Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 1994)

[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28746]

[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 22, 1994]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VIII

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 17

Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves
in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Central Idaho
and Southwestern Montana; Final Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC86

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone
National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will reintroduce
the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, into Yellowstone
National Park, which is located in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. These
wolves will be classified as nonessential experimental wolves according
to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended. 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 in Idaho,
Wyoming, and Washington due to wolves dispersing from populations in
Montana and Canada. This reintroduction plan is to reestablish a viable
wolf population in the Yellowstone area, one of three wolf recovery
areas identified in the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan.
Potential effects of this final rule were evaluated in an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) completed in May 1994. This gray wolf
reintroduction does not conflict with existing or anticipated Federal
agency actions or traditional public uses of park lands, wilderness
areas, or surrounding lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 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 final rule is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 100 North
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, Pub. L.
97-304, made significant changes to the Endangered Species 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 animals as
``experimental.'' Under previous authorities in the Act, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to reintroduce 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 reintroduction as a
management tool.
Under section 10(j), a listed species reintroduced 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.'' This designation increases the Service's flexibility
and discretion in managing reintroduced endangered species because such
experimental animals may be treated as a threatened species. The Act
requires that animals used to form an experimental population be
separated geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same
species.
Additional management flexibility is possible if the experimental
animals are found to be ``nonessential'' to the continued existence of
the species in question. Nonessential experimental animals located
outside national wildlife refuges or national park lands are treated
for purposes of section 7 of the Act, as if they were only proposed for
listing. Consequently, only two provisions of section 7 would apply to
animals located outside of national wildlife refuges and national
parks--section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). Section 7(a)(1) requires
all Federal agencies to establish conservation programs for the
particular species. Utilization of Federal public lands, including
national parks and national forests, is consistent with the legal
responsibility of these agencies to sustain the native wildlife
resources of the United States and to use their authorities to further
the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for
endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(4) requires all Federal
agencies to informally confer with the Service on actions that will
likely jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed to be listed
as threatened or endangered species. The results of a conference are
advisory in nature, and agencies are not required to refrain from
committing resources to projects as a result of a conference. In
addition, section 10(j) of the Act states that nonessential
experimental animals are not subject to the formal consultation of the
Act unless they occur on land designated as a national wildlife refuge
or national park. 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.
Specimens used to establish an experimental population may be
removed from a source or donor population, provided their removal is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and
appropriate permits have been issued in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22.
Gray wolves for the reintroduction will be obtained from healthy
Canadian wolf populations with permission from the Canadian and
Provincial governments. Gray wolves are common in western Canada (tens
of thousands) and Alaska (about 7,000). No adverse biological impact is
expected from the removal of about 150 wolves from the Canadian
population. Consequently, the Service finds that wolves to be used in
the reintroduction effort meet the definition of ``non-essential'' (50
CFR 17.80(b)) because the loss of the reintroduced wolves is not likely
to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the
wild.
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 the Minnesota wolf population as
threatened and other members of the species south of Canada were listed
as endangered, without referring to subspecies (43 FR 9607).
2. Biological: This final rule 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, where a similar species, the
red wolf (Canis rufus), is found. The gray wolf occupied nearly every
area in North America that supported populations of hoofed mammals
(ungulates), its major food source.
Twenty-four distinct subspecies of gray wolf had been recognized in
North America. Recently, however, taxonomists have suggested that there
are five or fewer subspecies or group types of gray wolf in North
America and that the wolf type that once occupied the northern Rocky
Mountains of the United States was more widely distributed than was
previously believed.
The gray wolf occurred historically in the northern Rocky
Mountains, including mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho. The drastic reduction in the distribution and abundance of this
species in North America was directly related to human activities, such
as the elimination of native ungulates, conversion of wildland into
agricultural lands, and extensive predator control efforts by private,
State, and Federal agencies. The natural history of wolves and their
ecological role was poorly understood during the period of their
eradication in the conterminous United States. As with other large
predators, wolves were considered a nuisance and threat to humans.
Today, the gray wolf's role as an important and necessary part of
natural ecosystems is better understood and appreciated.
For 50 years prior to 1986, no detection of wolf reproduction was
found in the Rocky Mountain portion of the United States. However in
1986, a wolf den was discovered near the Canadian border in Glacier
National Park. This find was presumably due to the southern expansion
of the Canadian wolf population. The Glacier National Park wolf
population has steadily grown to about 65 wolves and now exists
throughout northwestern Montana.
Reproducing wolf populations are not known to occur in Idaho or
Wyoming. Wolves have occasionally been sighted in these States, but do
not constitute a population as defined by scientific experts (Service
1994). Historical reports suggest that wolves may have produced young
in these States; however, based on extensive surveys and interagency
monitoring efforts (Service 1994), no wolf population presently
persists in these States.
3. Wolf Recovery Efforts: In the 1970's, the State of Montana led
an interagency recovery team, established by the Service, that
developed a recovery plan for the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
The 1980 recovery plan recommended a combination of natural recovery
and reintroduction be used to recover wolves in the area around
Yellowstone National Park (the 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
Yellowstone). A population of this size would be comprised of about 300
wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery in Montana and Idaho. If
two wolf packs did not become established in central Idaho within 5
years, the plan recommended that conservation measures other than
natural recovery be considered. The plan recommended use of the Act's
section 10(j) authority to reintroduce experimental wolves in the Park.
By establishing a nonessential experimental population, more liberal
management practices may be implemented to address potential negative
impacts or concerns regarding the reintroduction.
In 1990 (Pub. L. 101-512), Congress directed appointment of a Wolf
Management Committee, composed of three Federal, three State, and four
interest group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration
in the Park 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 in the Park, and possibly central Idaho, as
special nonessential experimental populations with flexible management
practices by agencies and the public to resolve potential conflicts.
Wolves and ungulates would be intensively managed by the States with
Federal funding; thus, implementation was expected to be costly.
Congress took no action on the committee's recommendation which would
have required an amendment to the Act.
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) to consider a broad
range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction in 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 the
preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.
The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the
EIS. Team participants were the National Park Service; Forest Service;
the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; USDA Animal Damage Control;
and Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes. The Gray Wolf EIS program
emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, the news media
and nearly 2,500 groups/individuals interested in wolves were contacted
to publicize the EIS process.
In April 1992, a series of 27 ``issue scoping'' open houses were
held in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, as well as 7 other locations
throughout the United States. The meetings were attended by nearly
1,800 people, and thousands of brochures were distributed. In total,
nearly 4,000 people gave comments on EIS issues. In July 1992, a report
narrating the public comments was mailed to 16,000 people.
In August 1992, 27 additional ``alternative scoping'' open houses
and 3 additional hearings were held in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
Hearings were also held in Seattle, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah;
and Washington, D.C. Two major newspapers with circulation in Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho (total circulation about 250,000) distributed a copy
of the alternative scoping brochure in the Sunday edition. Nearly 2,000
people attended the meetings, and nearly 5,000 comments were received
on methods for managing reintroduced wolves. Public comments typified
the strong polarization of concerns regarding wolf management. 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 on wolves, and requested the public to report wolf
observations in the northern Rocky Mountains. It was mailed to nearly
40,000 interested individuals 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 on July 16. The DEIS
documents were mailed to potentially affected agencies, public
libraries, interested groups, and anyone who requested a copy.
Additionally, a flyer containing the DEIS summary, a schedule of the 16
public hearings, and a request to report wolf sightings was inserted
into the Sunday edition of 6 newspapers (combined circulation of about
280,000) in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In mid-June 1993, the Service
mailed a letter to over 300 groups, primarily in Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho, offering a presentation on the DEIS. This resulted in 31
presentations to about 1,000 people during the comment period.
During the DEIS public review period (July 1 to November 26, 1993)
over 160,200 individuals, organizations, and government agencies
commented. The magnitude of the response shows the strong interest
people have in wolf management. In early March 1994, a summary of the
public comments was mailed to about 42,000 people on the EIS mailing
list.
The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on
May 4, 1994, and the notice of availability was published on May 9,
1994. The EIS considered five alternatives: (1) Reintroduction of
Wolves Designated as Experimental, (2) Natural Recovery (No action),
(3) No Wolves, (4) Wolf Management Committee Recommendations, and (5)
Reintroduction of Wolves Designated as Nonexperimental. After careful
review, the Service's proposed action was to reintroduce nonessential
experimental gray wolves in the Park and central Idaho.
The Secretary signed the EIS Record of Decision on June 15, 1994. A
letter of concurrence was signed by the Secretary of Agriculture on
July 13, 1994. The decision directed the Service to implement its
proposed action plan as soon as practical.
Two nonessential experimental population proposed rules, one for
the Park and one for central Idaho, were published in the Federal
Register on August 16, 1994 (59 FR 42108 and 59 FR 42118,
respectively). On September 6, 1994, a brochure containing the Record
of Decision, proposed rules, and schedule of public hearings was mailed
to about 50,000 people. From September 14-22, 1994, a legal notice
announcing the proposed rules, hearings, and inviting public comment
was published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Olympia Olympian, New
Paper Agency (Salt Lake City Papers), Washington Times, Lewiston
Morning Tribune, The Idaho Statesman, Wyoming Tribune, Casper Star
Tribune, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and Billings Gazette.
The Service held six public hearings on the proposed rules. The
availability of the Record of Decision, public hearings, and proposed
rules was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1994 (59
FR 47112). Copies of the proposed rules were distributed to all
interested parties. Public hearings were held on September 27, 1994, in
Boise, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Helena, Montana, and on September
29, 1994, in Salt Lake City, Utah; Washington, D.C.; and Seattle,
Washington. About 90 people testified at these hearings and about 330
people submitted written comments. Comments on the proposed rules were
accepted until October 17, 1994.
In Montana, the Service has an active wolf management program due
to the presence of breeding pairs of wolves. The Service's program
monitors wolves to determine their status, encourages research,
provides the public with accurate information, and controls wolves that
attack domestic livestock. Wolves that depredate on livestock are
translocated or removed. Such action is required to reduce livestock
losses, to foster local tolerance, and promote and enhance conservation
of wolves. The relocation of wolves under the control program is not
intended to accelerate the natural expansion of wolves into unoccupied
historic habitat. Although 19 wolves have been removed under the
control program, the number of wolves has continued to expand in
Montana at about 22 percent per year for the past 9 years.
4. Reintroduction Site: The Service decided to reintroduce wolves
into the Park because of the following factors. The Park is under
Federal jurisdiction, it has high-quality wolf habitat and good
potential wolf release sites. It is also far from the natural southern
expansion of wolf packs from Montana. Thus, any wolf pack documented
inside the Yellowstone experimental population area would probably be
from reintroduction efforts rather than from naturally dispersing
extant wolf populations in Canada or northwestern Montana. The Service
will also reintroduce wolves into central Idaho as a nonessential
experimental population published under a separate rule in the Federal
Register.
The Service determined that reintroduction of wolves into the Park
had the highest probability to succeed due to ecological and political
considerations (Service 1994). The reintroduction effort will enhance
wolf viability by increasing genetic diversity through genetic
interchange between segments of the population. The reintroduction plan
for the Park should help in achieving wolf recovery goals 20 years
sooner than under current natural recovery policy.
Because reintroduced gray wolves will be classified as a
nonessential experimental population, the Service's management
practices can reduce local concerns about excessive government
regulation of private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations,
excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government
involvement in the program.
Establishment of gray wolves in the Park will initiate wolf
recovery in one of the three recovery areas described as necessary for
the species recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains. No existing or
anticipated Federal or State actions identified for this release site
are expected to have major effects on the experimental population.
Central Idaho is identified as the only other alternative site, and it
will also receive wolves for reintroduction which will facilitate
recovery in that experimental area.
5. Reintroduction Protocol: The wolf reintroduction project is
undertaken by the Service in cooperation with the National Park
Service, Forest Service, other Federal agencies, potentially affected
tribes, the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and entities of the
Canadian government. To obtain wolves, the Service will enter into
formal agreements with the Canadian and Provincial governments and/or
resource management agencies.
The Park's wolf reintroduction plan requires transferring 45 to 75
wolves from southwestern Canada, representing various sex and age
classes, over a 3- to 5-year period. The capture of about 15 wild
wolves from several different packs using standard capture techniques
will be done annually over 3 to 5 years. Captured wolves will be
transported to the Park. Wolves from the same pack will be placed in
individual holding pens of about 0.4 hectare (1 acre) for up to 2
months for acclimation to the new environment. The acclimation pens
will be isolated to protect the wolves from other animals and to
prevent habituation to humans. During the acclimation period but after
release, each wolf will be monitored by radiotelemetry to ensure quick
retrieval, if necessary. Carcasses of natural prey taken in the Park
will be provided to the wolves. Veterinary care, including examinations
and vaccinations, will be provided as needed.
Once acclimated, the wolves will be released into the Park. Food
(ungulate carcasses) will be provided until the wolves no longer use
it. Initially, all wolves will be closely monitored with a gradual
reduction over time. Previous experiences with reintroduced wolves have
shown that they may not remain together. In general, attempts to locate
and/or move lone wolves dispersing throughout the Park will not be
done. However, wolves may be moved on a case-by-case basis, if
necessary, to enhance wolf recovery in the experimental area.
Reintroduced wolves will remain in the wild, as long as they are
capable of sustaining themselves on carrion or wild prey. Conflicts
between wolves and humans may result in the recapture and/or removal of
a wolf in accordance with procedures successfully used with other
problem wolves.
An overall assessment of the success of the reintroduction will be
made after the first year and for every year thereafter. Procedures for
subsequent releases could be modified, if information from the previous
reintroduction warrants such changes. The physical reintroduction phase
should be completed within 3-5 years. Once the reintroduced wolves form
two packs with each pack raising two pups, for 2 consecutive years,
management practices would allow the wolves to grow naturally toward
recovery levels. Wolves would only be monitored, and no further
reintroduction would take place unless fewer than two litters were
produced in a single year. This reintroduction effort is consistent
with the recovery goals identified in the 1987 recovery plan for the
northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
It is estimated that the Park's reintroduction effort with a
similar effort in central Idaho, plus the natural recovery occurring in
northwestern Montana, could result in a viable recovered wolf
population (10 breeding pairs in each of 3 recovery areas for 3
consecutive years) by the year 2002.
The Service will continue to ask private landowners and agency
personnel adjacent to the Park to immediately report any wolf
observations to the Service or other authorized agencies. An extensive
information and education program will discourage the taking of gray
wolves by the public. Initially, all wolves will be monitored by radio
telemetry and, therefore, easy to locate if necessary. Public
cooperation with the Service will be encouraged to ensure close
monitoring of the wolves and quick resolution of any conflicts that
might arise.
Specific information on wolf reintroduction procedures can be found
in 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

In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, wolves reintroduced
into the Park are designated as nonessential experimental. Such
designation allows the wolves to 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 allows the Service to establish a less restrictive
special rule rather than using the mandatory prohibitions covering
endangered species. The biological status of the wolf and the need for
management flexibility resulted in the Service designating gray wolves
reintroduced into the Park as ``nonessential.'' The Service determined
that the ``nonessential'' designation, with other protective measures,
will conserve and recover the gray wolf in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
It is anticipated that released wolves will come into contact with
humans 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 indicate that wolves should not be reintroduced without
assurances that current uses of public and private lands will 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, provided the take was incidental to otherwise lawful
activities, it did not result from negligent conduct lacking reasonable
due care or was in defense of human life. Such wolf takings would need
to be reported to the Service or other authorized agency within 24
hours. The Service may designate certain Federal, State, and/or tribal
employees to take wolves that required special care or pose a threat to
livestock or property. Private land owners or their designates would be
permitted to harass wolves in an opportunistic noninjurious manner on
their leases or private property, provided such harassment was reported
within 7 days to the Service or other authorized agency.
Under the ``nonessential'' status, 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) of such an attack would be
required to document that the attack occurred simultaneously with the
taking. A report of such a take would need to be immediately (within 24
hours) reported to the Service or other authorized agency personnel for
investigation. Once six or more breeding pairs are established in the
Park or experimental area, 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. Such a take would be only permitted after
due notification to Service-designated agencies and unsuccessful
capture efforts.
Wolves that repeatedly (two times in a calendar year) attack
domestic animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or
pets (dogs or cats) on private land would be designated as problem
wolves and relocated from the area by the Service or a designated
agency. After one relocation, wolves that continued to depredate on
domestic animals would be considered chronic problem wolves and would
be removed from the wild.
It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations would be
primary cause for failure of the States or tribes to meet their
specific big game management objectives outside of the national parks
and national wildlife refuges. The Service could, however, determine
that wolves responsible for excessive depredation should be
translocated to other sites in the experimental area. Such actions are
expected to be rare and unlikely to impact the overall recovery rate.
States and tribes would need to define such situations in their
Service-approved wolf management plans before such actions could be
taken. Under the nonessential designation, wolves could not be
deliberately killed solely to resolve predation conflicts with big
game.
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 outside of national parks and national
wildlife refuges. 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. The National Park Service will be the primary agency
implementing the experimental population rule inside the boundaries of
national parks. States and tribes are anticipated to be the primary
agencies implementing this experimental population rule outside of
national parks and national wildlife refuges after their wolf
management plans are approved by the Service. The Service will provide
oversight, coordinate wolf recovery activities, and provide technical
assistance. If the States and tribes do not assume wolf management
responsibilities or adhere to provisions of their wolf management
plans, the Service would assume management authority. If for unforeseen
reasons the wolf population failed to sustain positive growth toward
recovery levels for 2 consecutive years, the influencing factors would
be identified. The Service, and affected States or tribes would be
responsible for determining if any management strategies needed
modification. The Service in coordination with the States and tribes
would implement those strategies to ensure wolf population recovery.
The Service finds that protective measures and management practices
are necessary and advisable for the conservation and recovery of the
gray wolf and that no additional Federal regulations are required. The
Service also finds that the nonessential experimental status is
appropriate for gray wolves taken from wild populations and released in
the Park. The nonessential status for such wolves allows for additional
management flexibility. Nonessential experimental populations located
outside of a national park or national wildlife refuge are treated
under the Act as if they were only proposed for listing, and not
listed. Only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply to Federal
actions outside national parks and wildlife refuges. Presently, there
are no conflicts envisioned with any current or anticipated management
actions of the Forest Service or other Federal agencies in the areas.
The national forests are beneficial to the reintroduction effort in
that they form a natural buffer to private properties and are typically
managed to produce wild animals that wolves could prey upon. The
Service finds the less restrictive section 7 requirements associated
with the nonessential designation do not pose a threat to the recovery
effort and continued existence of the gray wolf.
The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental
populations in a national park or national wildlife refuge.
Consequently, 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 listed
species for analysis purposes in national parks. The Service has
reviewed all ongoing and proposed uses of the parks and refuges and
determined that none are likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the gray wolf, nor will they adversely affect the success of the
reintroduction program.
Most of the reintroduction area is remote and sparsely inhabited
wild lands. However, there are some risks to wolf recovery associated
with take of wolves in regard to other land uses and various
recreational activities. Potential threats are hunting, trapping,
animal damage control activities, and high speed vehicular traffic.
Hunting, trapping, and USDA Animal Damage Control programs are
prohibited or strictly regulated in national parks, as well as closely
regulated by State and Federal law and policy. There are very few paved
or unpaved roads in the proposed reintroduction area or immediately
outside of it. The unpaved roads typically have low vehicle traffic,
are constructed for low speeds and used only seasonally. Thus, wolves
should encounter vehicles infrequently. In accordance with existing
labeling, the use of toxicants lethal to wolves in areas occupied by
wolves is prohibited. Overall, the possible risks and threats that
could impact the success of the reintroduction effort are thought to be
minimal.

Location of Experimental Population

The release site for reintroducing wolves will be in Yellowstone
National Park. The designated experimental population area will include
the State of Wyoming; that portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway
15; and 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.

Management

To date, the experimental population area does not currently
support any reproducing pairs of wolves. It is also unlikely that
wolves from the natural southern expansion from northwestern Montana
have arrived in the Park. Except for the gray wolves in northwestern
Montana, only an occasional, isolated wolf has been reported, killed,
or otherwise documented in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, or other Western
States. Single packs have been reported throughout the northern Rocky
Mountains. However, these reported wolves or groups of wolves, if
factual, apparently disappeared for unknown reasons and did not
establish recoverable ``populations'' as defined by wolf experts. A
wolf population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of gray
wolves that each successfully raise at least two young to December 31
of their birth year for 2 consecutive years (Service 1994). Thus, the
Service has determined that there is no population of wolves in the
Park and therefore, the Park reintroduction is consistent with
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act; specifically, that experimental
wolves need to be geographically separate from other nonexperimental
populations. It is possible that prior to 2002, other wolves may appear
in the wild and be attracted to the experimental area occupied by the
reintroduced wolves. Any ``new'' arrivals would be classified as part
of the experimental population. These wolves could assist in the
recovery and expansion of the experimental population to where wolves
could be dispersing into central Idaho and Montana.
Wolves dispersing into areas in Idaho and Montana, outside of the
experimental area, would continue to receive endangered species
protection under the Act, as did the wolves that recolonized an area
near Glacier National Park in 1982. It is also possible, but not
probable, that during the next 3 years wolves could move between
recovery areas and enhance the genetic diversity between natural
recovery areas and reintroduction sites. It is not anticipated that
such exchange will significantly alter the recovery rate in the Park's
experimental population area.
Although the Service determined that there is no existing wolf
population in the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and
establishment of an experimental population in the Park, the Service
will continue to determine the presence of any wild wolves. Prior to
any reintroduction, the Service would evaluate the status of any wolves
found in the experimental population area. If a wolf population is
discovered in the proposed experimental area, no reintroduction of
wolves would occur. Instead, the success of the naturally occurring
wolf population would be monitored to determine if recovery was
continuing. If a natural wolf population is located in the experimental
area prior to the effective date of the final rule, then the final rule
would not be implemented and there would be no reintroduction program.
Wolves naturally occurring would be endangered and managed as such,
with full protection under the Act. If the natural wolf population
failed to maintain positive growth for two consecutive years, then the
reintroduction effort could proceed or other recovery measures taken.
After reintroduction is completed, according to the Reintroduction
Protocol (section 5 above), management of the experimental population
will begin.
Once this rule is effective and wolves have been released into the
recovery area, the rule would remain in effect until wolf recovery
occurs or a scientific review indicates that modifications in the
experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf recovery.
If a wolf population is discovered in the Park's recovery area,
after the effective date of the experimental population rule but before
release, reintroduction under the rule would not occur in that area and
any such wolves would be managed as a natural recovering population.
Boundaries of the proposed experimental population area would be
changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of the naturally occurring,
breeding wolf population. No experimental population area will contain
a portion of the home range of any active breeding pairs of wolves that
have successfully raised young, prior to the establishment of the
experimental area.
Management of the nonessential experimental wolf population would
allow reintroduced wolves to be killed or moved by Service authorized
Federal, State, and tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations
and excessive predation on big game populations. Under special
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. When six or more wolf packs are documented
in the experimental population area outside of the national parks and
national wildlife refuges, there would be no land-use restrictions,
including areas around den sites or other critical areas.
Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate. Projected
recruitment would off-set the anticipated 10 percent mortality
resulting from management control actions. An additional 10 percent
loss could occur from other mortality sources. Once reintroduced wolves
reach the goal of six wolf packs, the reproductive output of the packs
would provide a population increase at or near 22 percent per year.
Closely regulated public control (taking of depredating wolves) would
effectively focus on only individual problem wolves. Agency control
actions would more likely target groups of wolves containing problem
individuals.
The Service, and States or tribes as authorized, could move wolves
that are negatively impacting ungulate populations. Such wolves would
be moved to other places within the experimental population area. Two
examples when this would occur are (1) when wolf predation is
dramatically affecting prey availability because of unusual habitat or
weather conditions (e.g., bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape
habitat) and (2) when 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 which are to be approved by the Service through
cooperative agreement before such control actions are conducted. Wolves
will not be deliberately killed solely to address ungulate-wolf
conflicts. Control actions by the States or tribes likely to be
significant or beyond the provisions of the experimental rule as
determined by the Service would have to be specifically incorporated
into an amendment of this experimental rule and subject to national
public comment and review.
Management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause
major changes to existing private or public land-use restrictions
(except at containment facilities during reintroduction) after six
breeding pairs of wolves are established in this experimental area.
When five or fewer breeding pairs are in the experimental area, land-
use restrictions could be used, as needed, to control intrusive human
disturbance on public lands. Their implementation would be at the
discretion of land management and natural resources agencies. Before
five or fewer breeding wolf pairs are established, temporary
restrictions on human access near active wolf den sites may be required
between April 1 and June 30. Any restrictions on private land would
only occur with complete landowner cooperation and concurrence.
The Service, and Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after they
have been authorized by the Service, could promptly remove any wolf
from the experimental population once the Service, or its authorized
agencies, has determined it was presenting a threat to human life or
safety. Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a
person can legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate
threat to human life. The incidental, unavoidable, unintentional,
accidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activity, or in
defense of human life, would be permitted by the Service and its
authorized agencies, provided that such taking was not resulting from
negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, due care was exercised
to avoid taking a wolf, and the taking was immediately (within 24
hours) reported to the appropriate authorities. Shooters have the
responsibility to identify their target before shooting. The act of
taking a wolf that is wrongly identified as another species, for
purposes of this rule, will be considered as intentional, negligent,
and not accidental. Such take may be referred to the appropriate
authorities for prosecution.
The Service, and other Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after
they have been designated by the Service, may control wolves that
attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) by aversive
conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when five or
fewer breeding pairs are established, or by other previously described
measures. Killing wolves or placing them in captivity may only be
considered when there are six or more breeding pairs established in the
experimental population area. When depredation occurs on public land
and prior to the establishment of six breeding pairs, depredating
females and their pups would be captured and released, at or near the
site of capture, one time prior to October 1. If depredations continue,
or if six packs are present, females and their pups would be removed.
Wolves on private land under these same circumstances would be moved.
Wolves that attack other domestic animals or pets on private land twice
in a calendar year would be moved, and chronic problem wolves would be
removed from the wild.
The Service, other Federal agencies, and State or tribal wildlife
personnel would be authorized and trained to take wolves under special
circumstances. Wolves could be live-captured and translocated to
resolve conflicts with State or tribal big-game management objectives,
when they are located outside of the experimental areas, or to enhance
wolf recovery. If the captured animal is clearly unfit to remain in the
wild, it could be placed in a captive facility. Killing of any wolves
would be a last resort and only authorized when live capture attempts
fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
The Service and authorized agencies of the Service would use the
following conditions and criteria to determine the status of problem
wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:
(1) Wounded livestock or the partial remains of a livestock carcass
must be presented with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976; Fritts
1982) that the livestock injury or death was directly caused by a wolf
or wolves. Such evidence is essential for justifying any control action
because wolves may feed on carrion they did not kill. Additionally,
there must be an indication that additional livestock losses may occur
if the problem wolf or wolves are not controlled.
(2) No evidence of artificial or intentional feeding of wolves can
be present. Improperly disposed livestock carcasses located in the area
of depredation will be considered attractants. On Federal lands,
removal or a decision on the use of such attractants must accompany any
control action. If livestock carrion or carcasses are not being used as
bait for an authorized control action on Federal lands, it must be
removed or otherwise disposed of so that they 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.
Federal responsibility for protecting gray wolves under the
experimental population provisions of the Act would continue until
formal delisting rulemaking procedures are completed. In accordance
with the Act, delisting may occur when analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial information shows that gray wolves are no
longer threatened with extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2)
overutilization, (3) disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In
addition to the above, the following criteria must be met: (1) For 3
consecutive years, a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented in
each of the 3 recovery areas described in the revised wolf recovery
plan (Service 1987); (2) protective legal mechanisms are in place; and
(3) the EIS evaluation has been completed (Service 1994). After
delisting, the Act specifies a species population must be monitored for
a 5-year period. After delisting, if in any 1 of the 3 recovery areas
the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 2
consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery area would be
considered for protective status under the Act.
All reintroduced wolves designated as nonessential experimental
will be removed from the wild and the experimental status and
regulations revoked when (1) legal actions or lawsuits change the
wolves status to endangered under the Act or (2) within 90 days of the
initial release date, naturally occurring wolves, consisting of two
breeding pairs that for 2 consecutive years have each successfully
raised two offspring, are discovered in the experimental population
area. The naturally occurring wolves would be managed and protected as
endangered species under the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

Two proposed nonessential experimental population rules for the
areas of Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho were published in
the Federal Register on August 16, 1994 (59 FR 42108 and 59 FR 42118,
respectively) (Service 1994a). The Record of Decision, notification of
the proposed rules, and tentative schedule for public hearings were
mailed to nearly 50,000 people on September 6, 1994. All interested
parties were requested to submit factual reports or information that
might contribute to the development of the final rule. Appropriate
Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. A legal notice announcing the proposed rules,
hearings, and inviting public comment were published in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, Olympia Olympian, New Paper Agency (Salt Lake City
Papers), Washington Times, Lewiston Morning Tribune, The Idaho
Statesman, Wyoming Tribune, Casper Star Tribune, Bozeman Daily
Chronicle, and Billings Gazette beginning on September 14, 1994.
The Service held six public hearings on the proposed rules. A
notification of the hearings and availability of the Record of Decision
and proposed rules was published in the Federal Register on September
14, 1994 (59 FR 47112). Copies of the proposed rules were distributed
to all interested parties. Public hearings were held on September 27,
1994, in Boise, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Helena, Montana, and on
September 29, 1994, in Salt Lake City, Utah; Washington, D.C.; and
Seattle, Washington. About 90 people testified at these hearings and
about 330 people submitted written comments. Comment on the proposed
rules was accepted until October 17, 1994.
A total of 426 written and oral responses, representing 621
signatures, were received during the proposed rule 34-day comment
period. Several letters, including letters from the Governor of the
State of Wyoming and the Colorado Wool Growers Association, were
received after comment period closed. However, these letters were
reviewed and considered. From October 17 to 24, 1994, a specialized
interagency team analyzed the public comments. After October 31, 1994,
the team's report was distributed to agency cooperators and to anyone
requesting it (Service 1994c). In addition to the public comments,
three Notices of Intent to Sue were received. The Service has completed
its review and consideration of all written and oral comments. All of
the issues raised by the public on the proposed rules were previously
identified and addressed in the final EIS. Analysis of the comments
revealed 25 issues which are identified and discussed below.
Changes in final rule as a result of public comment: The following
minor changes and clarifications were made to the final rule or to
discussions of the final rule based on public comments on the proposed
rule. These individual or cumulative changes do not alter the predicted
impact or effect of the final rule.
1. Several conditions on when wolves may be harassed or taken were
removed from the final rule. The following conditions are not part of
the final rule: (1) Distinction between adult wolves and pups, and (2)
harassment may only occur for 15 minutes.
2. In the background discussion of the final rule, it was clarified
that after a private individual takes a depredating wolf, no additional
agency actions will be conducted to control problem wolves in an area,
unless more livestock depredations occur. This assumes that the problem
wolf was killed, and therefore, no other control actions are required.
3. Several terms in the final rule were clarified and defined,
including: ``opportunistic noninjurious harassment,'' ``unintentional
take,'' ``disposal of livestock carrion,'' issuance criteria for a wolf
take permit to a grazing lessee on public lands, and criteria for
resolving wolf/ungulate conflicts.
4. A termination clause was added to the final rule. The clause
clarifies the Service's role and responsibilities regarding the
establishment of an experimental population.
5. Three years following the initial reintroduction of wolves, a
thorough review will be conducted. The review will determine if further
reintroductions are required and if, to date, the management program
has been successful. A provision to the rule was added that if the
reintroduction and management practices under the experimental
population rule did not result in wolf recovery, the Service would take
appropriate actions. Such actions would be caused by the failure of the
wolf population to maintain positive growth for 2 consecutive years.
All corrective actions would be coordinated with affected States,
tribes, and other Federal agencies.
6. Language regarding scientific or technical decisions in the
background discussion of the rule was changed. Study design and
reintroduction techniques may be changed or modified when expert and
skilled biologists determine such changes are necessary and prudent.
A list of relevant issues based on public comments and the
Service's response to those issues follows.
Issue 1: The subspecies of wolf that occupied the Yellowstone area
was Canis lupus irremotus. The reintroduction program will use wolves
from Canada which were once classified as a different subspecies;
therefore, this violates the experimental population provision of the
Act.
Service Response: In recent times, there have been several
revisions to the taxonomic classification of wolves in North America.
Several scientific investigations have dealt with this issue (Brewster
and Fritts 1994, Nowak 1994, Wayne et al. 1994). These investigations
concluded (1) there were fewer wolf subspecies than previously
believed, (2) irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, and (3) that
wolves might be better classified as types or representative groups of
geographic or climatic conditions rather than distinct subspecies. The
northern Rocky Mountains are within the historic range of Canis lupus.
Investigators conclude that reintroduction of wolves from Canada to the
Park or central Idaho would accelerate the ongoing natural southern
expansion of the species. Additionally, it was determined that current
taxonomic discussions of wolf subspecies should not affect wolf
recovery efforts in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States.
Issue 2: The amendment to section 10(j) of the Act states that
experimental populations may only be designated when there is
geographical separation between the experimental population and other
existing populations of the species. The occasional occurrence of lone
wolves in the areas of central Idaho and Yellowstone would prohibit the
use of the experimental population designation since there would be no
geographic separation between natural occurring and experimental
wolves. Comments also stated that the boundaries of the experimental
areas should be adjusted or the reintroduction program should be
delayed, particularly, in central Idaho due to the presence of
naturally occurring wolves.
Service Response: For many years, the Service and other agencies
have tried to document wolf activity in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
(Service 1994a Appendix 12). Since the 1970's, wolf observations
particularly from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, have been reported.
However, to date the only documented breeding groups of wolves are in
northwestern Montana. Based on scientific inquiry, the Service defines
a wolf population as at least two breeding pairs of wild wolves each
successfully raising at least two young each year, for 2 consecutive
years, and that a population is composed of breeding groups of wolves
(Service 1994a, Appendix 9). Presently, there are no known breeding
pairs of wolves within the experimental area. Nor does the experimental
area contain any portions of home ranges of any breeding pairs of
wolves. The Service finds that there is no geographic overlap between
any Montana wolf population home range and the experimental area. The
northern boundary of the Idaho experimental population area was moved
further south because, in 1990 and 1992, there were a few instances
when an active breeding group of wolves from Montana were located south
of the experimental boundary recommended in the proposed rule. The
rulemaking language now allows revocation of this rule and removal of
all reintroduced wolves, if within 90 days after the initial
reintroduction a naturally occurring wolf population is discovered in
the experimental area. Any naturally occurring wolves will be managed
as endangered species under the Act and afforded the same terms and
conditions as wolves in Montana. The Service has had a wolf monitoring
program in place in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for over two years. This
system is designed to accept reports from anyone, and when a report
focuses on a particular area a wolf biologist investigates to verify
the presence or absence of wolves. Through this method the Service has
identified newly formed packs in northwestern Montana. Within the
experimental area, no confirmation of wolves from provided reports has
occurred.
Issue 3: The experimental population rules did not utilize the best
scientific and commercial data available to reach decisions, as
required by the Act.
Service Response: The Service contends that this rule and the
Secretary's decision to reintroduce wolves used the best scientific
data available and underwent peer review and scientific analysis. The
EIS on the impacts of this rule includes several appendices and a list
of persons who contributed their expert opinions or relevant data to
the decisionmaking process (Service 1994a). Professional wildlife
biologists and scientific organizations complimented the Service on the
depth and detail of its scientific investigation in regards to the
reintroduction of wolves.
Issue 4: The reintroduction plan does not enhance the conservation
and recovery of wolves, as required by the Act. Reintroduction,
particularly in central Idaho, should not be conducted or should be
delayed for several years while a search for existing wolves is
conducted.
Service Response: For the past 20 years and presently, the Service
and others have searched for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Reviews of correspondence from the past 25 years show the longstanding
and widespread view that wolves already occupied Idaho and the
discovery of their presence imminent. Very extensive monitoring within
the experimental population area has not confirmed the presence of
wolves. This particular species is not habitat limited and if allowed
to get into the experimental area would reproduce and survive. The
translocation of wild wolves from Canada to the Park will provide the
opportunity to start a wolf population. This translocation effort will
greatly facilitate recovery of the gray wolf in the Yellowstone
ecosystem. The 1987 Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan recommended an
additional 5 years of monitoring for natural wolf recovery in Idaho.
However, the recovery plan provided other options if two breeding pairs
of wolves had not become established in Idaho during the 5 years.
Because no breeding pairs have been located, the draft and final EIS
and Record of Decision allow the simultaneous reintroduction of wolves
into central Idaho and the Park in an effort to ensure the viability
and conservation of wolves in the Rocky Mountains (Service 1994a,
Appendix 16).
Issue 5: The Service proposed a very liberal experimental rule to
accommodate concerns of local residents and the affected States.
However, it did not make allowances for unforeseen circumstances that
may impede or prevent wolf population growth and recovery. Options such
as increased management or greater numbers of reintroductions should be
allowed if required.
Service Response: The Service believes that, as proposed,
reintroduction and management techniques will result in wolf population
recovery and delisting by about 2002. Rulemaking language was added
clarifying that take activities must lead to eventual recovery of the
wolf. Additionally, if there is no progress in achieving wolf
population recovery (i.e., if wolves in a recovery area do not exhibit
positive growth for 2 consecutive years), then factors impacting
population growth will be investigated. Information from the
investigation will be made available to the public and appropriate
Federal, State, and tribal agencies. Within a year, the agencies may
recommend and implement new management actions or modifications to
their wolf management plans to correct factors negatively impacting
wolf recovery. Only as a last resort would changes or modifications to
sections of the experimental rule be made.
Issue 6: The proposed rules' requirements that ``only adult wolves
(greater than 50 pounds) can be harassed'' and then ``only for 15
minutes'' and ``only adult wolves that are witnessed attacking
livestock on private land can be killed by private parties'' are overly
restrictive. The provision that wolves can only be killed under a
special permit when (1) seen attacking livestock for the third time on
Federal lands, (2) six or more wolf packs are present in the
experimental population, and (3) all agency control efforts have
failed, does not address the issues in a timely or efficient manner.
The implication that land-use restrictions may be employed on private
lands when five or fewer wolf packs are present in the experimental
area also needs clarification.
Service Response: The Service agrees and has eliminated (1) the
distinction between adult wolves and pups for both noninjurious
harassment and take and (2) the length of time wolves may be harassed
(as long as physical injury is not incurred). Permittees with grazing
rights on public land can readily obtain a written take permit for
wolves seen attacking livestock. However, issuance criteria still
require that prior to issuing the 45-day take permit (1) six or more
wolf packs must be present in the experimental population area, (2)
authorized agencies must confirm that a wolf caused the livestock
injury or death, and (3) other agency control actions have failed to
resolve the problem. The final rule also clarifies that no land-use
restrictions will be exercised by Federal agencies on private land at
any time.
Issue 7: Certain parts of the rule need to be more specific, so
that potential management situations are individually described and
addressed in the final rule. Commenters provided a variety of scenarios
as examples.
Service Response: The Service added or clarified definitions and/or
language in the final rule. However, the wolf reintroduction program is
complex and has many unforeseen variables. It is impossible to imagine
or describe in detail every situation that might arise during its
implementation. Some situations can only be accurately addressed on a
case-by-case basis and judged by their particular circumstances. It is
the intent of the Service to use the experimental rule to aid the
conservation, recovery, and eventual delisting of wolf populations in
the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. The Service in
cooperation with other Federal, State, and tribal agencies will use the
flexibility of the experimental rule to address local concerns and
unforeseen situations. The professional expertise and experience of
wildlife managers will facilitate the implementation and any
modifications needed to improve the wolf reintroduction program.
Additional language was added to the rule, clarifying that management
flexibility is required as the program is implemented and refined.
Issue 8: The Service should make a clear commitment to fund all
aspects of wolf reintroduction and management, including compensation
to the States and tribes for their efforts. The Service should closely
monitor the compliance of other agencies to the experimental population
rules.
Service Response: To date, the Federal government has funded the
participation of affected States and tribes in regard to wolf
restoration program. The Service plans to continue its funding
commitment with Congressional appropriations until wolves are delisted.
The public stated its concern over the use of taxpayer dollars and the
need for government to wisely spend tax dollars. The Service,
therefore, must keep expenses for wolf reintroduction as low as
possible while maintaining an effective program. The Service will
encourage the States and tribes to submit reasonable budgets for wolf
management programs, as well as search for ways to pool and coordinate
resources so that overall costs are reduced. It is the legal
responsibility of the Service to monitor the progress and adherence of
State and tribal agencies to their management plans. The Service will
ensure and work cooperatively with others to meet the stated recovery
goals.
Issue 9: The wolf reintroduction effort needs to have a federally
funded livestock damage compensation program. Wolf reintroduction will
result in the ``taking'' of constitutionally protected private property
rights.
Service Response: In Montana, the Defenders of Wildlife implemented
a private livestock compensation program. Because the Defenders Program
has been successful, it was expanded to include Idaho and Wyoming. The
Service will not directly fund a livestock compensation program. The
Service will encourage livestock producers to utilize private
compensation programs when depredation occurs. The Service and USDA
Animal Damage Control will aid livestock producers by maintaining an
effective control program that minimizes livestock losses due to
wolves. The rule addresses the concerns of private property owners by
(1) providing an effective control program, (2) allowing landowners to
take wolves on their private land when justified, and (3) invoking no
land-use restrictions on private land. The Service has reviewed the
constitutionality of this rule in regard to protected private property
rights. The review concludes the Service's actions do not violate the
private property rights of individuals (Service 1994a, Appendix 6).
Issue 10: The Act requires the Service to consult with appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and local entities or private landowners, to
the maximum extent practicable, prior to promulgating regulations. The
Service has failed to meet such requirements.
Service Response: It is well documented that the Service made an
extraordinary effort to involve the public and other government
entities in developing management practices and the experimental
population rules regarding the wolf reintroduction program. During the
past 3 years, the Service held over 100 meetings, open houses, and
hearings. The Service distributed over 750,000 documents and reviewed
and considered nearly 170,000 public comments during development of the
rule. Federal agencies and affected States and tribes were active
participants during the process. This final rule represents the
participatory work and consensus of affected agencies and others
interested or impacted by the rulemaking.
Issue 11: Further discussion and detail are needed on how State and
tribal agencies will manage wolf predation and ungulate population
levels. The public needs to know exactly what will be done in regard to
this issue.
Service Response: The Service is confident in the States' and
tribes' ability to evaluate the impact wolf predation may have on
ungulate populations and, when appropriate, implement corrective
management actions. An evaluation of possible impacts and/or actions in
regard to a specific ungulate species and location is best accomplished
by biologists most familiar with the situation. The Service, States,
and tribes will coordinate wolf management plans to ensure that State
and tribal interests in native ungulate management are met while
meeting the Service's mandate for wolf recovery. Rulemaking language
was added to the section on how States and tribes will manage ungulate/
wolf conflicts. States and tribes are required to prepare acceptable
management plans for approval by the Service. It is expected that since
these management plans may affect State wildlife management programs,
the States will go through a public review process as part of their
development. Such plans will indicate the point at which wolf/ungulate
conflicts become so critical that corrective action must be taken. A
decision to translocate wolves to reduce such conflicts must serve to
enhance, or at a minimum not inhibit, wolf recovery.
Issue 12: The timeframe for submitting a report on the harassing
and/or taking of wolves by the public should be changed (both shortened
or lengthened were mentioned).
Service Response: The timeframes for a person to report the
harassing (7 days) and/or the unintentional taking (24 hours) of wolves
were not changed. The harassing or taking of a wolf is a critical and
potentially serious event. A person who harasses a wolf is best served
by reporting the incident as soon as possible so agency management
actions can be implemented, if necessary. Submission of a report on
wolf harassment provides a record which can document the continuation
of suspected or actual livestock depredations or rationale for taking a
wolf. The immediate reporting of livestock depredation by a wolf also
allows the immediate investigation of the incident and gathering of
fresh evidence. In Montana, agency professionals who investigate
livestock depredations are readily accessible during the night,
weekends, and holidays. During the past 9 years in Montana, the
reporting, documenting, and resolution of livestock depredations have
not been significant issues. Therefore, they are not anticipated to be
a problem for wolf reintroductions into the experimental population
areas. The United States legal system often takes into account unusual
mitigating circumstances, such as the remoteness of a livestock
allotment interfering with an individual being able to report an
incident as required by regulation. The Service could determine that an
incident would not be referred for prosecution, when a person failed to
meet the reporting requirements and could justify their action.
Issue 13: The delisting criteria should be clearly identified. The
delisting of one recovery area should be independent of the status of
other recovery areas.
Service Response: In accordance with the Act, delisting may occur
when analysis of the best available scientific and commercial
information shows that gray wolves are no longer threatened with
extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2) overutilization, (3)
disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In addition to the above, the
final EIS, states that the following criteria must be met: (1) For 3
consecutive years, a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented in
each of the 3 recovery areas described in the revised wolf recovery
plan (Service 1987); (2) protective legal mechanisms are in place; and
(3) the EIS evaluation has been completed (Service 1994). After
delisting, the Act specifies a species population must be monitored for
a 5-year period. After delisting, if in any 1 of the 3 recovery areas
the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 2
consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery area would be
considered for protective status under the Act. Delisting procedures
have been discussed (Service 1994a, Appendix 11). Endangered wolves in
northwestern Montana can be downlisted to threatened once 10 breeding
pairs are documented for 3 consecutive years. Experimental populations
of wolves cannot be downlisted because their protective status is based
on the experimental population rule. Experimental population rules can
be withdrawn when wolf numbers have reached recovery levels, no further
protection under the Act is required, and the wolf is delisted.
Issue 14: The reintroduction of wolves will negatively affect the
recovery of other species listed under the Act. This issue was not
addressed in the rule.
Service Response: The Service prepared and published an intra-
Service evaluation of its proposed action in the draft and final EIS
(Service 1994a, Appendix 7). The evaluation concluded that wolf
reintroduction and implementation of the experimental rules would not
adversely impact other endangered or threatened species. In November
1994, Service field offices in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming reviewed the
proposed rules and came to the same conclusion. The Service finds that
the impact of the final rules, like the predicated impact reviewed of
the proposed rules, will not adversely affect other protected species.
Issue 15: The proposed rules did not discuss how potential wolf/dog
hybrids or wolf/coyote hybrids will be addressed.
Service Response: The hybridization of wolves with other canids may
occur; however, it is not a significant problem anywhere in North
America where ranges of wolves, domestic dogs, coyotes, and foxes
overlap (Service 1994a, Chapter 1). Thus, it is not anticipated to be a
problem in the northern Rocky Mountains. The rules state the Service or
other authorized agencies may remove reintroduced wolves that breed
with domestic dogs, coyotes, or foxes, or their hybrid-offspring.
Individual animals that agency biologists suspect to be domesticated
wolves or wild wolf/other canid species hybrids would be removed from
the wild after examination of the canid's physical or behavioral
characteristics.
Issue 16: The experimental population rule improperly removes full
endangered species protection and bestows experimental status on any
naturally occurring wolves found inside the experimental population
boundaries.
Service Response: It is documented that individual wolves may
disperse over 500 miles. However, for the past 10 years, there has been
no evidence of naturally occurring wolves dispersing to and producing a
viable wolf population in the central Idaho or Yellowstone areas. After
the effective date of the experimental population rules, any such
wolves and their offspring would be treated as experimental population
animals. From a practical wildlife management perspective, the Service
cannot be expected to determine if an individual wolf had naturally
dispersed into the area or been reintroduced. The initial reintroduced
animals will be radio collared and differentiated. Once they have
reproduced it would be impossible to determine if the wolf was a wild
dispersing animal or progeny of experimental wolves. The rule as
written helps avoid the possible conflict. Such a distinction,
therefore, cannot be treated separately by regulation. Undoubtedly, the
establishment of a viable wolf population and recovery of the species
will be enhanced by the reintroduction of 30 wolves annually for the
next 3-5 years. The presence of reintroduced wolves may increase the
probability of naturally dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana or
Canada to move into, stay, and reproduce in an experimental area. While
this event would contribute to population recovery, it would not
greatly impact the overall population growth rate since the majority of
breeding wolves would be reintroduced animals.
Issue 17: Denning and rendezvous sites must be protected, even
after 6 packs are established. There needs to be more types of land use
restrictions (road closures) to protect wolves.
Service Response: Wolves are adaptable to a wide variety of human
activities, except for deliberate killing. Experiences in North America
indicate that human disturbance, even around active den sites, is not a
significant factor affecting wolf survival or population growth
(Service 1994a, Appendix 13). The rule protects active wolf dens during
the earliest stages of wolf recovery, if necessary. Killing wolves is
illegal except for a very few limited exceptions. The rule allows
flexibility to reconsider land use restrictions if wolf populations do
not grow toward recovery levels. Wolves in Montana have not needed
land-use restrictions and, at this time, land-use restrictions do not
appear necessary for wolf populations to recover in Idaho or Wyoming.
Issue 18: Private individuals should not be able to kill wolves,
even by permit.
Service Response: The opportunity for private individuals to kill
wolves in the experimental population areas is limited to when wolves
are actually in the act of killing livestock. The Service has
determined that wolves that exhibit this behavior do not further
conservation of the species and for that reason are currently
controlled (Service 1988). The selective removal of this type of
individual by the public is warranted in certain limited circumstances
and their removal contributes to conservation of the species. Agency
control would be initiated anyway and, under tight regulation, public
control can be more likely to remove the specific problem individual
than agency control actions. If a wolf is taken in the act of
depredating, further agency control would not be conducted unless
additional depredations occur. This limited taking of wolves by the
private sector could reduce the total number of wolves that might be
taken in response to livestock depredations and reduces the opportunity
for other wolves to feed on or learn to depredate on livestock.
Issue 19: The Secretary has not made the determination that use of
an experimental rule and reintroduction of wolves would further the
conservation of the species as required by 50 CFR 17.81.
Service Response: As stated in the Service's EIS, in the proposed
rule, and in the final rule, removal of wolves from Canadian
populations would not significantly impact those populations (59 FR
42110); the likelihood that wolf populations would become permanently
established and grow to recovery level is extremely high (59 FR 42111);
reintroduction would greatly accelerate wolf population recovery,
enhance wolf population viability, and lead to subsequent delisting (59
FR 42110); and the reintroduced wolves and subsequent population that
developed would not be affected by existing or anticipated Federal or
State actions or private activities within or adjacent to the
experimental population area (59 FR 42112), therefore, the release of
the experimental wolves would further the conservation of the species
(Service 1994a, Service 1994b).
Issue 20: Wolf management should remain with the Service until
delisting. The States or federal agencies like Animal Damage Control
should not be involved in wolf recovery.
Service Response: The rule clarifies that while the States and
Tribes are encouraged to lead implementation of the experimental rule,
the Service will monitor and is ultimately responsible for the recovery
of the species. Should progress toward wolf recovery not be evident
(two years of no growth would trigger other conservation measures), the
Service will cooperate with the states and tribes to assure steps are
taken to resume progress toward recovery. The states and tribes already
have highly professional wildlife management programs in place and
their expertise, authorities, knowledge, and organizations can greatly
enhance recovery of the species. Animal Damage Control is a
professional federal wildlife management agency that has the
responsibility, like all federal agencies, to use their authorities to
enhance the recovery of listed species. Animal Damage Control has been
a valuable and necessary component of wolf recovery activities in
Montana and Minnesota.
Issue 21: There should be a mortality limit that triggers more
restrictive management or reintroduced wolves that are killed should be
quickly replaced.
Service Response: The measure of success in the wolf recovery
program is not the level of wolf population mortality but growth of the
wolf population. Wolf populations can withstand varying levels of
mortality and individual wolf mortality is very difficult to measure
accurately. Language was added to the final rule that clarifies the
need to modify the state and tribal plans, which must be in compliance
with the rule, if wolf population growth is not evident. Wolf
population growth is easier to accurately monitor and is the criteria
that is used to implement other provisions in the rule (e.g. when
lethal control may be used, when a population is established, when
reintroductions stop, and when wolf populations are recovered). A ``put
and take'' strategy does not address the problem of a wolf population
failing to maintain growth and is an expensive process to conduct. It
is more productive to identify the factors preventing wolf population
growth and correct them before simply continually adding more wolves
that may die from the same causes. A population that required constant
reintroductions to compensate for excessive mortality rates could not
be delisted.
Issue 22: The experimental population boundaries are not
scientifically based and should be modified.
Service Response: The Service determined the boundaries of the
experimental populations based upon the distribution of the wolf
population in Montana. The experimental population boundaries do not
include any portion of any known area used by breeding wolves in
Montana. It was also determined that any wolf population inside the
experimental boundaries would most likely be the result of reintroduced
wolves and any breeding groups of wolves outside the experimental
boundaries would likely be the result of natural dispersal of wolves
from northwestern Montana or Canadian populations. The definition of a
wolf population underwent scientific peer review (Service 1994a,
Appendix 8). The rationale and location of the experimental population
boundaries were also reviewed, and no better consensus of a way to
define the geographic range of a wolf population was brought to the
Service's attention.
Issue 23: Wolves should be reintroduced for more than 3 years.
Service Response: Once a wolf population is established in an
experimental area there is no need to conduct further reintroductions
and to do so would not be cost effective. The soonest the ``wolf
population'' criteria could be met is in three years. At that time
about 45 wolves would have been reintroduced to each area, assuring
substantial genetic diversity, and 10-20 pups should be born annually.
Issue 24: What does legally present livestock mean? Who is
responsible for determining livestock husbandry practices?
Service Response: The provisions on legally present livestock are
part of the rule so that control of problem wolves will occur only when
livestock are present on public land in a manner already allowed by
conditions in their federal, state, or tribal grazing permit. No new
conditions are expected because of wolf reintroduction. Control of
wolves that attack livestock should not be expected when livestock are
illegally present on federal lands. Proper livestock husbandry
practices means the current community standards and practices used by
livestock producers as already determined by the land management agency
issuing the permit. No changes from the standard livestock grazing
practices already being used on federal grazing leases are envisioned.
Wolf management in Montana has not affected livestock management
practices on public lands and would likely not affect those practices
in other areas. Issues like proper disposal of livestock carrion are
already being addressed in the Yellowstone area because of other
concerns such as grizzly bear recovery. Language in the final rule
reflects that carrion must be managed in such a way as not to present a
continuing attractant to wolves if problems occur, but leaves the
livestock producer and land management agency to determine how best to
address potential problems.
Issue 25: Nearly every one of the 39 issues addressed in the public
scoping process and review of the draft EIS were again discussed,
questioned, or disagreed with during public comment about the proposed
rule.
Service Response: The Service has reviewed public concern about the
accuracy of its early responses to issues raised in the draft and final
EIS and which were also raised by persons commenting on the proposed
rule. At this time, the information provided during the public comment
period on the proposed rule does not provide sufficient data or cause
for the Service to significantly change any of its earlier findings
which were published in the final EIS regarding the issues of: Amending
the Endangered Species Act, wolves as a missing component of the
ecosystem, humane treatment of wolves, enjoying wolves, regulated
public take, cost of the program, state, tribal, and federal authority,
viable population, travel corridors, range requirements, control
strategies, illegal killing, compensation, delisting, need for public
education, spiritual and cultural significance, social and cultural
environment, recovery areas, ungulate populations, hunter harvest,
domestic livestock, land use, visitor use, economics, wolves not native
to Yellowstone, wolf rights, federal subsides, human health and safety,
predators and scavengers, other endangered species, other plants,
invertebrates, fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals, diseases
and parasites, private property rights, wolf recovery in other areas,
existing wolves in Idaho and Yellowstone, existing wolves in
northwestern Montana, wolf subspecies, wolf/dog/coyote hybridization,
and the need for research (Service 1994a).
The Service adjusted the experimental population boundaries to
exclude any portion of known wolf pack territories in an effort to
reduce the likelihood that any naturally dispersing breeding groups of
wolves would fall under the proposed experimental rule regulations.
Based on the above, and using the best scientific and commercial
data available, in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81, the Service finds that
releasing wolves into Yellowstone National Park constitutes
reintroduction into a high-priority site and will further advance
conservation and recovery of this species.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Required Determinations

This rule was reviewed 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 recordkeeping 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.
Due to biological requirements, the wolf reintroduction program
needs to be conducted in November through February, as recommended by
wolf scientists during the EIS process. The nonessential experimental
population rule has been extensively debated and thoroughly
investigated during development of the EIS and draft rules. Because of
the extensive public review of the EIS, Record of Decision, and
proposed rules, all being similar to this final rule, implementation of
the wolf reintroduction program should start as of the date of
publication, without a 30-day waiting period. Therefore, for good cause
and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Service has determined
that the rule should become effective immediately upon filing for
public inspection.

References Cited

Brewster, W.G. and S.H. Fritts. 1994. Taxonomy and genetics of the
gray wolf in western North America: a review. Pages xxx-xxx in
Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and
conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar
Inst., Univ. of Alberta. (in press).
Fritts, S.H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 145. 11 pp.
Nowak, M.R. 1994. Another look at wolf taxonomy. Pages xxx-xxx in
Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and
conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar
Inst., Univ. of Alberta. (in press).
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. 1994a. Reintroduction of gray wolves
to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Helena, Montana. 608 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Proposing Establishment of a nonessential
experimental population of gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park in
Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and in Central Idaho area. Federal
Register Vol. 59, No. 157: 42108-42127.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994c. Summary of Public Comments on
the Proposed Rules for The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. 41 pp.
Wayne, W.K., N. Lehman, and T.K. Fuller. 1994. Conservation genetics
of the gray wolf. Pages xxx-xxx in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and
D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing
world. Canadian Circumpolar Inst., Univ. of Alberta. (in press).

Author

The principal author of this rule is Edward E. Bangs (see ADDRESSES
section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby amends 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
--------------------------------------------------- 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, 561
where listed as an
experimental
population).
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 561 NA 17.84(i)
of ID and MT--see Sec.
17.84(i)).

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 17.84 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec. 17.84 Special rules--Vertebrates.

* * * * *
(i) Gray wolf (Canis lupus).
(1) The gray wolves identified in paragraph (i)(7) of this section
are nonessential experimental. These wolves will be managed in
accordance with the respective provisions of this section.
(2) The Service finds that reintroduction of nonessential
experimental gray wolves, as defined in (i)(7), will further the
conservation of the species.
(3) No person may take this species in the wild in an experimental
population area except as provided in paragraphs (i) (3), (7), and (8)
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 wolf in an opportunistic (the wolf cannot be
purposely attracted, tracked, waited for, or searched out, then
harassed) and noninjurious (no temporary or permanent physical damage
may result) manner at any time, Provided that such harassment is non-
lethal or is not 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) a wolf 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 are to be immediately reported 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.
(iii) Any livestock producer or permittee with livestock grazing
allotments on public land may receive a written permit, valid for up to
45 days, from the Service or other agencies designated by the Service,
to take (including to kill or injure) a wolf that is 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 six or more breeding pairs of
wolves have been documented in the experimental population area and the
Service or other agencies authorized by the Service has confirmed that
the livestock losses were caused by wolves and have completed agency
efforts to resolve the problem. Such take must be reported immediately
within 24 hours to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction
or agency representative designated by the Service. There must be
evidence of freshly wounded or killed livestock by wolves. Service or
other agencies, authorized by the Service, will investigate and
determine if the 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) Potentially affected States and tribes may capture and
translocate wolves to other areas within an experimental population
area as described in paragraph (i)(7), Provided the level of wolf
predation is negatively impacting localized ungulate populations at an
unacceptable level. Such translocations cannot inhibit wolf population
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 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 such take is reported
immediately (within 24 hours) to the Service reintroduction project
leader or Service designated agent. The taking of a wolf without 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 determined to be ``problem'' wolves. Problem wolves are
defined as: wolves that in a calendar year attack livestock (cattle,
sheep, horses, and mules) or as defined by State and tribal wolf
management plans approved by the Service, or wolves that twice in a
calendar year attack domestic animals (all domestic animals other than
livestock). Authorized take includes, but is not limited to non-lethal
measures such as: aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or
translocating wolves. Such taking may be implemented when five or fewer
breeding pairs are established in a experimental population area. If
the take results in a wolf mortality, then evidence that the mortality
was nondeliberate, nonnegligent, accidental, and unavoidable must be
provided. When six or more breeding pairs are established in the
experimental population area, lethal control of problem wolves or
permanent placement in captivity will be authorized but only after
other methods to resolve livestock depredations have been exhausted.
Depredations occurring on Federal lands or other public lands
identified in State or tribal wolf management plans and prior to six
breeding pairs becoming established in an experimental population area,
may result in capture and release of the female wolf with pups, and her
pups at or near the site of capture prior to October 1. All wolves on
private land, including female wolves with pups, may be relocated or
moved to other areas within the experimental population area if
continued depredation occurs. Wolves attacking domestic animals other
than livestock, including pets on private land, two or more times in a
calendar year will be relocated. 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 criteria will be used in
determining the status of problem wolves within the nonessential
experimental population area:
(A) There must be evidence of wounded livestock or partial remains
of a livestock carcass that clearly shows that the injury or death was
caused by wolves. Such evidence is essential since wolves may feed on
carrion which they found and did not kill. There must be reason to
believe that additional livestock losses would occur if no control
action is taken.
(B) There must be no evidence of artificial or intentional feeding
of wolves. Improperly disposed of livestock carcasses in the area of
depredation will be considered attractants. Livestock carrion or
carcasses on public land, not being used as bait under an agency
authorized control action, must be removed or otherwise disposed of so
that it will not attract wolves.
(C) On public 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 a gray wolf found in an area defined in
paragraph (i)(7), Provided that the take is incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity, accidental, unavoidable, unintentional, not resulting
from negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, and due care was
exercised to avoid taking a gray wolf. Such taking is to be reported
within 24 hours to a 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
receive written authorization from the Service to take animals under
special circumstances. Wolves may be live captured and translocated to
resolve demonstrated conflicts with ungulate populations or with other
species listed under the Act, or when they are found outside of the
designated experimental population area. Take procedures in such
instances would involve live capture and release to a remote area, or
placement in a captive facility, if the animal is clearly unfit to
remain in the wild. Killing of wolves will be a last resort and is only
authorized when live capture attempts have failed or there is clear
endangerment 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 from the wild within the experimental population area, if such
action is for:
(A) 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.
(4) 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 five 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 five 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 and would
only apply to public lands or other such lands designated in State and
tribal wolf management plans. When six 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, unless wolf populations fail to maintain positive
growth rates toward population recovery levels for 2 consecutive years.
If such a situation arose, State and tribal agencies would identify,
recommend, and implement corrective management actions within 1 year,
possibly including appropriate land-use restrictions to promote growth
of the wolf population.
(5) 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 the regulations
in paragraph (i) of this section or in violation of applicable State or
tribal fish and wildlife laws or regulations or the Endangered Species
Act.
(6) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in this
section.
(7) The site for reintroduction is within the historic range of the
species:
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) 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.

TR22NO94.001

(iii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this
paragraph (i)(7) 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
(i)(7) 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 be 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 likely to be a wild gray wolf
or if the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the
animal shows physical or behavioral evidence of hybridization with
other canids, such as domestic dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal
raised in captivity, it will be kept in captivity or killed.
(8) The reintroduced wolves will be 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.
(9) The status of the experimental population will be reevaluated
within the first 3 years, after the first year of releases of wolves,
to determine future management needs and if further reintroductions are
required. 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 and fate 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.
(10) 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. However,
if the wolf population does not demonstrate positive growth toward
recovery goals for 2 consecutive years, the affected States and tribes,
in cooperation with the Service, would, within 1 year, identify and
initiate wolf management strategies, including appropriate public
review and comment, to ensure continued wolf population growth toward
recovery levels. All reintroduced wolves designated as nonessential
experimental will be removed from the wild and the experimental status
and regulations revoked when (i) legal actions or lawsuits change the
wolves status to endangered under the Act or (ii) within 90 days of the
initial release date, naturally occurring wolves, consisting of two
breeding pairs that for 2 consecutive years have each successfully
raised two offspring, are discovered in the experimental population
area. The naturally occurring wolves would be managed and protected as
endangered species under the Act.

Dated: November 15, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-28746 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P