packs primarily outside the 

National Park/Wilderness units (even if 

there were fewer than 15 packs in the 

State). In essence, as soon as WGFD met 

their management objective, their 

management authority would be 

removed by State law within a 

maximum of 90 days. Every time the 

wolf population exceeded the minimum 

levels, all wolves outside the National 

Park/Wilderness units would be 

designated as predatory animals and 

would be subjected to unregulated 

human-caused mortality which could 

drive the wolf population back down to, 

or below, the minimum level. We 

believe the real potential for fluctuating 

between predatory animal status and 

trophy game status would result in a 

program that would be nearly 

impossible to administer and enforce 

because of widespread public confusion 

about the changing wolf status. 

Attempting to manage a wolf population 

that is constantly maintained at 

minimum levels would likely result in 

the wolf population falling below 

recovery levels due to factors beyond 

WGFD’s control. 

An essential element to achieving the 

Service’s recovery goal is our definition 

of a breeding pair: An adult male and 

an adult female wolf that have produced 

at least two pups during the previous 

breeding season that survived until 

December 31 of that year. Wyoming 

State law defined a pack as simply five 

wolves traveling together regardless of 

the group’s composition. According to 

this definition, these wolves could be 

with or without offspring and could be 

traveling together at any time of year. 

The Wyoming plan adopted the same 

definition of pack that is in State law. 

Wyoming’s State law and management 

plan also allows a pack of 10 or more 

wolves with 2 or 3 breeding females to 

count as 2 or 3 packs, respectively. The 

Wyoming definition of a pack and the 

90-day evaluation of population status 

is inconsistent with wolf biology and 

how the Service, Montana, and Idaho 

has, and will, measure wolf population 

recovery. Wolf packs only breed and 

produce young once a year (April), so a 

wolf population can only increase once 

a year. If a pack’s breeding adults are 

killed between February and April, the 

pack will not produce young for at least 

another year. If pups are killed, no more 

will be produced for another year. The 

Wyoming definition of a wolf pack 

would lead to greater use of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

predatory animal designation and a 

minimal wolf population going into 

summer, when diseases and most 

human-caused wolf mortality occur, 

including that which WGFD could not 

regulate (control and illegal killing) 

even under trophy game status. For 

instance, there might be 15 groups of 5 

or more wolves (which may or may not 

be ‘‘breeding pairs’’) going into summer, 

but as human-caused mortality and 

other mortality factors continued to 

operate, the population could decline 

below recovery levels at a time when 

the only opportunity for the population 

to recover that year had passed. 

Making this problem worse, Wyoming 

could well be overestimating the 

number of breeding pairs. Wyoming 

incorrectly used, as the Service initially 

did, a linear regression to predict a 

relationship between wolf group size 

and its potential to be a breeding pair. 

This was mathematically incorrect and 

greatly overestimated wolf breeding 

pairs in Wyoming, because the 

relationship is logistic (Ausband 2006). 

Wyoming data show that groups of 5 

wolves traveling together in winter only 

have a 0.56 probability of being a 

breeding pair in Wyoming (Ausband 

2006). Thus, 15 groups of 5 wolves of 

unknown status that are traveling 

together in winter is only equal to 8.4 

breeding pairs. This could lead 

Wyoming to trigger predatory status 

with only 8.4 breeding pairs, a level 

below recovery goals. 

Consider the following examples. 

First, in 1999 and 2005, pup production 

and survival declined significantly 

(Service et al. 2000, Table 2; 2006, Table 

2). Because few pups survived, five 

wolves traveling together in winter 

would not have equated to an adult 

male and female with two pups on 

December 31. Second, from 2002 to 

2005, mange infested some packs in 

Montana and Wyoming causing them 

not to survive the winter (mange can 

lead to mortality from exposure during 

severe winter weather or secondary 

infections (Kreeger 2003, pp. 207–208). 

In this situation, if five wolves traveling 

together in summer or fall (instead of 

mid-winter) had mange, it would be 

unreasonable to rely on them as a 

breeding pair since they would be 

unlikely to survive until December 31. 

Third, conflict between the Service 

definition of a breeding pair and 

Wyoming’s definition would result in 

over-counting the number of packs and 

overuse of predatory status. For 

example, by the end of 2005 there were 

16 breeding pairs in Wyoming, but, 

under Wyoming’s definition (even if it 

were used in mid-winter) there would 

have been 24 packs counted as breeding 

pairs, an overestimate of 50 percent. If 

Wyoming had been managing for 15 

‘‘packs’’ as they define them (by 

declaring predatory status outside of the 

National Park/Wilderness units), fewer 

than 10 actual ‘‘breeding pairs’’ would 

have been left in Wyoming. 

The State wolf management plan 

(WGFD 2003) generally attempts to 

implement the State law, with some 

notable exceptions. Those exceptions 

make the plan appear more likely to 

conserve the wolf population above 

recovery levels than the law allows. 

Recognizing these inconsistencies, the 

WGFD Director requested that the 

Wyoming Attorney General’s Office 

review Wyoming law regarding the 

classification of gray wolves as trophy 

game animals (O’Donnell 2003). The 

Attorney General’s response stated that 

‘‘the plain language of the Enrolled Act 

is in conflict and thus suffers from 

internal ambiguity.’’ The letter states: 

The noted ambiguities arise when there are 

either: (1) Less than seven (7) packs outside 

of the Parks, but at least fifteen (15) packs in 

the state, including the Parks; or, (2) at least 

seven (7) packs outside the Parks, but less 

than fifteen (15) packs in the state, including 

the Parks. 

W.S. § 23–1–304(b)(ii) states that the 

Commission shall maintain so-called ‘‘dual’’

classification, that is, maintain classification 

of the gray wolf as a predatory animal ‘‘if it 

determines there were at least seven (7) packs 

of gray wolves * * * primarily outside of 

[the Parks] * * * or at least fifteen (15) packs 

within this state, including [the Parks]. 

***’’ (Emphasis added). If this sentence is 

read without consideration of the stated 

legislative goals, the following scenarios can 

occur: 

Scenario #1: 10 packs inside the Parks & 

5 packs outside the Parks. Classify as a 

predatory animal because at least 15 packs in 

the state.This scenario leaves less than 7 

packs outside of the Parks. 

Scenario #2: 3 packs inside the Parks & 10 

packs outside the Parks. Classify as a 

predatory animal because at least 7 packs 

outside the Parks. This scenario leaves less 

than 15 packs total in the state. 

These scenarios defeat the clearly 

identified legislative goals of maintenance of 

fifteen (15) packs in the state and 

maintenance of seven (7) packs outside the 

Parks. 

The letter concludes: 

The goals specified by the legislation may 

be preserved if W.S. 23–1–304(b) is 

construed in light of those legislatively 

defined goals. Stated another way, the 

language of W.S. 23–1–304(b) must not be 

read so restrictively as to prevent the Game 

and Fish Department from crafting a state 

management plan for gray wolves which 

achieves delisting and satisfies the other 

stated legislative goals. The alternative 

interpretation, constructing the language of 

W.S. 23–1–304(b) in its most restrictive light, 

will defeat these clearly identified legislative 

goals. Such a result would be contrary to 

Wyoming law. Should the legislature decide 

to endorse or change the result reached as a 

result of the current statutory language, it 

will in all likelihood have an opportunity to 

do so before delisting is complete. 

The Wyoming Attorney General’s 

Office thus determined that the 

Wyoming State law is internally 

inconsistent as a key operative 

provision (the requirement in ′23–1–

304(b)(ii)) to classify gray wolves as 

predatory if there are at least 7 packs 

primarily outside the Parks or at least 15 

packs within the entire State) conflicts 

with the legislative purpose of 

providing appropriate management to 

facilitate delisting of the wolf. The 

Attorney General’s Office concluded 

that ′23–1–304(b) should be construed 

in light of this legislative goal to allow 

WGFD to craft a management plan that 

is inconsistent with the predatory 

animal classification requirements of 

′304(b) if that is what is needed to 

prepare a plan that would achieve 

delisting. Notwithstanding the Attorney 

General’s opinion, we are concerned 

that WGFD would have no authority to 

act contrary to the categorical 

requirements of an operative provision 

of the State law. 

Furthermore, in the fall of 2003, the 

Service, in cooperation with the affected 

States, selected 12 recognized North 

American experts in wolf biology and 

management to review the Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming State wolf 

management plans. Eleven reviews were 

completed. While Wyoming’s Plan was 

thought to be the most extreme in terms 

of wolf control and minimizing wolf 

numbers and distribution, some 

reviewers thought it was adequate, 

primarily because they (1) assumed in 

error that the Wyoming definition of a 

pack was equivalent to the Service’s 

current breeding pair standard 

(Ausband 2006), (2) thought that YNP 

was likely to carry most of Wyoming’s 

portion of the wolf population, and (3) 

assumed that the commitments in the 

Plan could be implemented under State 

law. As noted above, the Service now 

views these three assumptions as 

unrealistic. 

Other important developments since 

these peer reviews include: recent 

Federal District court rulings 

emphasizing consideration of suitable 

habitat in calculating the significant 

portion of the range occupied by 

wolves, the decline of YNP wolves, and 

an improved method of estimating wolf 

population status. This new 

methodology demonstrates that earlier 

attempts to correlate pack size in winter 

with the probability of being a breeding 

pair were mathematically incorrect and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6131 

are clearly inconsistent with both the 

Service’s previous and current breeding 

pair standards. 

The potential success of the current 

Wyoming law and wolf plan to maintain 

its share of wolves in the NRM is greatly 

dependent on YNP having at least eight 

breeding pairs. However, recent 

experience tells us this is an unrealistic 

expectation. In 2005, wolf numbers 

substantially declined in YNP (Service 

et al. 2006, Table 2). The CPV and/or 

distemper are suspected of causing low 

pup survival in YNP, and pack conflicts 

over territory appear to have reduced 

the number of wolves and packs in YNP 

from 16 breeding pairs and 171 wolves 

in 2004, to 7 breeding pairs and 118 

wolves in 2005 (Service et al. 2006, 

Table 2). In 2005, if each group of 5 or 

more wolves had been counted as a 

pack as Wyoming law defines a pack, 

there would have been a total of 24 

‘‘packs’’ in Wyoming: 11 inside YNP, 

and 13 outside YNP. It is likely that 

predatory animal status, if it had been 

implemented prior to the end of 2005, 

would have quickly reduced or 

eliminated the number and size of wolf 

packs outside YNP going into the 

summer and fall of 2005. The Wyoming 

segment of the wolf population would 

most likely have fallen below 10 

breeding pairs (to only the 7 breeding 

pairs in YNP), and the distribution of 

wolf packs in suitable habitat in 

Wyoming outside the National Park/ 

Wilderness units would have been 

significantly reduced. This could have 

occurred because the State definition of 

five wolves traveling together as 

constituting a pack would have 

prevented the Wyoming Commission 

from enlarging the area designated as 

trophy game even though there could 

have been only seven breeding pairs in 

the State. Also, Wyoming would have 

counted most wolf packs in YNP as 

breeding pairs even though they were 

not because they experienced 

reproductive failure in 2005. 

Wyoming State law allows no 

regulation of human-caused mortality 

until the population falls below 7 packs 

outside the Parks and there are less than 

15 packs in Wyoming. The Wyoming 

Petition’s claim that such extensive 

removal of wolves is unlikely, even if 

they receive no legal protection, is not 

supported given the past history of wolf 

extirpation. The WGFD needs to be 

given the regulatory authority to 

adaptively manage the species 

throughout suitable habitat in Wyoming, 

outside of the National Park/Wilderness 

units, to account for wide fluctuations 

in wolf population levels. 

In conclusion, Wyoming State law 

defines a wolf pack in a manner that has 

little biological relationship to wolf 

recovery goals or population viability, 

minimizes opportunities for adaptive 

professional wildlife management by 

WGFD, confines wolf packs primarily to 

YNP, depends on at least eight National 

Park/Wilderness wolf packs to 

constitute most of the wolves in 

Wyoming, minimizes the number and 

distribution of wolves and wolf packs 

outside the National Park/Wilderness 

Areas, and could lead the Wyoming 

wolf population to quickly slide below 

recovery goals. Additionally, Wyoming 

State law would prohibit WGFD from 

responding in a timely and effective 

manner should modification in State 

management of wolves be needed to 

prevent the population from falling 

below the recovery levels of at least 10 

breeding pairs and 100 wolves for each 

of the 3 core States. Based on these 

inadequacies, the Service cannot 

reasonably be assured that Wyoming’s 

State law would allow its wolf 

management plan to maintain the 

Wyoming segment of the wolf 

population above recovery levels or 

maintain an adequate distribution of the 

Wyoming segment of the tri-State wolf 

population. We conclude that the NRM 

wolf population is not threatened or 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range except for that significant portion 

of its range outside the National Parks 

in northwestern Wyoming. Wyoming 

state regulatory mechanisms in such 

areas are inadequate to prevent 

excessive human-caused mortality from 

reducing that segment of the wolf 

population in that significant portion of 

its range below its recovery levels. 

However, retention of the Act’s 

protections, should Wyoming fail to 

enact an adequate statute and plan, will 

assure that the segment of the NRM wolf 

population in Wyoming outside the 

National Parks will not become 

threatened or endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

Future Service approval of a 

regulatory framework for wolf 

management in Wyoming—The Service 

and Wyoming have continued to discuss 

approaches to post-delisting wolf 

management in Wyoming that would 

address our respective concerns and 

allow the Service to approve Wyoming’s 

wolf management strategy. Ideas under 

consideration by the Wyoming 

legislature in the 2006 session includes; 

(1) The concept of a state Trophy Game 

Area large enough to adequately support 

the wolf population levels required for 

Wyoming, with predator status (with 

mandatory reporting of all take) in the 

remainder of the State; (2) 

acknowledgement that the State would 

manage for 15 breeding pairs in midwinter and that the State’s responsibility 

is 7 breeding pairs outside the National 

Parks, based on the assumption that 

segment of the Wyoming wolf 

population will be supplemented by 8 

breeding pairs living on lands managed 

by the National Park Service; and, (3) 

that the State of Wyoming would be 

responsible for assuring that the 

absolute minimum of 10 breeding pairs 

and 100 wolves required to achieve 

Wyoming’s share of the overall wolf 

recovery goal would be conserved. If 

such a regulatory framework was 

established by Wyoming law and was to 

be implemented by a Wyoming state 

plan, the Service intends to approve it. 

In addition, there are assurances from 

the National Park Service that adequate 

monitoring of wolf packs within Park 

managed properties will continue and 

that information will continue to be 

readily shared between the National 

Park Service and Wyoming. Acceptance 

of an adequate regulatory framework in 

Wyoming by the Service would allow 

Wyoming residents to have increased 

flexibility under the provisions of the 

2005 experimental population 

regulations (FR 70:1286–1311, Jan 2005) 

for problem wolf management and 

would allow the Service to finalize 

delisting for that portion of the NRM 

DPS wolf population in Wyoming. 

The recovery goal for the NRM wolf 

population requires that it be comprised 

of at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 

wolves that are equitably distributed in 

potentially suitable habitat in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming. To ensure this 

goal is achieved, each of the three States 

(Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) 

committed to manage for an equitable 

distribution of the overall population 

and assume a management target of 15 

breeding pairs in mid-winter within 

each State. The 15 breeding pair 

management target was not intended to 

be the minimum goal for each State. It 

was an objective so that each State’s 

management would provide a 

reasonable cushion to ensure each 

State’s share of the wolf population did 

not fall below the 10 breeding pairs 

requirement and that the 30 breeding 

pairs minimum would always be met or 

exceeded. Within Wyoming, the 15 

breeding pair management target would 

be divided between lands where 

wildlife are managed by the National 

Park Service and lands where the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WYGF) had primary management 

responsibility. Under the current 

proposal, the WYGF’s responsibility for 

the overall 15 breeding pair target 

would be 7 breeding pairs in mid-winter 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

outside the National Park Units in 

Wyoming. We assume that the 

remaining 8 breeding pairs will be 

supported primarily on National Park 

Service lands. That said, the minimum 

recovery goal for the State of Wyoming 

of 10 breeding pairs must always be met 

or exceeded. Therefore, in the unlikely 

event that the wolf population within 

properties managed by the National 

Park Service ever dropped below a level 

that jeopardized Wyoming’s recovery 

objective, additional management 

responsibility by the State of Wyoming 

may be required to avoid emergency 

listing actions. 

State regulations would be enacted to 

ensure that wolves would be managed 

to prevent the need for relisting in the 

future. Therefore, the State of Wyoming 

would designate wolves as a Trophy 

Game Species within an area similar to 

that defined below which is capable of 

supporting at least 15 breeding pairs 

(USFWS et al. 2006, Figure 3). The area 

under consideration in northwestern 

Wyoming is approximately that 

beginning at the junction of U.S. 

Highway 120 and the Wyoming/ 

Montana State line; running southerly 

along state Highway 120 to the Greybull 

River; southwesterly up said river to the 

Wood River; running southwesterly up 

said river to the U.S. Forest Service 

boundary; following the U.S. Forest 

Service boundary southerly to the 

northern boundary of the Wind River 

Indian Reservation; following the 

Reservation boundary westerly, then 

southerly across U.S. Highway 26/287 to 

the Continental Divide; following the 

Continental Divide southeasterly to 

Middle Fork of Boulder Creek; following 

the Middle Fork of Boulder Creek and 

then Boulder Creek westerly to the U.S. 

Forest Service boundary; following the 

U.S. Forest Service boundary 

northwesterly to its intersection with 

U.S. Highway 189/91; following U.S. 

Highway 189/91 northwesterly to the 

intersection with Wyoming state 

highway 22 in the town of Jackson; 

following Wyoming state highway 22 

westerly to the Wyoming/Idaho State 

line. 

Within the Trophy Game Area, WYGF 

would have management control over 

the species outside the National Parks 

and would manage problem wolves and 

set harvest regulations in such a way as 

to assure that the targets of 15 breeding 

pair for the State and 7 breeding pairs 

in Wyoming outside the National Park 

Units are met. Outside of the Trophy 

Game Area, the State of Wyoming 

would manage the species as predatory 

animals but would monitor the take of 

all wolves under the State’s predatory 

animal status. 

If this type of regulatory framework 

was enacted by Wyoming state law and 

its wolf management plan it would 

provide assurance that Wyoming’s share 

of the tri-state NRM wolf population 

would be maintained above recovery 

levels into the foreseeable future and 

that a significant portion of the range in 

Wyoming was occupied by wolf packs. 

This type of management framework is 

consistent in its general principles to 

those already enacted and accepted as 

being adequate regulatory frameworks 

for wolves post-delisting in the states of 

Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, 

Montana, and Idaho and would provide 

adequate assurances that a viable wolf 

population will be maintained in the 

NRM DPS. 

Washington—Wolves in Washington 

are listed as endangered under the 

State’s administrative code (WAC 

232.12.014; these provisions may be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/). 

Under Washington’s administrative 

code (WAC 232.12.297), ‘‘endangered’’

means any wildlife species native to the 

State of Washington that is seriously 

threatened with extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range 

within the State. Endangered species in 

the State of Washington are protected 

from hunting, possession, and malicious 

harassment, unless such taking has been 

authorized by rule of the Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Commission (RCW 

77.15.120; these provisions can be 

viewed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/). 

If the NRM DPS is delisted, those areas 

in Washington included in the NRM 

DPS would remain listed as endangered 

by Washington State law until the wolf 

was no longer seriously threatened with 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range within the State. The 

areas in Washington not included in the 

NRM DPS would remain listed as 

endangered under both State and 

Federal law. 

Although we have received reports of 

individual and wolf family units in the 

North Cascades of Washington (Almack 

and Fitkin 1998), agency efforts to 

confirm them were unsuccessful and to 

date, no individual wolves or packs 

have ever been documented there (Boyd 

and Pletscher 1999; 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. 

There is currently no Washington 

State recovery or management plan for 

wolves, but the State has established an 

advisory committee and is preparing a 

plan. Interagency Wolf Response 

Guidelines are being developed by the 

Service, WDFW, and USDA–WS to 

provide a checklist of response actions 

for five situations that may arise in the 

future. Wolf management in Washington 

is likely to be beneficial to the NRM 

wolf population, but is not necessary for 

achieving or maintaining a population 

of wolves in the NRM DPS that is 

unlikely to become threatened or 

endangered in the foreseeable future. 

Oregon—The gray wolf has been 

classified as endangered under the 

Oregon Endangered Species Act (ORS 

496.171–192) since 1987. The law 

requires the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Commission to conserve the species in 

Oregon. Anticipating the 

reestablishment of wolves in Oregon 

from the growing Idaho population, the 

Commission directed the development 

of a wolf conservation and management 

plan to meet the requirements of both 

the Oregon Endangered Species Act and 

the Oregon Wildlife Policy. The ORS 

496.012 states in relevant part: ‘‘It is the 

policy of the State of Oregon that 

wildlife shall be managed to prevent 

serious depletion of any indigenous 

species and to provide the optimum 

recreational and aesthetic benefits for 

present and future generations of the 

citizens of this state.’’

In February 2005, the Oregon Fish 

and Wildlife Commission adopted the 

Oregon Wolf Conservation and 

Management Plan. The plan was built to 

meet the five delisting criteria identified 

in State statutes and administrative 

rules: (1) The species is not now (and is 

not likely in the foreseeable future to be) 

in danger of extinction in any 

significant portion of its range in Oregon 

or in danger of becoming endangered; 

(2) the species’ natural reproductive 

potential is not in danger of failure due 

to limited population numbers, disease, 

predation, or other natural or humanrelated factors affecting its continued 

existence; (3) most populations are not 

undergoing imminent or active 

deterioration of range or primary 

habitat; (4) overutilization of the species 

or its habitat for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not occurring or likely to 

occur; and (5) existing State or Federal 

programs or regulations are adequate to 

protect the species and its habitat. 

The Plan describes measures the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) will take to conserve and 

manage the species. This includes 

actions that could be taken to protect 

livestock from wolf depredation and 

address human safety concerns. The 

following summarizes the primary 

components of the plan: 

• Wolves that naturally disperse into 

Oregon will be conserved and managed 

under the plan. Wolves will not be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6133 

captured outside of Oregon and released 

in the State. 

• Wolves may be considered for 

Statewide delisting once the population 

reaches four breeding pairs for 3 

consecutive years in eastern Oregon 

(note—the boundary between east and 

west wolf management zones is defined 

by U.S. Highway 97 from the Columbia 

River to the junction of U.S. Highway 

20, southeast on U.S. Highway 20 to the 

junction with U.S. Highway 395, and 

south on U.S. Highway 395 to the 

California border). Four breeding pairs 

are considered the minimum 

conservation population objective, also 

described as Phase 1. The plan calls for 

managing wolves in western Oregon, as 

if the species remains listed, until the 

western Oregon wolf population reaches 

four breeding pairs. This means, for 

example, that a landowner would be 

required to obtain a permit to address 

depredation problems using injurious 

harassment. 

• While the wolf remains listed as a 

State endangered species, the following 

will be allowed: (1) Wolves may be 

harassed (e.g., shouting, firing a shot in 

the air) to distract a wolf from a 

livestock operation or area of human 

activity; (2) harassment that causes 

injury to a wolf (e.g., rubber bullets or 

bean bag projectiles) may be employed 

to prevent depredation, but only with a 

permit; (3) wolves may be relocated to 

resolve an immediate localized problem 

from an area of human activity (e.g., 

wolf inadvertently caught in a trap) to 

the nearest wilderness area; (4) 

relocation will be done by ODFW or 

USDA–WS personnel; (4) livestock 

producers who witness a wolf ‘‘in the 

act’’ of attacking livestock on public or 

private land must have a permit before 

taking any action that would cause harm 

to the wolf; and (5) wolves involved in 

chronic depredation may be killed by 

ODFW or USDA–WS personnel; 

however, nonlethal methods will be 

emphasized and employed first in 

appropriate circumstances. 

• Once the wolf is delisted, more 

options are available to address wolflivestock conflict. While there are five to 

seven breeding pairs, landowners may 

kill a wolf involved in chronic 

depredation with a permit. Five to seven 

breeding pairs is considered the 

management population objective, or 

Phase 2. 

• Under Phase 3 a limited controlled 

hunt could be allowed to decrease 

chronic depredation or reduce pressure 

on wild ungulate populations. 

• The plan provides wildlife 

managers with adaptive management 

strategies to address wolf predation 

problems on wild ungulates if 

confirmed wolf predation leads to 

declines in localized herds. 

• In the unlikely event that a person 

is attacked by a wolf, the plan describes 

the circumstances under which 

Oregon’s criminal code and the Federal 

Act would allow harassing, harming or 

killing of wolves where necessary to 

avoid imminent, grave injury. Such an 

incident must be reported to law 

enforcement officials. 

• A strong information and education 

program is proposed to ensure anyone 

with an interest in wolves is able to 

learn more about the species and stay 

informed about wildlife management 

activities. 

• Several research projects are 

identified as necessary for future 

success of long-term wolf conservation 

and management. Monitoring and radiocollaring wolves are listed as critical 

components of the plan both for 

conservation and communication with 

Oregonians. 

• An economic analysis provides 

estimates of costs and benefits 

associated with wolves in Oregon and 

wolf conservation and management. 

• Finally, the plan requires annual 

reporting to the Commission on program 

implementation. 

The Oregon Wolf Management Plan, 

as approved by the Oregon Fish and 

Wildlife Commission in February 2005, 

called for three legislative actions which 

the 2005 Oregon Legislative Assembly 

considered, but did not adopt. These 

actions were: (1) Changing the legal 

status of the gray wolf from protected 

non-game wildlife to a ‘‘special status 

mammal’’ under the ‘‘game mammal’’

definition in ORS 496.004; (2) amending 

the wildlife damage statute (ORS 

498.012) to remove the requirement for 

a permit to lethally take a gray wolf 

caught in the act of attacking livestock; 

and (3) creating a State-funded program 

to pay compensation for wolf-caused 

losses of livestock and to pay for 

proactive methods to prevent wolf 

depredation. As a result, the Fish and 

Wildlife Commission is currently going 

through a public review process to 

amend the Oregon Plan and discuss 

legislative proposals. The Commission 

remains on record as calling for those 

legislative enhancements; however, 

implementation of the Oregon Plan does 

not depend upon them. 

Under the Oregon Wolf Management 

Plan, the gray wolf will remain 

classified as endangered under State law 

until the conservation population 

objective for eastern Oregon is reached 

(i.e., four breeding pairs for 3 

consecutive years). Once the objective is 

achieved, the State delisting process 

will be initiated. Following delisting 

from the State Endangered Species Act, 

wolves will retain their classification as 

nongame wildlife under ORS 496.375. If 

a legislative change is made to reclassify 

the gray wolf as a ‘‘special status 

mammal’’ under the ‘‘game mammal’’

definition in Oregon, the Commission 

will retain the authority to regulate 

(and, where appropriate, prohibit) take 

of the wolf as necessary. 

Utah—If federally delisted, wolves in 

that portion of the NRM DPS in Utah 

would remain listed as protected 

wildlife under State law. In Utah, 

wolves fall under three layers of 

protection—(1) State code, (2) 

Administrative Rule and (3) Species 

Management Plan. The Utah Code can 

be found at http://www.le.state.ut.us/ 

∼code/TITLE23/TITLE23.htm. 

The relevant administrative rules that 

restrict wolf take can be found at http:// 

www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/ 

r657–003.htm and http:// 

www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/ 

r657–011.htm. These regulations restrict 

all potential taking of wolves in Utah, 

including that portion in the NRM DPS. 

Wolf management in Utah will have no 

effect on the recovered wolf population 

that resides in suitable habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. 

In 2003, the Utah Legislature passed 

House Joint Resolution 12 (HJR–12), 

which directed the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to draft a 

wolf management plan for ‘‘the review, 

modification and adoption by the Utah 

Wildlife Board, through the Regional 

Advisory Council process.’’ In April 

2003, the Utah Wildlife Board directed 

UDWR to develop a proposal for a wolf 

working group to assist the agency in 

this endeavor. The UDWR created the 

Wolf Working Group in the summer of 

2003. The Wolf Working Group is 

composed of 13 members that represent 

diverse public interests regarding 

wolves in Utah. 

On June 9, 2005, the Utah Wildlife 

Board passed the Utah Wolf 

Management Plan (Utah 2005). The goal 

of the Plan is to manage, study, and 

conserve wolves moving into Utah 

while avoiding conflicts with the elk 

and deer management objectives of the 

Ute Indian Tribe; minimizing livestock 

depredation; and protecting wild 

ungulate populations in Utah from 

excessive wolf predation. The Utah Plan 

can be viewed at http:// 

www.wildlife.utah.gov/wolf/. Its purpose 

is to guide management of wolves in 

Utah during an interim period from 

Federal delisting until 2015, or until it 

is determined that wolves have become 

established in Utah, or the assumptions 

of the plan (political, social, biological, 

or legal) change. During this interim 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6134 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

period, immigrating wolves will be 

studied to determine where they are 

most likely to settle without conflict. 

Tribal Plans—Approximately 20 

Tribes are within the proposed NRM 

DPS. Currently no wolf packs live on, or 

are entirely dependent on Tribal lands 

for their existence in the NRM DPS. In 

the NRM DPS about 32,942 km 2 (12,719 

mi 2) (3 percent) of the area is Tribal 

land. In the NRM wolf occupied habitat, 

about 4,696 km 2 (1,813 mi 2) (2 percent) 

is Tribal land (Service 2006; 71 FR 6645, 

February 8, 2006). Therefore, while 

Tribal lands can contribute some habitat 

for wolf packs in the NRM, they will be 

relatively unimportant to maintaining a 

recovered wolf population in the NRM 

DPS. Many wolf packs live in areas of 

public land where Tribes have various 

treaty rights, such as wildlife harvest. 

Montana and Idaho propose to 

incorporate Tribal harvest into their 

assessment of the potential surplus of 

wolves available for public harvest in 

each State, each year, to ensure that the 

wolf population is maintained above 

recovery levels. Utilization of those 

Tribal treaty rights will not significantly 

impact the wolf population or reduce it 

below recovery levels because a small 

portion of the wolf population could be 

affected by Tribal harvest or lives in 

areas subject to Tribal harvest rights. 

The overall regulatory framework 

analyzed in this proposed rule depends 

entirely on State-led management of 

wolves that are primarily on lands 

where resident wildlife is traditionally 

managed primarily by the States. Any 

wolves that may establish themselves on 

Tribal lands will be in addition to those 

managed by the States outside Tribal 

reservations. At this point in time, only 

the Nez Perce Tribe has a Service 

approved wolf management plan, but 

that plan only applied to listed wolves, 

and it was reviewed so the Service 

could determine if the Tribe could take 

a portion of the responsibility for wolf 

monitoring and management in Idaho 

under the 1994 special regulation under 

section 10(j). No other Tribe has 

submitted a wolf management plan. In 

November 2005, the Service requested 

information from all the Tribes in the 

NRM regarding their Tribal regulations 

and any other relevant information 

regarding Tribal management or 

concerns about wolves (Bangs 2004). All 

responses were reviewed, and Tribal 

comments were incorporated into this 

proposed rule. 

Summary 

Montana and Idaho have proposed to 

regulate wolf mortality over conflicts 

with livestock after delisting in a 

manner similar to that used by the 

Service to reduce conflicts with private 

property, and that would promote the 

maintenance of wolf populations above 

recovery levels. These two State plans 

have committed to using a definition of 

a wolf pack that would approximate the 

Service’s current breeding pair 

definition. Based on that definition, 

they have committed to maintaining at 

least 10 breeding pairs and 100 wolves 

per State by managing for a safety 

margin of 15 breeding pairs in each 

State. These States are to control 

problem wolves in a manner similar to 

that used by the Service (1988, p. 8; 

1994, pp. 2, 9–12; 1999, pp. 39–40; 70 

FR 1306–1311, January 6, 2005) and use 

adaptive management principles to 

regulate and balance wolf population 

size and distribution with livestock 

conflict and public tolerance. When 

wolf populations are above State 

management objectives for 15 breeding 

pairs, wolf control measures may be 

more liberal. When wolf populations are 

below 15 breeding pairs, wolf control as 

directed by each State will be more 

conservative. 

Current Wyoming law provides a 

definition of pack that is not consistent 

with the Service’s definition of a 

breeding pair. In addition, Wyoming 

uses the State definition of pack in a 

complicated structure for determining 

when wolves are protected under the 

regulatory mechanisms of the ‘‘trophy 

game’’ status and absent management 

structure under the ‘‘predatory animal’’

status. Wyoming’s plan does not 

provide for sufficient regulatory control 

to balance wolf population size and 

distribution with livestock conflict and 

public tolerance. If Wyoming adopts a 

State management plan that is 

consistent with the requirements 

outlined above, and that have been 

already incorporated into Montana’s 

and Idaho’s regulatory framework, we 

intend to delist the entire NRM DPS. 

If the Service delists the wolf in the 

NRM DPS, the major difference between 

the previous Federal management and 

the new State management of problem 

wolves will be the slightly increased 

authority to take wolves in the act of 

attacking or molesting livestock or other 

domestic animals on private land by 

private landowners or on grazing 

allotments by permittees and public 

harvest programs to help regulate wolf 

distribution and density to meet state 

management objectives. 

Private take of problem wolves under 

State regulations would replace some 

agency control, but we believe this 

would not dramatically increase the 

overall numbers of problem wolves 

killed each year because of conflicts 

with livestock. However, if Wyoming 

does not finalize an adequate State 

management plan consistent with the 

requirements outlined above, current 

Wyoming State law designates 

predatory animal status that allows all 

wolves, including pups, to be killed by 

any means, without limit, at any time, 

for any reason, and regardless of any 

direct or potential threat to livestock. 

Such unregulated take could eliminate 

wolves from some otherwise significant 

portion of the range habitat in 

northwestern Wyoming. Therefore, 

without an adequate State management 

plan, wolf management in northwestern 

Wyoming will remain under the 

protections of the Act and continue to 

be conducted by the Service after this 

proposal is finalized. 

In contrast to the Service recovery 

program, currently approved State and 

Tribal management programs also are to 

incorporate regulated public harvest, 

only when wolf populations in Montana 

and Idaho are safely above recovery 

levels of 15 or more breeding pairs, to 

help manage wolf distribution and 

numbers to minimize conflicts with 

humans. Wyoming State law and 

management also should meet this 

requirement before wolves in that State 

also could be delisted. Each of the three 

core States routinely uses regulated 

public harvest to help successfully 

manage and conserve other large 

predators and wild ungulates under 

their authority. Idaho and Montana will 

use similar programs to manage wolf 

populations safely above recovery 

levels, when there are more than 15 

breeding pairs in their State. Wyoming 

will likely have a similar program prior 

to the Act’s protections being removed. 

The States of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming have managed resident 

ungulate populations for decades and 

maintain them at densities that would 

easily support a recovered wolf 

population. They, and Federal land 

management agencies, will continue to 

manage for high ungulate populations in 

the foreseeable future. Native ungulate 

populations also are maintained at high 

levels by Washington, Oregon, and Utah 

in the portions of those States that are 

in the proposed NRM DPS. No 

foreseeable condition would cause a 

decline in ungulate populations 

significant enough to affect a recovered 

wolf population. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Public Attitudes Toward the Gray 

Wolf—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 largely 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6135 

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 concerns regarding 

the threat to pets, opinions that the 

species should never be subject to sport 

hunting or trapping, and the wolf 

traditions of Native American Tribes. 

In recent decades, national support 

has been evident for wolf recovery and 

reintroduction in the NRM (Service 

1994, pp. 5:11–111). With the continued 

help of private conservation 

organizations, the States and Tribes can 

continue to foster public support to 

maintain viable wolf populations in the 

NRM. We have concluded that the State 

management regulations that will go 

into effect if wolves in the NRM are 

removed from the Act’s protections will 

further enhance public support for wolf 

recovery. State management provides a 

larger and more effective local 

organization and a more familiar means 

for dealing with these conflicts (Mech 

1995, pp. 275–276; Williams et al. 2002, 

p. 582; Bangs et al. 2004, p. 102). State 

wildlife organizations have specific 

departments and staff dedicated to 

providing accurate and science-based 

public education, information, and 

outreach. 

Genetics—Genetic diversity in the 

GYA segment of the NRM is extremely 

high (Wayne 2005). A recent study of 

genetics among wolves in northwestern 

Montana and the reintroduced 

populations found that wolves in those 

areas were as genetically diverse as their 

source populations in Canada and that 

inadequate genetic diversity was not a 

wolf conservation issue in the NRM at 

this time (Forbes and Boyd 1997, p. 

1089; Vonholdt 2006). Because of the 

long dispersal distances and the relative 

speed of natural wolf movement within 

the NRM DPS (discussed under Factor 

A), we anticipate that populations of 

NRM wolves will continue to intermix 

at a sufficient rate to maintain high 

genetic diversity into the foreseeable 

future. However, should it become 

necessary sometime in the distant 

future, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

recognize relocation as a potentially 

valid wildlife management tool. 

No manmade and natural factors 

threaten wolf population recovery 

within the foreseeable future. Public 

attitudes toward wolves have improved 

greatly over the past 30 years, and we 

expect that, given adequate continued 

management of conflicts, those attitudes 

will continue to support wolf 

restoration. The State wildlife agencies 

have professional education, 

information, and outreach components 

and are to present balanced sciencebased information to the public that will 

continue to foster general public 

support for wolf restoration and the 

necessity of conflict resolution to 

maintain public tolerance of wolves. 

Additionally, there are no concerns 

related to wolf genetic viability or 

interbreeding coefficients. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

As required by the Act, we considered 

the five potential threat factors to assess 

whether wolves are threatened or 

endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range in the 

NRM DPS and, therefore, whether the 

NRM DPS should remain listed. While 

wolves historically occurred over most 

of the proposed DPS, large portions of 

this area are no longer able to support 

viable wolf populations, and the wolf 

population in the NRM DPS will remain 

centered in northwestern Montana, 

central Idaho, and the GYA. This area 

represents the biologically significant 

portion of the species’ range. If 

Wyoming develops an adequate State 

management plan, the NRM DPS would 

no longer be threatened or endangered 

in all or any significant portion of its 

range for the foreseeable future. Gray 

wolves in those portions of Oregon, 

Utah, and Washington that are within 

the boundaries of the distinct 

population segment do not constitute a 

significant portion of the range of this 

distinct population segment for the 

reasons outlined above. We reviewed all 

potential threats to the wolf population 

in the NRM DPS and we concluded that 

none except the current state regulatory 

framework in Wyoming would threaten 

wolves in any significant portion of the 

range in the NRM DPS in the foreseeable 

future. Such a regulatory framework 

would also threaten the suitable habitat 

and wolf range in Wyoming outside the 

National Parks. If Wyoming changes its 

law and management plan consistent 

with the Service’s recommendations, it 

will also sufficiently regulate humancaused mortality. However, if no 

changes occur, excessive human-caused 

mortality as allowed under Wyoming 

state law would remain the lone threat 

to wolves in a significant portion of the 

range in northwestern Wyoming outside 

the National Parks. If a new Wyoming 

regulatory framework cannot be 

approved by the Service, then the Act’s 

protections will remain in effect in a 

significant portion of range in Wyoming, 

outside the National Parks, and they 

will provide adequate assurance into the 

foreseeable future that human-caused 

mortality will not become a threat to 

wolves in all or a significant portion of 

their range, even in northwestern 

Wyoming outside the National Parks. 

The large amount and distribution of 

suitable habitat in public ownership in 

the States of Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, land-use practices that will 

maintain the suitability of these areas 

for wolves, the presence of three large 

protected core areas that contain highquality suitable habitat assures the 

Service that threats to wolf habitat in 

the NRM DPS have been reduced or 

eliminated in all or a significant portion 

of its range for the foreseeable future, 

except for northwestern Wyoming 

outside the National Parks. Unsuitable 

habitat and small, fragmented suitable 

habitat away from these core areas 

within the NRM DPS, largely represent 

geographic locations where wolf packs 

cannot persist and are not significant to 

the conservation of wolves in the NRM 

DPS. Disease and natural predation do 

not threaten wolf population recovery in 

all or a significant portion of the 

species’ range, nor are they likely to 

within the foreseeable future. 

Additionally, we believe that other 

relevant natural or manmade factors 

(i.e., public attitudes and genetics) are 

not significant conservation issues that 

threaten the wolf population in all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future. 

Human-caused mortality remains the 

primary threat to the gray wolf. 

Therefore, managing mortality (i.e., 

overutilization of wolves for 

commercial, recreational, scientific and 

educational purposes and human 

predation) remains the primary 

challenge to maintaining a recovered 

wolf population into the foreseeable 

future. Wolf management by the Tribes 

and the States of Washington, Oregon, 

and Utah will be beneficial, but is not 

necessary to either achieving or 

maintaining a recovered wolf 

population in the NRM DPS, as these 

areas do not constitute a significant 

portion of the DPS. We have determined 

that if Wyoming develops an adequate 

State management plan, the wolf 

management plans in the 3 States will 

be adequate to regulate human-caused 

mortality and that each State will 

maintain its share and distribution of 

the NRM wolf population above 

recovery levels for the foreseeable 

future. In this case, we propose to 

establish the NRM DPS of the gray wolf 

and to delist all gray wolves in the 

entire NRM DPS. 

In the past, the Service has 

approached delisting of ‘‘species’’ (as 

that term is defined by the Act) due to 

recovery to require that the entity being 

delisted must be neither threatened nor 

endangered throughout all or a 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6136 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

significant portion of its range. In 

practice, this has meant that we have 

delisted entire species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segments of 

vertebrate animals. In the current 

situation, i.e., without an adequate 

management plan in place in Wyoming, 

we propose to establish a Northern 

Rocky Mountain distinct population 

segment of gray wolf and to delist 

wolves in all areas of that DPS exclusive 

of the significant portion of the range in 

the State of Wyoming outside of the 

National Parks in northwestern 

Wyoming. As clearly indicated by the 

discussion in this proposed delisting, 

we currently regard a portion of 

Wyoming to be a significant portion of 

the range of the NRM DPS because a 

biologically significant portion of the 

species’ range occurs in Wyoming and 

have determined that the State has not 

adequately addressed the threats to the 

gray wolf in that portion. Accordingly, 

the protections of the Act will continue 

to apply to gray wolves in that 

significant portion of the range. We 

believe that this proposal is in the 

public interest because, by conditionally 

returning management to the States, it 

rewards those who have undertaken 

positive efforts to conserve the species 

and alleviate the threats posed by 

human-caused mortality. This approach 

furthers the Administration’s efforts to 

emphasize the importance of 

cooperative conservation in achieving 

the purposes of the Act. 

Section 4(c)(1) of the Act states, ‘‘The 

Secretary of the Interior shall publish in 

the Federal Register a list of all species 

determined by him or the Secretary of 

Commerce to be endangered species and 

a list of all species determined by him 

or the Secretary of Commerce to be 

threatened species. Each list shall refer 

to the species contained therein by 

scientific and common name or names, 

if any, specify with respect to such 

species over what portion of its range it 

is endangered or threatened, and 

specify any critical habitat within such 

range’’ 16 U.S.C. 1533(c)(1) (emphasis 

added). The Service believes the 

emphasized text, in conjunction with 

the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’

language in the definition of 

‘‘threatened’’ and ‘‘endangered,’’ U.S.C. 

1532(6), (20), indicates that Congress 

anticipated situations where the 

protections of the Act might not be 

extended to an entire species, as that 

term is defined by the Act, and that this 

provides the authority for listing or 

delisting a portion of a species, 

subspecies, or distinct population 

segment of vertebrate animal. 

This conclusion is also consistent 

with the case law, the ESA, and the 

legislative history of the Act. In 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth 

Circuit stated regarding the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ language: ‘‘It 

appears that Congress added this new 

language in order to encourage greater 

cooperation between federal and state 

agencies to allow the Secretary more 

flexibility in her approach to wildlife 

management.’’ Id. at 1144. The court 

went on to recount the Senate floor 

debate of the ESA, interpreting it as 

suggesting that the bill would allow the 

Secretary to give the American alligator 

different listing statuses in different 

states. Id. at 1144–45. Finally, in its 

holding, the court stated that a 

significant portion of a species’ range 

could coincide with State boundaries, 

and that ‘‘[t]he Secretary necessarily has 

a wide degree of discretion in 

delineating ‘‘a significant portion of its 

range.’’ Id. at 1145. 

Therefore, based on the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

if Wyoming modifies their wolf 

management framework we propose that 

the gray wolf in the NRM DPS be 

removed from the list of threatened and 

endangered species. However, if it fails 

to modify its management plan 

adequately, wolves in significant 

portion of the range in Wyoming outside 

of the National Parks in northwestern 

Wyoming will still require the Act’s 

protections and will retain their 

nonessential experimental status under 

section 10(j) of the Act. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act, added in 

the 1988 reauthorization, requires us to 

implement a system, in cooperation 

with the States, to monitor for not less 

than 5 years, the status of all species 

that have recovered and been removed 

from the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (50 CFR 

17.11 and 17.12). The purpose of this 

post-delisting monitoring (PDM) is to 

verify that a recovered species remains 

secure from risk of extinction after it no 

longer has the protections of the Act. 

Should relisting be required, we may 

make use of the emergency listing 

authorities under section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act to prevent a significant risk to the 

well-being of any recovered species. 

Monitoring Techniques—The NRM 

area was intensively monitored for 

wolves even before wolves were 

documented in Montana in the mid1980s (Weaver 1978; Ream and Mattson 

1982, pp. 379–381; Kaminski and 

Hansen 1984, p. v). Numerous Federal, 

State, Tribal agencies, universities, and 

special interest groups assisted in those 

various efforts. Since 1979, wolves have 

been monitored using standard 

techniques including collecting, 

evaluating, and following-up on 

suspected observations of wolves or 

wolf signs by natural resource agencies 

or the public; howling or snow tracking 

surveys conducted by the Service, our 

university and agency cooperators, 

volunteers, or interested special interest 

groups; and by capturing, radiocollaring, and monitoring wolves. We 

only consider wolves and wolf packs as 

confirmed when Federal, State, or Tribal 

agency verification is made by field staff 

that can reliably identify wolves and 

wolf signs. 

The wolf monitoring system works in 

a hierarchical nature. Typically we 

receive a report (either directly or 

passed along by another agency) that 

wolves or their signs were observed. We 

make no judgment whether the report 

seems credible or not and normally just 

note the general location of that 

observation. Unless breeding results, 

reports of single animals are not 

important unless tied to other reports or 

unusual observations that elicit concern 

(i.e., a wolf reported feeding on a 

livestock carcass). Lone wolves can 

wander long distances over a short 

period of time (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

pp. 14–15) and may be almost 

impossible to find again or confirm. 

However, the patterns and clusters of 

those individual reports are very 

informative and critical to subsequent 

agency decisions about where to focus 

agency searches for wolf pack activity. 

When we receive multiple reports of 

multiple individuals that indicate 

possible territoriality and pair bonding 

(the early stage of pack formation), or a 

report of multiple wolves that seems 

highly credible (usually made by a 

biologist or experienced outdoorsperson), we typically notify the nearest 

Federal, State or Tribal natural resource/ 

land management agency and ask them 

to be on the alert for possible wolf 

activity during their normal course of 

field activities. Once they locate areas of 

suspected wolf activity, we may ask 

experienced field biologists to search 

the area for wolf signs (tracks, howling, 

scats, ungulate kills). Depending on the 

type of activity confirmed, field crews 

may decide to capture, radio-collar, and 

release wolves on site. Radio-collared 

wolves are then relocated from the air 

1 to 4 times per month dependent on a 

host of factors including funding, 

personnel, aircraft availability, weather, 

and other priorities. At the end of the 

year, we compile agency-confirmed wolf 

observations to estimate the numbers 

and locations of adult wolves and pups 

that were likely alive on December 31 of 

that year. These data are then 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6137 

summarized by packs to indicate overall 

population size, composition, and 

distribution. This level of wildlife 

monitoring is intensive compared to 

nearly all others done in North America. 

We believe the results are relatively 

accurate estimates of wolf population 

distribution and structure (Service et al. 

2006, Table 4, Figure 1) in the NRM 

DPS. This monitoring strategy has been 

used to estimate the NRM wolf 

population for over 20 years. 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, as 

well as Oregon and Utah, committed to 

continue monitoring of wolf 

populations, according to their State 

wolf management plans (See State plans 

in Factor D), using similar techniques as 

the Service and its cooperators (which 

has included the States, Tribes, and 

USDA–WS—the same agencies that will 

be managing and monitoring wolves 

post-delisting) have used. The States 

have committed to continue to conduct 

wolf population monitoring through the 

mandatory 5-year PDM period that is 

required by the Act. The States also 

have committed to publish the results of 

their monitoring efforts in annual wolf 

reports as has been done since 1989 by 

the Service and its cooperators (Service 

et al. 1989–2006). Other States and 

Tribes within the DPS adjacent to 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming also 

have participated in this interagency 

cooperative wolf monitoring system for 

at least the past decade, and their plans 

commit them to continue to report wolf 

activity in their States and coordinate 

those observations with other States. 

The annual reports have also 

documented all aspects of the wolf 

management program including staffing 

and funding, population monitoring, 

control to reduce livestock and pet 

damage, research (predator-prey 

interactions, livestock/wolf conflict 

prevention, disease and health 

monitoring, publications, etc.) and 

public outreach. 

Service Review of the Post-Delisting 

Status of the Wolf Population—To 

ascertain wolf population distribution 

and structure and to analyze if the wolf 

population might require a status review 

(to determine whether it should again be 

listed under the Act), we intend to 

review the State and any Tribal annual 

wolf reports each year. The status of the 

NRM wolf population will be estimated 

by estimating the numbers of packs, 

breeding pairs, and total numbers of 

wolves in mid-winter throughout the 

post-delisting monitoring period 

(Service et al. 2006, Table 4, Figure 1). 

By evaluating the techniques used and 

the results of those wolf monitoring 

efforts, the Service can decide whether 

further action, including re-listing is 

warranted. In addition, the States and 

Tribes are investigating other, perhaps 

more accurate and less expensive, ways 

to help estimate and describe wolf pack 

distribution and abundance (Service et 

al. 2006, Figure 1, Table 4; Ausband 

2006; Kunkel et al. 2005). 

Data indicate that other survey 

methods and data can become the 

‘‘biological equivalents’’ of the breeding 

pair definition currently used to 

measure recovery. Those State and 

Tribal investigations also include 

alternative ways to estimate the status of 

the wolf population and the numbers of 

breeding pairs that are as accurate, but 

less expensive, than those that are 

currently used (Ausband 2006). The 

States will continue to cooperate with 

National Parks and Tribes and publish 

their annual wolf population estimates 

after the 5-year mandatory wolf 

population monitoring required by the 

Act is over, but this will not be required 

by the Act. 

We fully recognize and anticipate that 

State and Tribal laws regarding wolves 

and State and Tribal management will 

change through time as new knowledge 

becomes available as the States and 

Tribes gain additional experience at 

wolf management and conservation. We 

will base any analysis of whether a 

status review and relisting are 

warranted upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

wolf distribution, abundance, and 

threats in the NRM DPS. For the 5-year 

PDM period, the best source of that 

information will be the State annual 

wolf reports. We intend to post those 

annual State wolf reports and our 

annual review and comment on the 

status of the wolf population in the 

NRM DPS on our Web site (http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/) by, 

approximately, April 1 of each year. 

During our yearly analysis for PDM (at 

least 5 years) of the State’s annual 

reports, we also intend to comment on 

any threats that may have increased 

during the previous year, such as 

significant changes in a State regulatory 

framework, diseases, decreases in prey 

abundance, increases in wolf-livestock 

conflict, or other factors. 

Our analysis and response for PDM is 

to track changes in wolf abundance, 

distribution, and threats to the 

population. If the wolf population ever 

falls below the minimum NRM wolf 

population recovery level (30 breeding 

pairs of wolves and 300 wolves in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming), we 

could initiate an immediate analysis of 

whether an emergency listing of gray 

wolves throughout the NRM DPS was 

appropriate. If the wolf population 

segment in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming falls below 10 breeding pairs 

or 100 wolves in any one of those States 

for 3 consecutive years, we could 

initiate a status review and analysis of 

threats to determine if relisting was 

warranted. All such reviews would be 

made available for public review and 

comment, including peer review by 

select species experts. If either of these 

two scenarios (less than 30 breeding 

pairs or 300 wolves, or less than 10 

breeding pairs or 100 wolves in either 

Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming) occurred 

in any year during the mandatory PDM 

period, the PDM period would be 

extended five additional years from that 

point. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this proposal 

easier to understand including answers 

to questions such as the following—(1) 

Is the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of the preamble 

helpful to your understanding of the 

proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain 

technical language or jargon that 

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the 

format of the proposal (groupings and 

order of sections, use of headings, 

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 

clarity? What else could we do to make 

the proposal easier to understand? Send 

a copy of any comments on how we 

could make this rule easier to 

understand to—Office of Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of the Interior, 

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. You also may email the comments to this address—

Exsec@ios.doi.gov. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We solicit information, data, 

comments or suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this proposal. Generally, we 

seek information, data, and comments 

concerning the boundaries of the 

proposed NRM DPS and the status of 

gray wolf in the NRM. Specifically, we 

seek documented, biological data on the 

status and management of the NRM wolf 

population and its habitat. 

Public Hearing 

The ESA provides for public hearings 

on this proposed rule. We have 

scheduled six public hearings on this 

proposed rule as specified above in 

DATES and ADDRESSES. Public hearings 

are designed to gather relevant 

information that the public may have 

that we should consider in our 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
6138 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

rulemaking. During the hearing, we will 

present information about the proposed 

action. We invite the public to submit 

information and comments at the 

hearing or in writing during the open 

public comment period. We encourage 

persons wishing to comment at the 

hearings to provide a written copy of 

their statement at the start of the 

hearing. This notice and the public 

hearings will allow all interested parties 

to submit comments on the proposed 

rule for the gray wolf. We are seeking 

comments from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Tribes, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested parties 

concerning the proposal. 

The eastern one-third of Washington 

and Oregon, and a small portion of 

northern Utah are included within the 

proposed DPS. We request comments on 

whether the DPS should, or should not, 

include more, or less, land within these, 

or any other, State(s). Any such 

comments should provide relevant 

scientific data. We will consider the 

information so submitted in delineating 

the boundaries for this DPS. 

We request comment on our approach 

of removing protections in all or a 

portion of the NRM DPS. If Wyoming 

adopts a State law and a State wolf 

management plan that the Service 

approves we will remove Act 

protections for all of the NRM DPS. 

However, if Wyoming does not, the 

Service would remove the Act’s 

protections for Idaho and Montana and 

parts of Washington, Oregon, and Utah. 

Northwestern Wyoming outside the 

National Parks would retain its 

nonessential experimental status under 

section 10(j) of the Act but the rest of 

the state would be delisted. Continued 

Service management of wolves in 

northwestern Wyoming would ensure 

their conservation, until a Wyoming 

regulatory framework can be developed 

and approved. We believe this process 

is in the public’s best interest, furthers 

conservation efforts in the NRM DPS, 

and is within our statutory discretion 

under the Act. 

Finally, we request comments 

concerning our intention to use section 

6 agreements under the Act to allow 

States with Service-approved wolf 

management plans, located adjacent to 

NRM DPS, to assume wolf management 

including nonlethal and lethal control 

of problem wolves. Such agreements 

may be entered into with a State for the 

administration of and management for 

the conservation of endangered or 

threatened species. The protections of 

the Act would still continue to apply to 

the gray wolves outside the NRM DPS. 

Submit comments as indicated under 

ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit 

comments by e-mail, please avoid the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include your 

name and return address in your e-mail 

message. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home addresses from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name and/or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment, but you should be aware that 

the Service may be required to disclose 

your name and address pursuant to the 

Freedom of Information Act. We will 

not consider anonymous comments. 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 our Helena Office. (see 

ADDRESSES). In making a final decision 

on this proposed rule, we will take into 

consideration the comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposed rule. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek 

the expert opinions of at least three 

appropriate and independent specialists 

regarding this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

our delisting decision is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to these peer 

reviewers immediately following 

publication in the Federal Register. We 

will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

delisting. We will consider all 

comments and information received 

during the comment period on this 

proposed rule during preparation of a 

final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposed 

rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information other than 

those already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1018–0094, which expires on 

September 30, 2007. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

For additional information concerning 

permit and associated requirements for 

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 

and 17.22. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service has determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with actions adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A 

notice outlining the Service’s reasons 

for this determination was published in 

the Federal Register on October 25, 

1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES

above). 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ under 

‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 26 / Thursday, February 8, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6139 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS 

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray ........... Canis lupus ....... Holarctic ............ U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) 

States, except: (1) Where listed 

as an experimental population 

below; (2) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, eastern North 

Dakota (that portion north and 

east of the Missouri River upstream to Lake Sakakawea and 

east of Highway 83 from Lake 

Sakakawea to the Canadian 

border), eastern South Dakota 

(that portion north and east of 

the Missouri River), northern 

Iowa, northern Illinois, and 

northern Indiana (those portions 

of IA, IL, and IN north of Interstate Highway 80), and northwestern Ohio (that portion north 

of Interstate Highway 80 and 

west of the Maumee River at 

Toledo); 

E ......... 1, 6, 13, 

15, 35, 

561, 

562, 735.

N/A .......... N/A 

(3) except Montana, Wyoming, 

and Idaho, eastern Washington 

(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), eastern Oregon (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), and north central Utah 

(that portion of Utah east of 

Highway 84 and north of Highway 80); and (4) Mexico. U.S.A. 

(portions of AZ, NM, and TX— 

see section 17.84(k)).

Do ....................... do ...................... do ...................... ....................................................... XN ....... 631 .......... N/A .......... 17.84(k) 

* * * * * * * 

§ 17.84 [Amended] 

3. Amend § 17.84 by removing 

paragraphs (i) and (n). 

Dated: January 29, 2007. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–487 Filed 2–7–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2