[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: 94-19998]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 16, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Species: Gray Wolf; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC86
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolf in
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana
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
Yellowstone National Park, which is located in Wyoming, Idaho, and
Montana. 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 wolf populations 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 Yellowstone area, 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
The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, P.L. 97-304, made
significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (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 of its current range, but within its historic range
may 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.
Experimental and non-essential designations increase the
flexibility for management of a reintroduced population of a listed
species. Treatment of such a population as threatened provides the
Service with greater latitude in devising management programs than
would be possible for an endangered species. While Section 9 of the Act
spells out directly the prohibitions that apply for endangered species,
Section 4(d) of the Act permits adoption by regulation of prohibitions
only to the extent that they are necessary and advisable to promote the
conservation of a species listed as threatened.
In addition, a nonessential experimental population is not subject
to the formal consultation requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act
unless the experimental population occurs on a National Wildlife Refuge
or National Park, where the full provisions of section 7 apply. Section
7(a)(1) of the Act applies to nonessential experimental populations,
and requires that all Federal agencies use their authorities to
conserve listed species. Individual organisms used in establishing an
experimental population can be removed from a source or donor
population only after it has been determined that their removal itself
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and
a permit has been issued in accordance with the requirements of 50 CFR
17.22.
In 1967, the timber wolf was listed as a subspecies (Canis lupus
lycaon) as endangered (32 FR 4001), and in 1973 the northern Rocky
Mountain subspecies, as then understood, (C. l. irremotus) was also
listed as endangered, as was the Texas subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis)
(38 FR 14678). In 1978, the legal status of the gray wolf in North
America was clarified by listing wolves in Minnesota as threatened and
other members of the species south of Canada as endangered, without
referring to subspecies (43 FR 9607).
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
Wyoming. Wolves occasionally have been sighted in these states, but
populations as defined by wolf experts (Service 1994) have not been
established. Historical reports suggest that wolves may have produced
young there several times in the 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 liberal 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 flexible 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 D.C. 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 nondepredating 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 in that program,
the wolf population in Montana has continued to expand at about 22
percent per year for the past 9 years.
4. Reintroduction Site
The Service proposes to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone
National Park. The Park was proposed as a site for the experimental
population area after much deliberation by the Service and others. The
Park was selected due to several factors. The vast remote habitats of
the Park are under tight Federal controls, and it has high-quality wolf
habitat and good potential wolf release sites. It is also distant from
the current southern expansion of naturally formed wolf packs in
Montana. Thus, any wolf pack documented inside the experimental area
would likely result from reintroduction into the Park rather than from
natural dispersal from extant wolf populations in Canada or
northwestern Montana. The Service is also proposing establishment of a
nonessential experimental population of wolves in central Idaho in a
separate proposal in today's Federal Register.
The Service has determined that the proposed reintroduction effort
in the Park has the greatest potential for successful recovery of the
gray wolf in the conterminous United States, due to ecological and
political considerations (Service 1994). Reintroduction of wolves into
the Park 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 need to be designated; millions of acres of
public land containing hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates
currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered
population of wolves in the Park and surrounding area.
Gray wolves that are reintroduced into the Park would be placed on
Federal lands and classified as a nonessential experimental population.
In so doing, the Service would accelerate the recovery of gray wolves
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.
Establishment of an experimental population of gray wolves in the
Park 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 alternative site identified at this time,
central Idaho, is planned for future reintroduction efforts. There are
no existing or anticipated Federal and/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 not only
that the release of wolves will further the conservation of this
endangered species, but also that the Park constitutes the highest
priority reintroduction site that will best serve to further the
conservation of this 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 National Park Service; Forest Service; other
Federal agencies; potentially affected Tribes; States of Wyoming,
Montana, and Idaho; 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 Yellowstone National Park 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. They would be transported to the Park
by truck or plane. In the Park, groups of wolves, each consisting of
pups and possibly adults from the same packs, would be placed in
individual holding pens of about 0.4 hectare (1 acre) size for a period
of up to two months to allow for acclimation to the new environment.
Acclimation pens would be isolated and provided maximum protection from
humans and other animals, and efforts would be made to prevent
habituation to people. During acclimation, each animal would be
monitored with radiotelemetry to ensure quick retrieval of an animal if
necessary. The wolves would be provided carcasses of natural prey taken
from the area where they will be released. In addition, the wolves
would receive regular veterinary care, including examinations and
vaccinations.
In autumn and early winter, about 3 groups of acclimated gray wolf
pups, and possibly adult pack members, would be placed in the
individual holding pens at about 3 release sites in the Park. The
wolves would be kept and fed in these pens until about January 1. At
that time, the wolves would be radio collared and released. Food
(ungulate carrion) would be provided in the area until the wolves no
longer required supplemental feeding. All wolves would be closely
monitored each day or two for the first few weeks, and then the
frequency of monitoring would gradually be reduced to about weekly. If
wolves cause conflicts with humans, they will be recaptured and
controlled according to the procedures that have been used with other
problem wolves. Based upon previous experience with movements of wild,
relocated wolves, it is questionable whether adults will remain with
each other or the pups. The pups would remain in the wild as long as
they appeared to be sustaining themselves on carrion or wild prey. Wolf
pups should be capable of killing wild prey by January.
The progress of the reintroduction effort would be reviewed
periodically, and the success or failure of the release would be
determined at least on an annual basis. In addition, the release of
wild wolves into the Park would be reviewed and evaluated relative to
the effects on the conservation and recovery of the gray wolf in the
conterminous United States. If this reintroduction technique appeared
successful, it would be repeated for at least three years or until two
wild breeding pairs produced at least two young for two consecutive
years in the Park. At that time, wolves would be monitored and no
further reintroductions would take place unless fewer than 2 litters
were produced in a single year.
Subsequent releases would be modified depending upon information
obtained during the previous experiments. 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 would 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 would 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
central Idaho, 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.
A small portion of Idaho (east of Interstate 15) and Montana (east
of Interstate 15 and south of the Missouri River from Great Falls,
Montana to eastern Montana border) and all of Wyoming is proposed as an
experimental population area for wolf reintroduction into the Park.
Private landowners and agency personnel adjacent to the Park will
continue to 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 would 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 Populations
This reintroduced population of gray wolves is proposed to be
designated as 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
Yellowstone 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 the Yellowstone ecosystem.
It is anticipated that wolves will come in contact with the human
population and domestic animals inside and outside of the Park. 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 can not 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 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 Park or experimental area. Such take, moreover,
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 the Park. 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 Yellowstone National Park that are taken from 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 wolves 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 these areas 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 Park, 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 Refuge, and only two provisions of section 7 apply to Federal
actions outside National Parks and Wildlife 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, in reality, no conflicts envisioned with any current or
anticipated management actions of the Forest Service or other Federal
agencies in the areas. National Forests are a benefit to the project
because they form a buffer to private properties in many areas, and
National Forests are typically managed to produce wild animals that
would be 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, National Park 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 must 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 Parks and Refuges and found none that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf, nor will they
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 Parks 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, and are on the outside fringes of the
reintroduction area. 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 in Yellowstone
National Park. The experimental population area will include all of the
State of Wyoming, that portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15,
and all the State of Montana east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of
the Missouri River east of Great Falls, Montana, to the Montana/North
Dakota border. Comments obtained by the Service during review of the
DEIS resulted in changing the boundary of the experimental population
area to the Missouri River in central Montana (Service 1994). The
Missouri River was chosen as the northern boundary because the record
of wolf sightings and wolf mortalities indicated that, during the last
several decades, wolves have occurred north, but not south of the
river. The river may not act as a complete barrier to wolf movements,
but current information indicates that, if wolves are found south of
the river, they would likely be experimental wolves from the
Yellowstone area. Wolves north of the river 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 to support 2 pairs of
naturally dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana within the next 3
years, at which time the reintroduced population should be growing and
potentially dispersing into Montana and central Idaho. Except for an
established and growing population of gray wolves in northwestern
Montana, only gray wolf individuals have been documented in the
remainder or the northern Rocky Mountains in the United States. Thus,
the Yellowstone National Park reintroduction 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 experimental, nonessential
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 would 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
Yellowstone National Park 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 Yellowstone National Park. 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 pairs
and pups, reintroduction would proceed. Wolves will not be introduced
as an experimental population 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
Yellowstone experimental population area, reintroduction under an
experimental population rule would not occur into 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.
Utilization of Federal public lands including National Parks and
Forests is consistent with the legal responsibility of the National
Park Service to sustain the native wildlife resources of the United
States, and of the Forest Service and all other Federal agencies under
section 7(a)(1) 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 the Yellowstone area by introducing
gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park under authority of section
10(j) of the Act, as amended. The Yellowstone area includes all of
Wyoming and parts of Montana and Idaho that surround the Park. 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 the Park if a 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 National Park Service will be the primary agency implementing
the experimental population rule inside the boundaries of National
Parks. The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and potentially
affected Tribes will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements
for management of the gray wolf in the Park. 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 which 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 address 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 be adopted following
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 (except at containment facilities during reintroduction)
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 a 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 reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget 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 l7,
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
---------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific 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. (WY and portions XN ........... NA 17.84()
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 paragraphs ( )(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) The Yellowstone Management area is shown on the following map.
The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area will be
that portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 15; that
portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of
the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana
border; and all of Wyoming.
(ii) [Reserved]
(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
TP16AU94.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Dated: August 8, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-19998 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P