[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: 94-28747]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 22, 1994]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AC86

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves in Central Idaho 
and Southwestern 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 central Idaho, 
including a portion of southwestern Montana. These wolves will be 
classified as a nonessential experimental population pursuant to 
section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
Gray wolf populations have been extirpated from most of the Western 
United States. They presently occur in a small population in extreme 
northwestern Montana, and as incidental occurrences in Idaho, Wyoming, 
and Washington as a result of wolves dispersing from existing 
populations in Montana and Canada. The purpose of this reintroduction 
plan is to reestablish a viable wolf population in central Idaho, 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.) (Act), 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 parks or national wildlife refuges 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 federally 
listed 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 species proposed to be listed as 
threatened or endangered. 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 provision 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 from the Canadian population. 
Consequently, the Service finds that wolves to be used in the 
reintroduction effort meet the definition of ``nonessential'' (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 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), was present. 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 
southwestern Montana. 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. 
However, 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 wolves into the Park and 
central Idaho. 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, 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 (Pub. L. 101-512). 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. The team participants were the National Park Service; Forest 
Service; 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, DC. 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 
Experimental Wolves (2) Natural Recovery (No action), (3) No Wolves, 
(4) Wolf Management Committee Recommendations, and (5) Reintroduction 
of Nonexperimental Wolves. After careful review, the Service's proposed 
action was to reintroduce gray wolves designated as nonessential 
experimental into 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. Notice 
of 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, DC; 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 central Idaho on or near Federal lands managed by the USDA Forest 
Service. The Idaho location was selected as a site for experimental 
wolves because of the following factors. The central Idaho site is a 
vast area of about 53,000 km\2\ (20,000 mi\2\) of contiguous National 
forests, including the Bitteroot, Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez 
Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and Panhandle National Forests. The 
central area is comprised of three wilderness areas: the Frank Church 
River-of-no-Return, Selway Bitteroot, and Gospel-Hump. These wilderness 
areas have about 16,000 km\2\ (6,000 mi\2\) of quality wolf habitat and 
several good potential release sites. The area is also far from the 
natural southern expansion of wolf packs from Montana. Thus, any wolves 
documented inside the central Idaho experimental area would probably be 
from reintroduction efforts rather than naturally dispersing extant 
wolf populations from Canada or northwestern Montana. The Service will 
also reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone National Park as a 
nonessential experimental population published under a separate rule in 
the Federal Register.
    The Service determined that reintroduction of wolves into central 
Idaho 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 
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 on private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations, 
excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government 
involvement in the program.
    Establishment of gray wolves in central Idaho 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. 
Yellowstone National Park is identified as the only other alternative 
site; 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 Idaho and Montana, 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 central Idaho reintroduction plan requires transferring 45 to 
75 wolves from southwestern Canada, representing various sex and age 
classes, over a 3- to 5-year period. Under the plan, about 15 wild 
wolves from several different packs using standard capture techniques 
will be captured annually over a period of 3 to 5 years. Captured 
wolves will be transported to central Idaho. The wolves will receive 
any necessary veterinary care, including examinations and vaccinations. 
They will be fitted with radio collars so that they can be monitored by 
radiotelemetry. The wolves will be immediately released into the wild. 
This method is known as ``quick release,'' (i.e., the wolves will be 
released upon or shortly after transport and arrival at the release 
site). ``Quick release'' wolves will not be held for acclimation nor 
will food or care be provided after release. It is anticipated that 
released wolves will move widely but eventually will find mates and 
form packs.
    In general, attempts to locate and/or move lone wolves dispersing 
throughout central Idaho 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 Wolf.
    It is estimated that the central Idaho reintroduction effort, 
together with a similar effort in the Park and 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 in or around central Idaho 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 EIS, ``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 central Idaho are designated as a 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 the gray 
wolves reintroduced into central Idaho as ``nonessential.'' The Service 
determined that the ``nonessential'' designation, together with other 
protective measures, will conserve and recover the gray wolf in central 
Idaho and southwestern Montana.
    It is anticipated that released wolves will come into contact with 
humans and domestic animals inside and outside the central Idaho 
experimental population area. 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, 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'' designation, 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 for 
investigation. Once six or more breeding pairs are established in the 
experimental population 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 permitted only after 
due notification to Service designated agencies and unsuccessful 
capture efforts.
    Wolves that repeatedly (two times in a calendar year) attacked 
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 
a 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 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, 
while the States and tribes will be the primary agencies implementing 
this experimental population rule outside 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 and tribes would be responsible for determining if any 
management strategies need 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 
under this rulemaking 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 into central Idaho. 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 for purposes of section 7 
of the Act as if they were only proposed for listing, and not listed. 
Only section 7(a)(l) and section 7(a)(4) apply to Federal actions 
outside national parks and national 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 area. 
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 that 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 and wildlife refuges. 
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 into central Idaho will 
be on or near National Forest lands. The experimental population area 
includes that portion of Idaho west of Interstate 15 and south of 
Interstate 90, and that part of Montana south of Interstate 90, Highway 
93 and 12 near Missoula, Montana, and west of Interstate 15.

Management

    The experimental population area currently does not support any 
reproducing pairs of wolves. It is also unlikely that wolves from the 
natural southern expansion from northwestern Montana have arrived in 
central Idaho. 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 the central Idaho reintroduction is consistent with 
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act; specifically, that experimental 
wolves must 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 population area by the 
reintroduced wolves or by other factors. Any ``new'' arrivals would be 
classified as part of the experimental population. Such wolves could 
assist in the recovery and expansion of the experimental population to 
the point where wolves could disperse into other parts of Idaho and 
Montana.
    Wolves dispersing into areas in Idaho or Montana outside of the 
experimental area, would receive all the protections of an endangered 
species under the Act, as did the wolves that recolonized an area near 
Glacier National Park in 1982. It is 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. However, it is not anticipated that such exchange 
will significantly alter the recovery rate in the 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 Idaho, the Service will 
continue to monitor for 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 classified as endangered and 
managed with full protection under the Act. If the natural wolf 
population failed to maintain positive growth for 2 consecutive years, 
then the reintroduction effort could proceed or other recovery measures 
could be taken. After reintroduction is completed, according to the 
Reintroduction Protocol (section 5 above), management of the 
experimental population will begin.
    Once the rule is in effect 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 central Idaho 
experimental population 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 would 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 population areas.
    Management of the nonessential experimental 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 
population area. When five or fewer breeding pairs are in the 
experimental population area, land-use restrictions could be used as 
needed, and at the discretion of land management and natural resources 
agencies to control intrusive human disturbance on public lands. Their 
implementation would be at the discretion of land management and 
natural resource 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 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 could legally kill 
or injure wolves in response to an immediate threat to human life. The 
incidental, unavoidable, unintentional, and 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 a 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 do 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 population 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, DC; 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: The Reintroduction of Gray 
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Analysis of the 
comments revealed 25 issues which are identified and are 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 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 
discussion of the rule was changed. Design study 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 concluded 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 the Park 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 population 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 the experimental 
population 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 northwest Montana. Within the experimental area, there has 
been no confirmation of wolves from any provided reports.
    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 central Idaho will provide 
the opportunity to start a wolf population. This translocation effort 
will greatly facilitate recovery of the gray wolf. 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 the wolf 
restoration program. The Service plans to continue its funding 
commitment within 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 actions.
    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 (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 thus, can be differentiated. Once 
they have reproduced it would be impossible to determine if the wolf 
was a wild dispersing animal or progeny of the experimental animals. 
The rule was written to help avoid that 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 to 5 years. The presence of reintroduced wolves 
may increase the probability of naturally dispersing wolves from 
northwestern Montana or Canada to move, 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 the 
conservation of the species and for that reason are currently 
controlled (Service 1988). The selective removal of this type of 
individual animal by the public is warranted in certain limited 
circumstances and their removal contributes to overall 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 because the action is 
taken immediately. 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 in the experimental areas 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, 
release of the experimental population 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 trained 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. The recovery 
process and assurance of substantial genetic diversity, pack formation, 
and birth of about 10-20 pups should have occurred following the 
reintroduction of 45 animals. This would eliminate the need for 
additional reintroductions and would allow manpower and funds to be 
used on monitoring population growth and dispersal.
    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 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, 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, and in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81, the Service finds 
that releasing wolves into central Idaho 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 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'' [as revised in the previous document in this part VIII of 
this issue of the Federal Register] is further revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                    Vertebrate population                                                  
----------------------------------------------------      Historic range          where endangered or      Status    When listed    Critical    Special 
       Common name              Scientific name                                       threatened                                    habitat      rules  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Mammals                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
Wolf, gray...............  Canis lupus.............  Holarctic...............  U.S.A. (48 conterminous   E             1, 6, 13,     17.95(a)         NA
                                                                                States, except MN and                    15, 35,                        
                                                                                where listed as an                      561, 562                        
                                                                                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, 562           NA   17.84(i)
                                                                                of ID and MT--see Sec.                                                  
                                                                                17.84.(i)).                                                             
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                      * * * * * * *                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Paragraph (i) of Sec. 17.84 [as added in the previous document 
in this part VIII of this issue of the Federal Register] is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 17.84  Special rules--Vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (i) Gray wolf (Canis lupus).
    (1) The gray wolves (wolf) 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) of this section, 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 Service authorized agencies 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 done 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, accidental, nonnegligent, 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 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) The central Idaho area is shown on the following map. The 
boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area will be 
those portions of Idaho that are south of Interstate Highway 90 and 
west of Interstate 15, and those portions of Montana south of 
Interstate 90, Highway 93 and 12 from Missoula, Montana west of 
Interstate 15.

TR22NO94.002

    (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.

TR22NO94.003

    (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 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 returned to 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 
population 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. 94-28747 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M