[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19997]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 16, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC87

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray 
Wolf in Central Idaho Area

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to 
reintroduce the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, into 
central Idaho in order to establish a population of wolves. This 
population would be classified as a nonessential experimental 
population according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (Act). Gray wolves have been extirpated from most of 
the western United States. They presently occur in a small population 
in extreme northwestern Montana, and as incidental occurrences of a few 
wolves in Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington that result from the dispersal 
of wolves from Montana and Canada. This reintroduction is being 
proposed to reestablish a viable wolf population in the central Idaho 
area (including a portion of southwestern Montana), one of three wolf 
recovery areas that have been identified in the Northern Rocky Mountain 
Wolf Recovery Plan. Potential effects of this proposed rule were 
evaluated in an environmental impact statement completed in May 1994. 
This gray wolf reintroduction would not conflict with existing or 
anticipated Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of park 
lands, wilderness areas, or surrounding lands.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October 
17, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments or other information may be sent to: Gray Wolf 
Reintroduction, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 8017, Helena, 
Montana 59601. The complete file for this proposed rule is available 
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 100 N. 
Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward E. Bangs, at the above 
address, or telephone (406)449-5202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legal

    Amendments of 1982, P.L. 97-304, made significant changes to the 
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including the creation of section 10(j), which provides for the 
designation of specific populations of listed species as ``experimental 
populations''. Under previous authorities in the Act, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to reintroduce populations of 
a listed species into unoccupied portions of its historic range for 
conservation and recovery purposes. However, local opposition to 
reintroduction efforts from certain parties concerned about potential 
restrictions, and prohibitions on Federal and private activities 
contained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, reduced the utility of 
reintroductions as a management tool.
    Under section 10(j), a reintroduced population of a listed species 
established outside its current range, but within its historic range 
may now be designated, at the discretion of the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary), as ``experimental.'' The Act requires that an 
experimental population be separated geographically from 
nonexperimental populations of the same species. Furthermore, an 
experimental population is treated as a threatened species, except 
that, solely for section 7 purposes (except for subsection (a)(1)), an 
experimental population determined not to be essential to the continued 
existence of a species is treated, except when it occurs in an area 
within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System, 
as a species proposed to be listed under section 4 of the Act. 
Activities undertaken on private lands are not affected by section 7 of 
the Act unless they are funded, authorized or carried out by a Federal 
agency.

2. Biological

    This proposal deals with the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered 
species of carnivore that was extirpated from the western portion of 
the conterminous United States by about 1930. The gray wolf is native 
to most of North America north of Mexico City, except for the 
southeastern United States, which was occupied by a similar species, 
the red wolf (Canis rufus). The gray wolf occupied nearly every area in 
North America that supported populations of hooved mammals (ungulates), 
its major food source.
    Twenty-four distinct subspecies of gray wolf have been recognized 
in North America. Recently, however, taxonomists have suggested that 
there are five or fewer subspecies of gray wolf in North America and 
that the wolves that once occupied the northern Rocky Mountains of the 
United States belonged to a more widely distributed subspecies than was 
previously believed.
    The gray wolf historically occurred in the northern Rocky 
Mountains, including mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and 
Idaho. The great reduction in the distribution and abundance of this 
species in North America was directly related to human activities, 
especially elimination of native ungulates, conversion of wildland into 
agricultural lands, and extensive predator control efforts by private, 
State, and Federal agencies. When most wolves in the conterminous 
United States were eradicated, the natural history of wolves was poorly 
understood. As were other large predators, it was considered a nuisance 
and a threat to humans. Today, the gray wolf's role as an important and 
necessary part of natural ecosystems is better appreciated.
    Wolf reproduction was not detected in the Rocky Mountain portion of 
the United States for a period of about 50 years prior to 1986. At that 
time, a wolf den was discovered near the Canadian border in Glacier 
National Park. This event was presumably due to the southern expansion 
of Canadian wolf populations, and the wolf population in Glacier 
National Park has steadily expanded to an estimated size of about 65 
wolves that now occupy northwestern Montana.
    Reproducing wolf populations are not known to occur in Idaho or 
southwestern Montana. Wolves occasionally have been sighted in these 
States, but they have not established populations as defined by wolf 
experts (Service 1994). Historical reports suggest wolves may have 
produced young there several times in the recent past. However, based 
on extensive surveys and interagency monitoring efforts (Service 1994), 
no wolf population has persisted in these States.

3. Wolf Recovery Efforts

    In the 1970s, the state of Montana led an interagency recovery 
team, established by the Service, that developed a recovery plan for 
the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf. That 1980 plan recommended a 
combination of natural recovery and reintroduction be used to recover 
wolf populations in the area around Yellowstone National Park (Park) 
north to the Canadian border, including central Idaho.
    A revised recovery plan was approved by the Service in 1987 
(Service 1987). It identified a recovered wolf population as being at 
least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3 consecutive years, in each of 
3 recovery areas (northwestern Montana, central Idaho and the 
Yellowstone area). A population of this size would comprise 
approximately 300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery in 
Montana and Idaho, and using the experimental-population authority of 
section 10(j) of the Act to quickly reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone 
National Park and to conduct flexible management to address local 
concerns about their potential negative impacts. If 2 wolf packs did 
not become established in central Idaho within 5 years, the plan 
recommended that conservation measures other than natural recovery be 
considered.
    In 1990 (Pub. L. 101-512), Congress directed appointment of a Wolf 
Management Committee, composed of 3 Federal, 3 State and 4 interest 
group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration to 
Yellowstone and central Idaho. That Committee provided a majority, but 
not unanimous, recommendation to Congress in May 1991. Among the 
measures recommended was a declaration by Congress directing 
reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and possibly 
central Idaho, as a special nonessential experimental population with 
particularly liberal management by agencies and the public to resolve 
potential conflicts. Wolves and ungulates under that plan would be 
intensively managed by the States with Federal funding and thus 
implementation costs were estimated to be high. Congress took no action 
on the Committee's recommendation.
    In November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-154), Congress directed the Service, 
in consultation with the National Park Service and Forest Service, to 
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), that considered a 
broad range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone 
National Park and central Idaho. In 1992 (Pub. L. 102-381), Congress 
directed the Service to complete the EIS by January 1994 and indicated 
that the preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.
    The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the 
EIS. In addition to the National Park Service and Forest Service, the 
States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, USDA Animal Damage Control, and 
the Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes participated. The Gray Wolf EIS 
program emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, nearly 
2,500 groups or individuals that had previously expressed an interest 
in wolves were directly contacted and the EIS program was widely 
publicized by the news media.
    In April 1992, a series of 27 ``issue scoping'' open houses were 
held in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho and 7 more in other locations 
throughout the U.S. The meetings were attended by nearly 1,800 people 
and thousands of brochures were distributed. Nearly 4,000 people 
provided their thoughts on issues they felt should be addressed in the 
EIS. A report describing the public's comments was mailed to 16,000 
people in July 1992.
    In August 1992, another series of 27 ``alternative scoping'' open 
houses and 3 hearings were held in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Three 
other hearings were held in Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, and 
Washington DC. In addition, a copy of the alternative scoping brochure 
was inserted into a Sunday edition of the two major newspapers in 
Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (total circulation about 250,000). Nearly 
2,000 people attended the meetings and nearly 5,000 comments were 
received about different ways that wolf recovery might be managed. 
Public comments reflected the strong polarization that has typified 
management of wolves. A report on the public's ideas and suggestions 
was mailed to about 30,000 people in November 1992. In April 1993, a 
Gray Wolf EIS planning update report was published. It discussed the 
status of the EIS, provided factual information about wolves, and 
requested the public to report observations of wolves in the northern 
Rocky Mountains. It was mailed to nearly 40,000 people that had 
requested information, residing in all 50 states and over 40 foreign 
countries.
    The public comment period on the draft EIS (DEIS) began on July 1, 
1993, and the notice of availability was published July 16. Full DEIS 
documents were mailed to potentially affected agencies, public 
libraries, many interest groups and to all who requested the complete 
DEIS. In addition, the DEIS summary, a schedule of the 16 hearings, and 
a request to report wolf sightings were printed in a flyer that was 
inserted into the Sunday edition of 6 newspapers in Wyoming, Montana 
and Idaho with a combined circulation of about 280,000. In mid-June 
1993, the Service sent out a letter to over 300 groups, primarily in 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho offering a presentation on the DEIS. As a 
result, 31 presentations were given to about 1,000 people during the 
comment period on the DEIS.
    During the public review period from July 1 to November 26, 1993, 
on the DEIS, comments were received from over 160,200 individuals, 
organizations, and government agencies. This degree of public response 
indicated the strong interest people have in the management of wolves. 
A summary of the public comments was mailed to about 42,000 people on 
the EIS mailing list in early March 1994.
    The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on 
May 4, 1994, and a notice of availability was published on May 9, 1994. 
The reintroduction of nonessential experimental populations of gray 
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was the Service's 
proposed action. The four alternatives considered in detail in the EIS 
were (1) Natural Recovery (No action), (2) No wolf, (3) Wolf Management 
Committee, and (4) Reintroduction of Nonexperimental Wolves.
    The Record of Decision on the EIS was signed by the Secretary of 
the Interior on June 15, 1994. The Secretary of Agriculture signed a 
letter concurring with that decision on July 13, 1994. The decision 
directed the implementation of the Service's proposed action as soon as 
practical.
    The Service already has an active wolf management program in 
Montana because of the presence of breeding pairs of wolves. About 65 
wolves now occupy northwestern Montana, and most of these occur near 
the Canadian border. The Montana program monitors wolves to determine 
their status, encourages research on wolves and their prey, provides 
accurate information to the public, and controls wolves that attack 
domestic livestock. Wolf control consists of translocating wolves that 
depredate on livestock to reduce livestock losses, and to foster local 
tolerance of non-depredating wolves to promote and enhance the 
conservation of the species. The control program does not relocate 
wolves to accelerate the natural expansion of wolves into unoccupied 
historic habitat. Wolf control includes removal of wolves that attack 
livestock and, although 19 wolves have been removed from 1986 to 
present in northwestern Montana, the wolf population in Montana has 
continued to expand at about 22 per cent per year for the past 9 years.

4. Reintroduction Site

    The Service proposes to reintroduce wolves into Federal lands 
managed by the USDA Forest Service. The Idaho location was proposed as 
a site for this experimental population area after much deliberation by 
the Service and others. The central Idaho reintroduction site is a vast 
area of about 53,000 km\2\ (20,000 mi\2\) of contiguous National 
forests, including the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez 
Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and Panhandle National Forests. In 
the center of this area are three wilderness areas, the Frank Church 
River-of-no-Return, Selway-Bitterroot, and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness 
Areas that collectively comprise about 16,000 km\2\ (6,000 mi\2\) of 
wilderness habitat.
    This vast area of Federal lands has high quality wolf habitat and 
good potential wolf release sites. Also, the central Idaho area is 
sufficiently distant from the current southern expansion of naturally 
formed wolf packs in Montana that any wolf pack documented inside the 
experimental area would likely result from reintroduction rather than 
from natural dispersal from extant wild wolf populations in Canada or 
northwestern Montana.
    The Service has determined that the proposed reintroduction effort 
in central Idaho is necessary for the successful recovery of the gray 
wolf in the conterminous United States, due to ecological and 
landownership considerations (Service 1994). Reintroduction of wolves 
into central Idaho will enhance wolf population viability by increasing 
the genetic diversity of wolves in the Rocky Mountain population, 
increase genetic interchange between segments of the population, and is 
projected to accelerate reaching wolf population recovery goals 20 
years sooner than under the current natural recovery policy. No 
critical habitat would be designated; millions of acres of public lands 
contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service 1994) and 
currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered 
population of wolves in central Idaho.
    Gray wolves that are reintroduced into central Idaho would be 
placed on Federal lands. By doing so, the Service would accelerate the 
recovery of the gray wolf in the northwestern United States while 
reducing local concerns about excessive government regulation of 
private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations, big game predation, 
and the lack of State government involvement in the program. There are 
only a few scattered parcels of private and State of Idaho lands in the 
area in which wolves would be reintroduced (Service 1994), and no 
conflicts with private or State land use is anticipated.
    Establishment of an experimental population of gray wolves in 
central Idaho would initiate wolf recovery in one of the three recovery 
areas described as necessary for recovery of gray wolves in the 
northern Rocky Mountains. The only other reintroduction site identified 
at this time, Yellowstone National Park, is also the subject of a 
proposal to establish a nonessential experimental population published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. There are no existing or 
anticipated Federal or State actions identified for this release site 
that are expected to have major effects on this experimental 
population. For all these reasons, and based on the best scientific and 
commercial data available, the Service finds that the release of wolves 
and the establishment of an experimental population in central Idaho 
and southwestern Montana will further the conservation of this 
endangered species.
    Gray wolves used for the reintroduction effort would be obtained 
from healthy wolf populations in Canada by permission of the Canadian 
and Provincial governments. Gray wolves are common in western Canada 
(tens of thousands) and Alaska (about 7,000) and they are increasing in 
the Great Lakes area. Thus, the removal of wolves from locations in 
Canada would not significantly impact the wolf populations there.

5. Reintroduction Protocol

    This wolf reintroduction project is undertaken by the Service in 
cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, other Federal agencies, 
potentially affected Tribes, States of Idaho and Montana, and entities 
of the Canadian government. The Service would enter into agreements 
with the Canadian and provincial governments and/or Canadian resource 
management agencies to obtain wild wolves.
    The wolf reintroduction project in the central Idaho area would 
require the transfer of about 45 to 75 wolves from southwestern Canada 
with assistance by Canadian and Provincial governments. About 15 wild 
wolves would be captured annually from several different packs over the 
course of 3-5 years by trapping, darting from helicopters, or net 
gunning in the autumn and winter. Upon capture, the wolves would 
receive veterinary care, including examinations and vaccinations as 
necessary, and they would be transported to central Idaho by truck or 
plane. In central Idaho, groups of wolves, each consisting of young 
adults from various packs, would be fitted with radio collars, released 
in several areas, and monitored by radiotelemetry. This method is 
referred to as a ``hard release'', i.e., the wolves would be released 
upon or shortly after transport to each release site. Wolves to be 
released would not be held on site for acclimation, nor would any food 
or care be provided after they were released. It is anticipated that 
the wolves will move widely, but eventually find mates and form packs.
    All wolves would be monitored by radiotelemetry, and if wolves 
cause conflicts with humans, they will be recaptured and controlled 
according to the procedures that have been used with other problem 
wolves.
    Subsequent releases would be modified depending upon information 
obtained during the reintroduction effort. Utilizing information gained 
from the initial phase of the project, an overall assessment of the 
success of the reintroduction would be made after the first year, and 
for every year thereafter. It is thought that the physical 
reintroduction phase will be completed within 3-5 years. After the 
reintroduction of wolves has resulted in two packs raising 2 pups each 
for 2 consecutive years, the wolf population will be managed to grow 
naturally toward recovery levels. This reintroduction attempt is 
consistent with the recovery goals identified for this species by the 
1987 recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain Wolf.
    It is estimated that this program, in conjunction with natural 
recovery in northwestern Montana and a similar reintroduction into 
Yellowstone National Park, would result in a viable recovered wolf 
population (ten breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas for 
three consecutive years) by about the year 2002.
    Private landowners and agency personnel that manage properties 
adjacent to Federal lands used as release areas will be requested to 
immediately report any observation of a gray wolf to the Service or to 
a Service-designated agency. Take of gray wolves by the public will be 
discouraged by an extensive information and education program and by 
the assurance that, at least initially, all animals will be monitored 
with radio telemetry and therefore easy to locate when they leave 
public lands. The public would be encouraged to cooperate with the 
Service in the attempt to closely monitor the wolves and quickly 
resolve any conflicts.
    More specific information on conduct of the wolf reintroduction 
program can be obtained from Appendix 4 ``Scientific techniques for the 
reintroduction of wild wolves'' in the environmental impact statement: 
``The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and 
Central Idaho'' (Service 1994).

Status of Reintroduced Population

    Gray wolves would be reintroduced into central Idaho in order to 
establish a nonessential experimental population according to the 
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. As previously stated, the 
experimental population of wolves would be treated as a threatened 
species or species proposed for listing for the purposes of sections 
4(d), 7, and 9 of the Act. This enables the Service to propose a 
special rule that can be less restrictive than the mandatory 
prohibitions covering endangered species. In the case of the central 
Idaho reintroduction, the biological status of the species, and the 
need for management flexibility in reintroducing the gray wolf, has 
resulted in the Service proposing to designate the reintroduced wolves 
as ``nonessential''. The Service has found that the nonessential 
designation, in concert with protective measures, is necessary to 
conserve and recover the gray wolf in central Idaho and southwestern 
Montana.
    It is anticipated that wolves will occasionally come in contact 
with the human population and domestic animals. Public opinion surveys, 
public comments on wolf management planning, and the positions taken by 
elected local, State, and Federal government officials have indicated 
that wolves cannot be reintroduced without assurances that current uses 
of public and private lands would not be disrupted by wolf recovery 
activities. The following provisions respond to these concerns. There 
would be no violation of the Act for unintentional, nonnegligent, and 
accidental taking of wolves by the public if incidental to otherwise 
lawful activities, and taking in defense of human life would not be 
prohibited--provided such takings are reported to the Service or to an 
authorized agency within 24 hours. Certain Federal, State, and/or 
Tribal employees would be authorized by the Service to take wolves 
needing special care or posing a threat to livestock or property. 
Livestock owners with grazing allotments on public land and private 
land owners or their immediate designates would be permitted to harass 
adult wolves, i.e., wolves larger than about 23 Kg (50 lbs), in an 
opportunistic non-injurious manner on their allotments or private 
property at any time, provided that such harassment would have to be 
reported within 7 days to a Service-designated authority.
    Under the proposed status, livestock owners or their designates 
could receive a permit from a Service-designated agency to take (injure 
or kill) gray wolves that are attacking livestock on permitted public 
livestock grazing allotments, but only after 6 or more breeding pairs 
were established in the experimental area. Such take, however, would 
only be permitted after due notification to Service-designated 
agencies, unsuccessful efforts to capture the offending wolf by such 
agencies, and documentation of additional livestock losses. Private 
landowners or their designates would be permitted to take (injure or 
kill) a wolf in the act of wounding or killing livestock on private 
land. However, physical evidence (wounded or dead livestock) that such 
an attack occurred at the time of the taking would have to be clearly 
evident in such instances. Such take would be immediately (within 24 
hours) reported to the Service or agencies authorized by the Service 
for investigation.
    Wolves that repeatedly (2 times in a calendar year) attack domestic 
animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or pets (dogs 
or cats) on private property would be designated as problem wolves and 
would be moved from the area by the Service or a designated agency. 
Wolves that depredate on domestic animals after being relocated once 
after such previous conflicts would be designated chronic problem 
wolves and be removed from the wild.
    It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations will be 
the primary cause for failure of States or Tribes to meet their 
specific big game management objectives outside National Parks and 
National Wildlife Refuges. Nor is such predation likely to inhibit wolf 
population increases. However, if the Service deemed it necessary, 
wolves from the responsible packs could be translocated to other sites 
in the experimental area to resolve such predation problems. Wolves 
could not be deliberately killed to resolve wolf predation conflicts 
with big game while the experimental population of wolves were listed. 
However, such take is expected to be rare and is unlikely to 
significantly affect the overall rate of wolf recovery. The States and 
Tribes would define such situations in their Service-approved wolf 
management plans before such actions could be taken.
    Wolves would be moved on a case-by-case basis to enhance wolf 
recovery in the experimental population area. Generally there would not 
be attempts to locate and/or move lone wolves dispersing in this area, 
although this may occur.
    Hunting, trapping, and animal damage control activities are 
regulated inside and outside National Parks and National Wildlife 
Refuges. Most of the area within the wolf reintroduction area is remote 
and sparsely inhabited wild lands. There are some risks to wolf 
recovery that would be associated with take of wolves, other land uses, 
and various recreational activities. However, these risks are low 
because take of wolves should occur so infrequently that wolf recovery 
would not be significantly affected.
    The Service finds that the stated protective measures and 
management practices are necessary and advisable for the conservation 
and recovery of the gray wolf in central Idaho and southwestern 
Montana. No additional Federal regulations appear to be needed. The 
Service also finds that the proposed nonessential experimental status 
is appropriate for gray wolves released in central Idaho that are taken 
from unendangered wild populations. As discussed above, although once 
extirpated from its historic range in most of the conterminous United 
States, the gray wolf is common in western Canada (tens of thousands) 
and Alaska (about 7,000) and they are increasing in the Great Lakes 
area. The gray wolf has also recently been recovering in a small 
portion of its range in the western United States. Therefore, taking 
fewer than 100 wolves from Canada will pose no threat to the survival 
of the species in the wild.
    An additional management flexibility would result from using the 
nonessential status for wolves introduced into the central Idaho, due 
to less stringent requirements of section 7 of the Act (interagency 
consultation) for wolves that may occur outside National Parks and 
National Wildlife Refuges. Wolves that are part of the nonessential 
experimental population would be treated as animals proposed for 
listing, rather than listed, when occurring outside of a National Park 
or National Wildlife Refuge, and only two provisions of section 7 apply 
to Federal actions outside National parks and refuges: section 7 
(a)(l), which authorizes all Federal agencies to establish conservation 
programs; and section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to 
confer informally with the Service on actions that are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The results of a 
conference are advisory in nature; agencies are not required to refrain 
from commitment of resources to projects as a result of a conference. 
There are no conflicts envisioned with any current or anticipated 
management actions of the Forest Service or other Federal agencies in 
the reintroduction area. National Forests are typically managed in such 
a fashion as to produce wild animals that would be natural prey to 
wolves. The Service finds that there are no threats to the success of 
the reintroduction project or the overall continued existence of the 
gray wolf from the less restrictive section 7 requirements associated 
with the nonessential designation.
    The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental 
populations in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge. The 
Service, Forest Service, or any other Federal agency is prohibited from 
authorizing, funding, or carrying out an action within a National Park 
or National Wildlife Refuge that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the gray wolf. Pursuant to 50 CFR 17.83(b), section 7 
determinations consider all experimental and nonexperimental wolves as 
a single listed species for analysis purposes. The Service has reviewed 
all ongoing and proposed uses of the affected National Forests and 
found none that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
gray wolf, nor will such uses adversely affect the success of the 
reintroduction program. Potential uses that could adversely affect 
success are hunting, trapping, animal damage control activities and 
high speed vehicular traffic. Hunting and trapping, and USDA Animal 
Damage Control programs are prohibited or tightly regulated in National 
Forests and are closely regulated by State and Federal law and policy 
in other areas. There are very few paved roads in the proposed 
reintroduction area, and wolf encounters with vehicles are likely to be 
infrequent. Even most of the unpaved roads are used seasonally. In 
addition, these unpaved roads typically have low vehicle traffic and 
are constructed for low-speed use.

Location of Experimental Population

    The release site for reintroducing wolves will be on National 
Forest lands in central Idaho. The experimental population area will 
include that portion of Idaho and Montana that is west of Interstate 15 
and south of Interstate 90. Current information indicates that, if 
wolves are found south of Interstate 90, they would likely be 
experimental wolves from the central Idaho area. Wolves north of the 
Interstate 90 would likely be naturally dispersing wolves from 
northwestern Montana or Canada.
    The proposed experimental area does not currently support 
reproducing pairs of wolves, nor is it likely that 2 pairs of naturally 
dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana would, within the next 3 
years, move into the area and establish a breeding population of 
wolves. In 3 years, the number of reintroduced wolves should be growing 
and potentially dispersing into other areas, including Montana and the 
proposed Yellowstone reintroduction area. Except for an established and 
growing population of gray wolves in northwestern Montana, only gray 
wolf individuals have been documented in the remainder of the northern 
Rocky Mountains in the United States. Thus, the central Idaho 
reintroduction site is consistent with provisions of section 10(j) of 
the Act that requires that an experimental population be wholly 
separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same 
species. An occasional, solitary wolf has been reported, killed, or 
otherwise documented in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and other western 
States, and single packs occasionally have been reported throughout the 
northern Rocky Mountains. However, these reported wolves and groups of 
wolves, if all reports are factual, apparently disappeared for unknown 
reasons and did not establish recoverable ``populations'' as defined by 
wolf experts (Service 1994). However, it is possible that prior to 
2002, other wolves may appear in the wild, and be attracted to the 
experimental area by the presence of the reintroduced wolves, or by 
other factors. These ``new'' wolves that appear in the experimental 
population area might contribute to recovery of the experimental 
population, and they also would be classified as part of the 
nonessential experimental population.
    It is anticipated that some wolves may disperse from the 
experimental area and contribute to wolf recovery in northwestern 
Montana. If so, these wolves would be classified as endangered, as in 
the case of wolves that recolonized an area near Glacier National Park 
in 1982. It is also possible, but not probable, that during the next 3 
years, movements between recovery areas may result in some genetic 
exchange between wolves resulting from natural recovery and those 
resulting from the reintroduction. It is not anticipated that such 
exchange will significantly affect the rate of recovery in the central 
Idaho experimental population area.
    For the purposes of establishment of this experimental population, 
the Service has determined that there is no existing wolf population in 
the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and establishment 
of an experimental population in the central Idaho area. A wolf 
population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of naturally 
occurring gray wolves that successfully raise at least two young to 
December 31 of their birth year for two consecutive years (Service 
1994). If a wolf population were discovered in the proposed recovery 
area, no reintroduction would occur. Instead, the success of the 
naturally occurring wolf population would be monitored to determine if 
population recovery was continuing. If this event occurs before the 
effective date of the experimental population rule, those wolves would 
be determined to be, and managed as, endangered wolves under the full 
authority of the Act. In this case, the experimental rule would not be 
implemented, and no wolves would be reintroduced in that experimental 
area. If wolf population growth does not continue, and within 5 years 
the wolf population has not doubled from the original founding animals, 
reintroduction would proceed. Wolves will not be reintroduced if, prior 
to introduction of wolves, breeding groups of wolves are discovered. 
However, once the experimental population rule is established and the 
reintroduction begun by the actual release of wolves into a recovery 
area, the experimental population rule would remain in effect until 
wolf recovery occurs or after a scientific review indicates that 
modifications in the experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf 
recovery.
    If a wolf population (2 breeding pairs successfully raising two 
young each for two consecutive years) were discovered in the proposed 
central Idaho experimental population area, reintroduction under an 
experimental population rule would not occur in that area and any such 
wolf population would be managed as a natural recovering population in 
that area. The boundaries of the proposed experimental population area 
would be changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of any naturally 
occurring, breeding wolf population if such natural population is 
discovered prior to the establishment of the experimental population, 
and before wolf reintroduction occurs. No experimental population area 
will contain a portion of the home range of any active breeding pairs 
of wolves that have successfully raised young. Any changes in the 
boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area, required 
because of the above conditions, would be reflected in a final rule.
    It is possible that an exchange of reintroduced wolves may occur 
between the central Idaho area and an experimental area established by 
reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park. Such interchange, 
if it occurs, would pose no problem in determining their status because 
wolves from both areas would already be classified as part of 
nonessential experimental population.
    Utilization of Federal public lands including National Forests is 
consistent with the legal responsibility of the Forest Service and all 
other Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize 
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying 
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened 
species.

Management

    As previously stated, the nonessential experimental population of 
gray wolves would be established in central Idaho by introducing gray 
wolves into Federal lands under authority of section 10(j) of the Act, 
as amended. Ongoing wolf monitoring efforts (Service 1994) would 
continue to document the presence of any wild wolves, and, prior to any 
reintroduction, the Service would make a determination of the status of 
any naturally occurring wolf population in this area. Wolves would not 
be reintroduced into central Idaho if a naturally occurring wolf 
population is documented in the recovery area. After introduction has 
been completed according to the Reintroduction Protocol (section 5 
above), management of the experimental population will begin.
    The Forest Service and the Service will be the primary Federal 
agencies implementing the experimental population rule inside the 
boundaries of a National Forest. The States of Idaho and Montana and 
potentially affected Tribes will be encouraged to enter into 
cooperative agreements for management of the gray wolf in central Idaho 
and southwestern Montana. These cooperative agreements would be 
reviewed annually by the Service to ensure that the States and Tribes 
have adequate regulatory authority to conserve listed species, 
including the gray wolf. It is anticipated that the States and Tribes 
will be the primary agencies implementing this experimental population 
rule outside National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The Service 
will provide oversight, coordinate wolf recovery activities, and 
provide technical assistance. If the States and Tribes do not assume 
wolf management responsibilities, the Service would do so, as needed.
    Management of the reintroduced wolves would allow wolves to be 
killed or moved under some conditions by Service-authorized Federal, 
State, and Tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations and 
excessive predation on big game populations. Under some conditions, the 
public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, 
horses, and mules). There would be no Federal compensation program, but 
compensation from existing private funding sources would be encouraged. 
There would be no land-use restrictions applied when 6 or more wolf 
packs were documented in the experimental population area because 
sufficient wolf numbers would be available and no restrictions around 
den sites or other critical areas would be necessary to promote wolf 
recovery. Enhancement of prey populations would be encouraged. Use of 
toxicants lethal to wolves in areas occupied by wolves would still be 
prohibited by existing labeling restrictions.
    Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate and, with 6 packs 
of wolves present in a population, about 20-25 pups could be born each 
year to greatly compensate for mortality that would result from 
management actions. The Service believes that a possible 10 per cent 
loss of wolves could occur due to control actions and an additional 10 
per cent loss could occur from other mortality sources. However, once 
the number of introduced wolves has reached the goal of 6 wolf packs, 
the reproductive output of 6 packs of wolves would provide for a wolf 
population increasing at or near 22 per cent per year. This increase in 
numbers should easily accommodate more flexible wolf management to 
further address local concerns and resistance to wolf recovery efforts, 
and reduce the need and costs of agency actions to resolve wolf/human 
conflicts. Closely regulated public control also can more effectively 
focus on individual problem wolves as conflicts occur rather than hours 
or days after a problem is documented. Agency control actions would 
more likely target groups of wolves that contain problem individuals, 
whereas public control could be focused on individual problem wolves.
    The Service, or States and Tribes if authorized, may move wolves 
that are having unacceptable impacts on ungulate populations in the 
unlikely event that those impacts would inhibit wolf recovery. Wolves 
could be moved to other places within the experimental population area. 
Two examples are where wolf predation is dramatically affecting prey 
availability because of unusual habitat or weather conditions (e.g., 
bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape habitat) or where wolves 
cause prey to move onto private property and mix with livestock, 
increasing potential conflicts. The States and Tribes will define such 
unacceptable impacts, how they would be measured, and identify other 
possible mitigation in their State or Tribal management plans. These 
plans would be approved by the Service through cooperative agreement 
before such control could be conducted. Wolves would not be 
deliberately killed to resolve ungulate-wolf conflicts. These 
unacceptable impacts would be identified in State and Tribal wolf 
management plans and developed in consultation with the Service. If 
such control by the States or Tribes were likely to be significant or 
beyond the provisions of the experimental rule as determined by the 
Service, then they would be specifically incorporated as part of an 
amendment to this experimental rule, which would include national 
public comment and review.
    Management of wolves in the experimental population would not 
result in any major change in existing private or public land-use 
restrictions after 6 breeding pairs of wolves are established in this 
experimental area. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in this 
experimental area, land-use restrictions could be employed on an as 
needed basis, at the discretion of land management and natural 
resources agencies to control intrusive human disturbance. Temporary 
restrictions on human access, when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are 
established, may be required near active wolf den sites between April 1 
and June 30.
    The Service, or Federal, State or Tribal agencies authorized by the 
Service would be allowed to promptly remove any wolf of the 
experimental population that the Service, or agency authorized by the 
Service, determined was presenting a threat to human life or safety. 
Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a person 
could legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate threat 
to human life. The incidental and accidental nonnegligent take in the 
course of otherwise lawful recreational activity or take in defense of 
human life, would be permitted by the Service and Service-authorized 
agencies, provided that such taking is immediately (within 24 hours) 
reported to the authorized State or Federal authority.
    The Service or State, Federal, or Tribal agencies designated by the 
Service will control wolves that attack livestock (cattle, sheep, 
horses, and mules) by management measures that may include aversive 
conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when 5 or fewer 
breeding pairs are established, and by previously described measures. 
However, killing wolves or placing them in captivity may be considered 
and used as management options after 6 or more breeding pairs are 
established in the experimental population area. For depredation 
occurring on public land and prior to 6 breeding pairs becoming 
established, depredating females and their pups would be released on 
site prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these 
circumstances would be moved. Wolves that attack other domestic animals 
and pets on private land 2 times in a calendar year would be moved. 
Chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic animals after 
being moved for previous domestic animal depredations) would be removed 
from the wild.
    The Service, other Federal agencies, and Tribal and State wildlife 
agency personnel would be additionally authorized and should be 
prepared to take wolves under special circumstances where there was an 
immediate threat to livestock or property, or need to move individuals 
for genetic purposes. Wolves could be captured alive and translocated 
to resolve demonstrated conflicts with State big-game management 
objectives or when they were outside designated wolf pack recovery 
areas. Take procedures in such instances would involve live capture and 
removal to a remote area, or if the animal is clearly unfit to remain 
in the wild, return to a captive facility. Killing of animals would be 
a last resort and would be authorized only if live capture attempts 
fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
    The Service and other authorized management agencies would use the 
following conditions and criteria in determining the problem status of 
wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:
    (1) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must 
be present with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Fritts 1982) 
that wolves were responsible for the damage, and there must be reason 
to believe that additional losses would occur if the problem wolf or 
wolves were not controlled. Such evidence is essential since wolves may 
feed on carrion they have found while not being responsible for the 
kill.
    (2) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have 
occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where 
depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal 
lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any 
control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not 
being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies 
authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or 
otherwise disposed of so that the carcass(es) will not attract wolves.
    (3) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously 
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating 
plans for allotments must have been followed.
    Final Federal responsibility for protection of gray wolves in the 
experimental population under provisions of the Act would cease after: 
(1) a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive 
years in each of the three recovery areas presented by the revised wolf 
recovery plan (Service 1987), and evaluated by the environmental impact 
statement (Service 1994), providing that legal mechanisms are in place 
to conserve this population, and (2) gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and 
Wyoming are delisted according to provisions of the Act. The Act 
specifies that the status of a species must be monitored for a 5-period 
after delisting. If, after delisting, the wolf population fell below 
the minimum criteria of 10 breeding pairs in any recovery area for two 
of three consecutive years, wolves in that area would be considered for 
relisting under the Act.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final rule resulting from this 
proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, comments 
or suggestions from the public, States, Tribes, other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. 
Comments must be received within 60 days of publication of the proposed 
rule in the Federal Register.
    Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
the comments and any additional information received by the Service. 
Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this 
proposal.
    The Service will also hold public hearings to obtain additional 
verbal and written information. Hearings are proposed to be held in 
Cheyenne, Wyoming; Boise, Idaho; Helena, Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah; 
Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C. The location, dates, and 
times of these six hearings will be announced in a forthcoming issue of 
the Federal Register and in newspapers.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental 
Policy Act has been prepared and is available to the public (see 
ADDRESSES). This proposed rule is an implementation of the proposed 
action and does not require revision of the environmental impact 
statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National 
Park and central Idaho.

Required Determinations

    This proposed rule was not subject to Office of Management and 
Budget review under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on 
the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and 
private activities within the experimental population area, significant 
economic impacts will not result from this action. Also, no direct 
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or recordkeeping 
requirements are imposed on small entities by this action and the rule 
contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule does not 
require federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because it 
would not have any significant federalism effects as described in the 
order.

References Cited

Fritts, S.H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 145. 11 pp.
Roy, L.D., and M.J. Dorrance. 1976. Methods of investigating 
predation of domestic livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton, 
Alberta. 53 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf 
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Reintroduction of gray wolves 
to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Final Environmental 
Impact Statement, Helena, Montana. 608 pp.

Author

    The principal author of this proposal is Edward E. Bangs (see 
ADDRESSES section). Harold M. Tyus, Denver Regional Office, served as 
editor.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes 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.

    2. In Sec. 17.11(h), the table entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under 
``MAMMALS'' is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Species                                                             Vertebrate population                                                      
-------------------------     Scientific name           Historic range        where endangered or       Status     When listed    Critical     Special  
       Common name                                                                 threatened                                     habitat       rules   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Mammals                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Wolf, gray..............  Canis lupus............  Holarctic..............  U.S.A. (48 conterminous  E               1, 6, 13,     17.95(a)           NA
                                                                             States, except MN and                     15, 35,                          
                                                                             where listed as an                           ____                          
                                                                             experimental                                                               
                                                                             population below).                                                         
Do......................  ......do...............  ......do...............  U.S.A. (MN)............  T                      35     17.95(a)     17.40(d)
Do......................  ......do...............  ......do...............  U.S.A. (specific         XN            ...........           NA     17.84( )
                                                                             portions of ID and MT--                                                    
                                                                             see Sec. 17.84( ).                                                         
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Sec. 17.84 be amended by adding paragraph (  ) following the 
last paragraph to read as follows:


Sec. 17.84   Special Rules--Vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (  ) Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
    (1) The gray wolf (wolf) population identified in paragraph (  )(6) 
of this section is a nonessential experimental population. This 
population will be managed in accordance with the respective provisions 
of this section.
    (2) No person may take this species in the wild in an experimental 
population area except as provided in paragraphsP (  )(2), (4), and (7) 
of this section.
    (i) Landowners on their private land and livestock producers (i.e., 
producers of cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in State 
and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service) that are 
legally using public land (Federal land and any other public lands 
designated in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service) may harass any adult wolf (a wolf that does not exceed 50 lbs 
in weight is not considered an adult for these purposes) in an 
opportunistic noninjurious manner at any time, Provided that all such 
harassment is by methods that are not lethal or physically injurious to 
the gray wolf and is reported within 7 days to the Service project 
leader for wolf reintroduction or agency representative designated by 
the Service.
    (ii) Any livestock producers on their private land may take 
(including to kill or injure) adult wolves in the act of killing, 
wounding, or biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as 
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
Service), Provided that such incidents must be reported immediately but 
no later than within 24 hours to the Service project leader for wolf 
reintroduction or agency representative designated by the Service, and 
livestock freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded (torn flesh and 
bleeding) or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service 
authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by 
wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to 
the appropriate authorities for prosecution. A gray wolf that does not 
exceed 50 lbs in weight is not considered an adult and can not be 
taken.
    (iii) Any livestock producer or permittee with livestock grazing 
allotments on public land may receive a written permit from the Service 
or other agencies designated by the Service, to take (including to kill 
or injure) adult wolves that are in the act of killing, wounding, or 
biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in 
State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service), 
Provided that 6 or more breeding pairs of wolves have been documented 
in that experimental population area and that the Service or other 
agencies authorized by the Service has confirmed that the livestock 
losses have been caused by wolves and has unsuccessfully attempted to 
resolve the problem and subsequent livestock losses are documented. 
Such take must be reported immediately but no later than within 24 
hours to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction or agency 
representative designated by the Service and livestock freshly wounded 
or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service 
authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by 
wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to 
the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (iv) The potentially affected States and Tribes may move wolves to 
other areas within an experimental population area as described in 
paragraph (  )(6), Provided that the level of wolf predation is having 
unacceptable impacts on localized ungulate populations and to the 
extent that those impacts could inhibit wolf recovery. The States and 
Tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, how they would be 
measured, and identify other possible mitigation in their State or 
Tribal wolf management plans. These plans must be approved by the 
Service through cooperative agreement before such movement of wolves 
may be conducted.
    (v) The Service, or agencies authorized by the Service may promptly 
remove (place in captivity or kill) any wolf the Service or agency 
authorized by the Service determines to present a threat to human life 
or safety.
    (vi) Any person may harass or take (kill or injure) a wolf in self 
defense or in defense of others, Provided that all such take is 
reported immediately (within 24 hours) to the Service reintroduction 
project leader or Service designated agent. The taking of any wolf 
without such evidence of an immediate and direct threat to human life 
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (vii) The Service or agencies designated by the Service may take 
wolves that are designated as ``problem wolves'' (as defined below) 
that attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or domestic 
animals or as defined by State and Tribal wolf management plans 
approved by the Service) by nonlethal measures, including but not 
limited to: aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving 
wolves when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established, and by 
previously described measures. If such measures result in a wolf 
mortality, it must be demonstrated that such mortality was 
nondeliberate. Lethal control of wolves or placing them in permanent 
captivity will be allowed only after 6 or more breeding pairs are 
established in the experimental population area. For depredations 
occurring on federally managed lands and any additional public lands 
identified in State or Tribal wolf management plans and prior to 6 
breeding pairs becoming established, depredating female wolves with 
pups and their pups will be released at or near the site of capture 
prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these circumstances 
will be moved to other areas within the experimental population area. 
Wolves that attack domestic animals other than livestock, including 
pets on private land, a total of 2 times in a calendar year will be 
moved. All chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic 
animals after being moved once for previous domestic animal 
depredations) will be removed from the wild (killed or placed in 
captivity). The following three conditions and criteria will apply in 
determining the problem status of wolves within the nonessential 
experimental population area:
    (A) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must 
be present with clear evidence that wolves were responsible for the 
damage and there must be reason to believe that additional losses would 
occur if the problem wolf or wolves were not controlled. Such evidence 
is essential because wolves may feed on carrion they have found and may 
not be responsible for the death of livestock.
    (B) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have 
occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where 
depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal 
lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any 
control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not 
being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies 
authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or 
otherwise disposed of such that the carcass(es) will not attract 
wolves.
    (C) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously 
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating 
plans for allotments must have been followed.
    (viii) Any person may take gray wolves found in an area defined in 
paragraph (  )(6), Provided that, the take is incidental, accidental, 
unavoidable, unintentional, and not resulting from negligent conduct 
lacking reasonable due care in the course of otherwise lawful 
recreational activity, and that such taking is immediately (within 24 
hours) reported to the authorized Service or Service-designated 
authority. Take that does not conform with such provisions may be 
referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (ix) Service or other Federal, State, or Tribal personnel may be 
additionally authorized in writing by the Service to take animals under 
special circumstances that pose an immediate threat to livestock or 
property, or when animals need to be moved for genetic purposes. Wolves 
may be live captured and translocated to resolve demonstrated conflicts 
with ungulate populations or with other species listed under the 
Endangered Species Act, or when they are outside the designated 
experimental population area. Take procedures in such instances would 
involve live capture and release to a remote area, or if the animal is 
clearly unfit to remain in the wild, return to a captive facility. 
Killing of animals will be a last resort and will be authorized only if 
live capture attempts fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
    (x) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under 
Sec. 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in the experimental population 
area, pursuant to terms of the permit.
    (xi) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate Federal, 
State or Tribal agency, who is designated in writing for such purposes 
by the Service, when acting in the course of official duties, may take 
a wolf in the wild in the experimental population area if such action 
is necessary:
    (A) For scientific purposes;
    (B) To relocate wolves to avoid conflict with human activities;
    (C) To relocate wolves within the experimental population areas to 
improve wolf survival and recovery prospects;
    (D) To relocate wolves that have moved outside the experimental 
population area back into the experimental population area;
    (E) To aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
    (F) To salvage a dead specimen which may be used for scientific 
study; or
    (G) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves.
    (xii) Any taking pursuant to this section must be reported 
immediately (within 24 hours) to the appropriate Service or Service-
designated agency, which will determine the disposition of any live or 
dead specimens.
    (3) Human access to areas with facilities where wolves are confined 
may be restricted at the discretion of Federal, State, and Tribal land 
management agencies. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in an 
experimental population area, land-use restrictions may also be 
employed on an as-needed basis, at the discretion of Federal land 
management and natural resources agencies to control intrusive human 
disturbance around active wolf den sites. Such temporary restrictions 
on human access, when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established in an 
experimental population area, may be required between April 1 and June 
30, within 1 mile of active wolf den or rendezvous sites. When 6 or 
more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population area, 
no land use restrictions may be employed outside of National Parks or 
National Wildlife Refuges.
    (4) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or part thereof 
from the experimental populations taken in violation of these 
regulations or in violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and 
wildlife laws or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
    (5) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in 
paragraphs (  )(2) through (4) of this section.
    (6) The site for reintroduction is within the historic range of the 
species:
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) The central Idaho Management area is shown on the attached 
map. The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area 
will be those portions of Idaho and Montana that are south of 
Interstate Highway 90 and West of Interstate Highway 15.
    (iii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this 
paragraph (  )(6) after the first releases will be considered 
nonessential experimental animals. In the conterminous United States, a 
wolf that is outside an experimental area (as defined in paragraph (  
)(6) of this section) would be considered as endangered (or threatened 
if in Minnesota) unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an 
experimental animal; such a wolf may be captured for examination and 
genetic testing by the Service or Service-designated agency. 
Disposition of the captured animal may take any of the following 
courses:
    (A) If the animal was not involved in conflicts with humans and is 
determined likely to be an experimental wolf, it will be returned to 
the reintroduction area.
    (B) If the animal is determined likely to be an experimental wolf 
and was involved in conflicts with humans as identified in the 
management plan for the closest experimental area it may relocated, 
placed in captivity, or killed.
    (C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental 
animal, it will be managed according to any Service approved plans for 
that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.
    (D) If the animal is determined not to be a wild grey wolf or if 
the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the animal 
shows substantial evidence of recent hybridization with other canids 
such as domestic dogs or coyotes or of being an animal raised in 
captivity, it will be returned to captivity or killed.
    (7) The reintroduced wolves will be continually monitored during 
the life of the project, including by the use of radio telemetry and 
other remote sensing devices as appropriate. All released animals will 
be vaccinated against diseases and parasites prevalent in canids, as 
appropriate, prior to release and during subsequent handling. Any 
animal that is sick, injured, or otherwise in need of special care may 
be captured by authorized personnel of the Service or Service 
designated agencies and given appropriate care. Such an animal will be 
released back into its respective reintroduction area as soon as 
possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to 
return the animal to captivity or euthanize it.
    (8) The status of the experimental population will be reevaluated 
within the first 5 years after the first year of releases of wolves to 
determine future management needs. This review will take into account 
the reproductive success and movement patterns of the individuals 
released in the area, as well as the overall health of the experimental 
wolves. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting or delisting the 
species, a rule will be proposed to address downlisting or delisting.
    (9) The Service does not intend to reevaluate the ``nonessential 
experimental'' designation. The Service does not foresee any likely 
situation which would result in changing the nonessential experimental 
status until the gray wolf is recovered and delisted in the Northern 
Rocky Mountains according to provisions outlined in the Act.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

TP16AU94.001


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

    Dated: August 8, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-19997 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P