94-19998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolf in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-19998]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: August 16, 1994]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part II
    
    
    
    
    
    Department of the Interior
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    50 CFR Part 17
    
    
    
    Endangered and Threatened Species: Gray Wolf; Proposed Rule
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    
    50 CFR Part 17
    
    RIN 1018-AC86
    
     
    
    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
    Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolf in 
    Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana
    
    AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to 
    reintroduce the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, into 
    Yellowstone National Park, which is located in Wyoming, Idaho, and 
    Montana. This population would be classified as a nonessential 
    experimental population according to section 10(j) of the Endangered 
    Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Gray wolf populations have been 
    extirpated from most of the western United States. They presently occur 
    in a small population in extreme northwestern Montana, and as 
    incidental occurrences of a few wolves in Idaho, Wyoming, and 
    Washington that result from the dispersal of wolves from Montana and 
    Canada. This reintroduction is being proposed to reestablish a viable 
    wolf population in the Yellowstone area, one of three wolf recovery 
    areas that have been identified in the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf 
    Recovery Plan. Potential effects of this proposed rule were evaluated 
    in an environmental impact statement completed in May 1994. This gray 
    wolf reintroduction would not conflict with existing or anticipated 
    Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of park lands, 
    wilderness areas, or surrounding lands.
    
    DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October 
    17, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Comments or other information may be sent to: Gray Wolf 
    Reintroduction, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 8017, Helena, 
    Montana 59601. The complete file for this proposed rule is available 
    for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 100 N. 
    Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Mr. Edward E. Bangs, at the above address, or telephone (406) 449-5202.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
    1. Legal
    
        The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, P.L. 97-304, made 
    significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (16 
    U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the creation of section 10(j), which 
    provides for the designation of specific populations of listed species 
    as ``experimental populations''. Under previous authorities in the Act, 
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to 
    reintroduce populations of a listed species into unoccupied portions of 
    its historic range for conservation and recovery purposes. However, 
    local opposition to reintroduction efforts from certain parties 
    concerned about potential restrictions, and prohibitions on Federal and 
    private activities contained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, reduced 
    the utility of reintroductions as a management tool.
        Under section 10(j), a reintroduced population of a listed species 
    established outside of its current range, but within its historic range 
    may be designated, at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior 
    (Secretary), as ``experimental.'' The Act requires that an experimental 
    population be separated geographically from nonexperimental populations 
    of the same species. Furthermore, an experimental population is treated 
    as a threatened species, except that, solely for section 7 purposes 
    (except for subsection (a)(1)), an experimental population determined 
    not to be essential to the continued existence of a species is treated, 
    except when it occurs in an area within the National Wildlife Refuge 
    System or the National Park System, as a species proposed to be listed 
    under section 4 of the Act. Activities undertaken on private lands are 
    not affected by section 7 of the Act unless they are funded, authorized 
    or carried out by a Federal agency.
        Experimental and non-essential designations increase the 
    flexibility for management of a reintroduced population of a listed 
    species. Treatment of such a population as threatened provides the 
    Service with greater latitude in devising management programs than 
    would be possible for an endangered species. While Section 9 of the Act 
    spells out directly the prohibitions that apply for endangered species, 
    Section 4(d) of the Act permits adoption by regulation of prohibitions 
    only to the extent that they are necessary and advisable to promote the 
    conservation of a species listed as threatened.
        In addition, a nonessential experimental population is not subject 
    to the formal consultation requirement of section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
    unless the experimental population occurs on a National Wildlife Refuge 
    or National Park, where the full provisions of section 7 apply. Section 
    7(a)(1) of the Act applies to nonessential experimental populations, 
    and requires that all Federal agencies use their authorities to 
    conserve listed species. Individual organisms used in establishing an 
    experimental population can be removed from a source or donor 
    population only after it has been determined that their removal itself 
    is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and 
    a permit has been issued in accordance with the requirements of 50 CFR 
    17.22.
        In 1967, the timber wolf was listed as a subspecies (Canis lupus 
    lycaon) as endangered (32 FR 4001), and in 1973 the northern Rocky 
    Mountain subspecies, as then understood, (C. l. irremotus) was also 
    listed as endangered, as was the Texas subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis) 
    (38 FR 14678). In 1978, the legal status of the gray wolf in North 
    America was clarified by listing wolves in Minnesota as threatened and 
    other members of the species south of Canada as endangered, without 
    referring to subspecies (43 FR 9607).
    
    2. Biological
    
        This proposal deals with the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered 
    species of carnivore that was extirpated from the western portion of 
    the conterminous United States by about 1930. The gray wolf is native 
    to most of North America north of Mexico City, except for the 
    southeastern United States, which was occupied by a similar species, 
    the red wolf (Canis rufus). The gray wolf occupied nearly every area in 
    North America that supported populations of hooved mammals (ungulates), 
    its major food source.
        Twenty-four distinct subspecies of gray wolf have been recognized 
    in North America. Recently, however, taxonomists have suggested that 
    there are five or fewer subspecies of gray wolf in North America and 
    that the wolves that once occupied the northern Rocky Mountains of the 
    United States belonged to a more widely distributed subspecies than was 
    previously believed.
        The gray wolf historically occurred in the northern Rocky 
    Mountains, including mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and 
    Idaho. The great reduction in the distribution and abundance of this 
    species in North America was directly related to human activities, 
    especially elimination of native ungulates, conversion of wildland into 
    agricultural lands, and extensive predator control efforts by private, 
    State, and Federal agencies. When most wolves in the conterminous 
    United States were eradicated, the natural history of wolves was poorly 
    understood. As were other large predators, it was considered a nuisance 
    and a threat to humans. Today, the gray wolf's role as an important and 
    necessary part of natural ecosystems is better appreciated.
        Wolf reproduction was not detected in the Rocky Mountain portion of 
    the United States for a period of about 50 years prior to 1986. At that 
    time, a wolf den was discovered near the Canadian border in Glacier 
    National Park. This event was presumably due to the southern expansion 
    of Canadian wolf populations, and the wolf population in Glacier 
    National Park has steadily expanded to an estimated size of about 65 
    wolves that now occupy northwestern Montana.
        Reproducing wolf populations are not known to occur in Idaho or 
    Wyoming. Wolves occasionally have been sighted in these states, but 
    populations as defined by wolf experts (Service 1994) have not been 
    established. Historical reports suggest that wolves may have produced 
    young there several times in the past. However, based on extensive 
    surveys and interagency monitoring efforts (Service 1994), no wolf 
    population has persisted in these States.
    
    3. Wolf Recovery Efforts
    
        In the 1970s, the state of Montana led an interagency recovery 
    team, established by the Service, that developed a recovery plan for 
    the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf. That 1980 plan recommended a 
    combination of natural recovery and reintroduction be used to recover 
    wolf populations in the area around Yellowstone National Park (Park) 
    north to the Canadian border, including central Idaho.
        A revised recovery plan was approved by the Service in 1987 
    (Service 1987). It identified a recovered wolf population as being at 
    least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3 consecutive years, in each of 
    3 recovery areas (northwestern Montana, central Idaho and the 
    Yellowstone area). A population of this size would comprise 
    approximately 300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery in 
    Montana and Idaho, and using the experimental-population authority of 
    section 10(j) of the Act to quickly reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone 
    National Park and to conduct liberal management to address local 
    concerns about their potential negative impacts. If 2 wolf packs did 
    not become established in central Idaho within 5 years, the plan 
    recommended that conservation measures other than natural recovery be 
    considered.
        In 1990 (Pub. L. 101-512), Congress directed appointment of a Wolf 
    Management Committee, composed of 3 Federal, 3 State and 4 interest 
    group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration to 
    Yellowstone and central Idaho. That Committee provided a majority, but 
    not unanimous, recommendation to Congress in May 1991. Among the 
    measures recommended was a declaration by Congress directing 
    reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and possibly 
    central Idaho, as a special nonessential experimental population with 
    particularly flexible management by agencies and the public to resolve 
    potential conflicts. Wolves and ungulates under that plan would be 
    intensively managed by the States with Federal funding and thus 
    implementation costs were estimated to be high. Congress took no action 
    on the Committee's recommendation.
        In November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-154), Congress directed the Service, 
    in consultation with the National Park Service and Forest Service, to 
    prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), that considered a 
    broad range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone 
    National Park and central Idaho. In 1992 (Pub. L. 102-381), Congress 
    directed the Service to complete the EIS by January 1994 and indicated 
    that the preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.
        The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the 
    EIS. In addition to the National Park Service and Forest Service, the 
    States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, USDA Animal Damage Control, and 
    the Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes participated. The Gray Wolf EIS 
    program emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, nearly 
    2,500 groups or individuals that had previously expressed an interest 
    in wolves were directly contacted and the EIS program was widely 
    publicized by the news media.
        In April 1992, a series of 27 ``issue scoping'' open houses were 
    held in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho and 7 more in other locations 
    throughout the U.S. The meetings were attended by nearly 1,800 people 
    and thousands of brochures were distributed. Nearly 4,000 people 
    provided their thoughts on issues they felt should be addressed in the 
    EIS. A report describing the public's comments was mailed to 16,000 
    people in July 1992.
        In August 1992, another series of 27 ``alternative scoping'' open 
    houses and 3 hearings were held in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Three 
    other hearings were held in Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, and 
    Washington D.C. In addition, a copy of the alternative scoping brochure 
    was inserted into a Sunday edition of the two major newspapers in 
    Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (total circulation about 250,000). Nearly 
    2,000 people attended the meetings and nearly 5,000 comments were 
    received about different ways that wolf recovery might be managed. 
    Public comments reflected the strong polarization that has typified 
    management of wolves. A report on the public's ideas and suggestions 
    was mailed to about 30,000 people in November 1992. In April 1993, a 
    Gray Wolf EIS planning update report was published. It discussed the 
    status of the EIS, provided factual information about wolves, and 
    requested the public to report observations of wolves in the northern 
    Rocky Mountains. It was mailed to nearly 40,000 people that had 
    requested information, residing in all 50 states and over 40 foreign 
    countries.
        The public comment period on the draft EIS (DEIS) began on July 1, 
    1993, and the notice of availability was published July 16. Full DEIS 
    documents were mailed to potentially affected agencies, public 
    libraries, many interest groups and to all who requested the complete 
    DEIS. In addition, the DEIS summary, a schedule of the 16 hearings, and 
    a request to report wolf sightings were printed in a flyer that was 
    inserted into the Sunday edition of 6 newspapers in Wyoming, Montana 
    and Idaho with a combined circulation of about 280,000. In mid-June 
    1993, the Service sent out a letter to over 300 groups, primarily in 
    Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, offering a presentation on the DEIS. As a 
    result, 31 presentations were given to about 1,000 people during the 
    comment period on the DEIS.
        During the public review period from July 1 to November 26, 1993, 
    on the DEIS, comments were received from over 160,200 individuals, 
    organizations, and government agencies. This degree of public response 
    indicated the strong interest people have in the management of wolves. 
    A summary of the public comments was mailed to about 42,000 people on 
    the EIS mailing list in early March 1994.
        The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on 
    May 4, 1994, and a notice of availability was published on May 9, 1994. 
    The reintroduction of nonessential experimental populations of gray 
    wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was the Service's 
    proposed action. The four alternatives considered in detail in the EIS 
    were (1) Natural Recovery (No action), (2) No wolf, (3) Wolf Management 
    Committee, and (4) Reintroduction of Nonexperimental Wolves.
        The Record of Decision on the EIS was signed by the Secretary of 
    the Interior on June 15, 1994. The Secretary of Agriculture signed a 
    letter concurring with that decision on July 13, 1994. The decision 
    directed the implementation of the Service's proposed action as soon as 
    practical.
        The Service already has an active wolf management program in 
    Montana because of the presence of breeding pairs of wolves. About 65 
    wolves now occupy northwestern Montana, and most of these occur near 
    the Canadian border. The Montana program monitors wolves to determine 
    their status, encourages research on wolves and their prey, provides 
    accurate information to the public, and controls wolves that attack 
    domestic livestock. Wolf control consists of translocating wolves that 
    depredate on livestock to reduce livestock losses, and to foster local 
    tolerance of nondepredating wolves to promote and enhance the 
    conservation of the species. The control program does not relocate 
    wolves to accelerate the natural expansion of wolves into unoccupied 
    historic habitat. Wolf control includes removal of wolves that attack 
    livestock and, although 19 wolves have been removed in that program, 
    the wolf population in Montana has continued to expand at about 22 
    percent per year for the past 9 years.
    
    4. Reintroduction Site
    
        The Service proposes to reintroduce wolves into Yellowstone 
    National Park. The Park was proposed as a site for the experimental 
    population area after much deliberation by the Service and others. The 
    Park was selected due to several factors. The vast remote habitats of 
    the Park are under tight Federal controls, and it has high-quality wolf 
    habitat and good potential wolf release sites. It is also distant from 
    the current southern expansion of naturally formed wolf packs in 
    Montana. Thus, any wolf pack documented inside the experimental area 
    would likely result from reintroduction into the Park rather than from 
    natural dispersal from extant wolf populations in Canada or 
    northwestern Montana. The Service is also proposing establishment of a 
    nonessential experimental population of wolves in central Idaho in a 
    separate proposal in today's Federal Register.
        The Service has determined that the proposed reintroduction effort 
    in the Park has the greatest potential for successful recovery of the 
    gray wolf in the conterminous United States, due to ecological and 
    political considerations (Service 1994). Reintroduction of wolves into 
    the Park will enhance wolf population viability by increasing the 
    genetic diversity of wolves in the Rocky Mountain population, increase 
    genetic interchange between segments of the population, and is 
    projected to accelerate reaching wolf population recovery goals 20 
    years sooner than under the current natural recovery policy. No 
    critical habitat would need to be designated; millions of acres of 
    public land containing hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates 
    currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered 
    population of wolves in the Park and surrounding area.
        Gray wolves that are reintroduced into the Park would be placed on 
    Federal lands and classified as a nonessential experimental population. 
    In so doing, the Service would accelerate the recovery of gray wolves 
    in the northwestern United States while reducing local concerns about 
    excessive government regulation of private lands, uncontrolled 
    livestock depredations, big game predation, and the lack of State 
    government involvement in the program.
        Establishment of an experimental population of gray wolves in the 
    Park would initiate wolf recovery in one of the three recovery areas 
    described as necessary for recovery of gray wolves in the northern 
    Rocky Mountains. The only alternative site identified at this time, 
    central Idaho, is planned for future reintroduction efforts. There are 
    no existing or anticipated Federal and/or State actions identified for 
    this release site that are expected to have major effects on this 
    experimental population. For all these reasons, and based on the best 
    scientific and commercial data available, the Service finds not only 
    that the release of wolves will further the conservation of this 
    endangered species, but also that the Park constitutes the highest 
    priority reintroduction site that will best serve to further the 
    conservation of this species.
        Gray wolves used for the reintroduction effort would be obtained 
    from healthy wolf populations in Canada by permission of the Canadian 
    and Provincial governments. Gray wolves are common in western Canada 
    (tens of thousands) and Alaska (about 7,000) and they are increasing in 
    the Great Lakes area. Thus, the removal of wolves from locations in 
    Canada would not significantly impact the wolf populations there.
    
    5. Reintroduction Protocol
    
        This wolf reintroduction project is undertaken by the Service in 
    cooperation with the National Park Service; Forest Service; other 
    Federal agencies; potentially affected Tribes; States of Wyoming, 
    Montana, and Idaho; and entities of the Canadian government. The 
    Service would enter into agreements with the Canadian and provincial 
    governments and/or Canadian resource management agencies to obtain wild 
    wolves.
        The wolf reintroduction project in Yellowstone National Park would 
    require the transfer of about 45 to 75 wolves from southwestern Canada 
    with assistance by Canadian and Provincial governments. About 15 wild 
    wolves would be captured annually from several different packs over the 
    course of 3-5 years by trapping, darting from helicopters, or net 
    gunning in the autumn and winter. They would be transported to the Park 
    by truck or plane. In the Park, groups of wolves, each consisting of 
    pups and possibly adults from the same packs, would be placed in 
    individual holding pens of about 0.4 hectare (1 acre) size for a period 
    of up to two months to allow for acclimation to the new environment. 
    Acclimation pens would be isolated and provided maximum protection from 
    humans and other animals, and efforts would be made to prevent 
    habituation to people. During acclimation, each animal would be 
    monitored with radiotelemetry to ensure quick retrieval of an animal if 
    necessary. The wolves would be provided carcasses of natural prey taken 
    from the area where they will be released. In addition, the wolves 
    would receive regular veterinary care, including examinations and 
    vaccinations.
        In autumn and early winter, about 3 groups of acclimated gray wolf 
    pups, and possibly adult pack members, would be placed in the 
    individual holding pens at about 3 release sites in the Park. The 
    wolves would be kept and fed in these pens until about January 1. At 
    that time, the wolves would be radio collared and released. Food 
    (ungulate carrion) would be provided in the area until the wolves no 
    longer required supplemental feeding. All wolves would be closely 
    monitored each day or two for the first few weeks, and then the 
    frequency of monitoring would gradually be reduced to about weekly. If 
    wolves cause conflicts with humans, they will be recaptured and 
    controlled according to the procedures that have been used with other 
    problem wolves. Based upon previous experience with movements of wild, 
    relocated wolves, it is questionable whether adults will remain with 
    each other or the pups. The pups would remain in the wild as long as 
    they appeared to be sustaining themselves on carrion or wild prey. Wolf 
    pups should be capable of killing wild prey by January.
        The progress of the reintroduction effort would be reviewed 
    periodically, and the success or failure of the release would be 
    determined at least on an annual basis. In addition, the release of 
    wild wolves into the Park would be reviewed and evaluated relative to 
    the effects on the conservation and recovery of the gray wolf in the 
    conterminous United States. If this reintroduction technique appeared 
    successful, it would be repeated for at least three years or until two 
    wild breeding pairs produced at least two young for two consecutive 
    years in the Park. At that time, wolves would be monitored and no 
    further reintroductions would take place unless fewer than 2 litters 
    were produced in a single year.
        Subsequent releases would be modified depending upon information 
    obtained during the previous experiments. Utilizing information gained 
    from the initial phase of the project, an overall assessment of the 
    success of the reintroduction would be made after the first year, and 
    for every year thereafter. It is thought that the physical 
    reintroduction phase would be completed within 3-5 years. After the 
    reintroduction of wolves has resulted in two packs raising 2 pups each 
    for 2 consecutive years, the wolf population would be managed to grow 
    naturally toward recovery levels. This reintroduction attempt is 
    consistent with the recovery goals identified for this species by the 
    1987 recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain Wolf.
        It is estimated that this program, in conjunction with natural 
    recovery in northwestern Montana and a similar reintroduction into 
    central Idaho, would result in a viable recovered wolf population (ten 
    breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas for three consecutive 
    years) by about the year 2002.
        A small portion of Idaho (east of Interstate 15) and Montana (east 
    of Interstate 15 and south of the Missouri River from Great Falls, 
    Montana to eastern Montana border) and all of Wyoming is proposed as an 
    experimental population area for wolf reintroduction into the Park. 
    Private landowners and agency personnel adjacent to the Park will 
    continue to be requested to immediately report any observation of a 
    gray wolf to the Service or to a Service designated agency. Take of 
    gray wolves by the public would be discouraged by an extensive 
    information and education program and by the assurance that, at least 
    initially, all animals will be monitored with radio telemetry and 
    therefore easy to locate when they leave public lands. The public would 
    be encouraged to cooperate with the Service in the attempt to closely 
    monitor the wolves and quickly resolve any conflicts.
        More specific information on conduct of the wolf reintroduction 
    program can be obtained from Appendix 4 ``Scientific techniques for the 
    reintroduction of wild wolves'' in the environmental impact statement: 
    ``The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and 
    Central Idaho'' (Service 1994).
    
    Status of Reintroduced Populations
    
        This reintroduced population of gray wolves is proposed to be 
    designated as a nonessential experimental population according to the 
    provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. As previously stated, the 
    experimental population of wolves would be treated as a threatened 
    species or species proposed for listing for the purposes of sections 
    4(d), 7, and 9 of the Act. This enables the Service to propose a 
    special rule that can be less restrictive than the mandatory 
    prohibitions covering endangered species. In the case of the 
    Yellowstone reintroduction, the biological status of the species, and 
    the need for management flexibility in reintroducing the gray wolf has 
    resulted in the Service proposing to designate the reintroduced wolves 
    as ``nonessential''. The Service has found that the nonessential 
    designation, in concert with protective measures, is necessary to 
    conserve and recover the gray wolf in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
        It is anticipated that wolves will come in contact with the human 
    population and domestic animals inside and outside of the Park. Public 
    opinion surveys, public comments on wolf management planning, and the 
    positions taken by elected local, State, and Federal government 
    officials have indicated that wolves can not be reintroduced without 
    assurances that current uses of public and private lands would not be 
    disrupted by wolf recovery activities. The following provisions respond 
    to these concerns. There would be no violation of the Act for 
    unintentional, nonnegligent, and accidental taking of wolves by the 
    public if incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and taking in 
    defense of human life would not be prohibited--provided such takings 
    are reported to the Service or to an authorized agency within 24 hours. 
    Certain Federal, State, and/or Tribal employees would be authorized by 
    the Service to take wolves needing special care or posing a threat to 
    livestock or property. Livestock owners with grazing allotments on 
    public land and private land owners or their immediate designates would 
    be permitted to harass adult wolves in an opportunistic non-injurious 
    manner on their allotments or private property at any time, provided 
    that such harassment would have to be reported within 7 days to a 
    Service-designated authority.
        Under the proposed status, livestock owners or their designates 
    could receive a permit from a Service-designated agency to take (injure 
    or kill) gray wolves that are attacking livestock on permitted public 
    livestock grazing allotments, but only after 6 or more breeding pairs 
    were established in the Park or experimental area. Such take, moreover, 
    would only be permitted after due notification to Service designated 
    agencies, unsuccessful efforts to capture the offending wolf by such 
    agencies, and documentation of additional livestock losses. Private 
    landowners or their designates would be permitted to take (injure or 
    kill) a wolf in the act of wounding or killing livestock on private 
    land. However, physical evidence (wounded or dead livestock) that such 
    an attack occurred at the time of the taking would have to be clearly 
    evident in such instances. Such take would be immediately (within 24 
    hours) reported to the Service or agencies authorized by the Service 
    for investigation.
        Wolves that repeatedly (2 times in a calendar year) attack domestic 
    animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or pets (dogs 
    or cats) on private property would be designated as problem wolves and 
    would be moved from the area by the Service or a designated agency. 
    Wolves that depredate on domestic animals after being relocated once 
    after such previous conflicts would be designated chronic problem 
    wolves and be removed from the wild.
        It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations will be 
    the primary cause for failure of States or Tribes to meet their 
    specific big game management objectives outside National Parks and 
    National Wildlife Refuges. Nor is such predation likely to inhibit wolf 
    population increases. However, if the Service deemed it necessary, 
    wolves from the responsible packs could be translocated to other sites 
    in the experimental area to resolve such predation problems. Wolves 
    could not be deliberately killed to resolve wolf predation conflicts 
    with big game while the experimental population of wolves were listed. 
    However, such take is expected to be rare and is unlikely to 
    significantly affect the overall rate of wolf recovery. The States and 
    Tribes would define such situations in their Service-approved wolf 
    management plans before such actions could be taken.
        Wolves would be moved on a case-by-case basis to enhance wolf 
    recovery in the experimental population area. Generally there would not 
    be attempts to locate and/or move lone wolves dispersing in this area, 
    although this may occur.
        Hunting, trapping, and animal damage control activities are 
    regulated inside and outside National Parks and National Wildlife 
    Refuges. Most of the area within the wolf reintroduction area is remote 
    and sparsely inhabited wild lands. There are some risks to wolf 
    recovery that would be associated with take of wolves, other land uses, 
    and various recreational activities. However, these risks are low 
    because take of wolves should occur so infrequently that wolf recovery 
    would not be significantly affected.
        The Service finds that the stated protective measures and 
    management practices are necessary and advisable for the conservation 
    and recovery of the gray wolf in the Park. No additional Federal 
    regulations appear to be needed. The Service also finds that the 
    proposed nonessential experimental status is appropriate for gray 
    wolves released in Yellowstone National Park that are taken from wild 
    populations. As discussed above, although once extirpated from its 
    historic range in most of the conterminous United States, the gray wolf 
    is common in western Canada (tens of thousands) and Alaska (about 
    7,000), and wolves are increasing in the Great Lakes area. The gray 
    wolf has also recently been recovering in a small portion of its range 
    in the western United States. Therefore, taking fewer than 100 wolves 
    from these areas will pose no threat to the survival of the species in 
    the wild.
        An additional management flexibility would result from using the 
    nonessential status for wolves introduced into the Park, due to less 
    stringent requirements of section 7 of the Act (interagency 
    consultation) for wolves that may occur outside National Parks and 
    National Wildlife Refuges. Wolves that are part of the nonessential 
    experimental population would be treated as animals proposed for 
    listing, rather than listed, when occurring outside of a National Park 
    or Refuge, and only two provisions of section 7 apply to Federal 
    actions outside National Parks and Wildlife Refuges: section 7(a)(l), 
    which authorizes all Federal agencies to establish conservation 
    programs; and section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to 
    confer informally with the Service on actions that are likely to 
    jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The results of a 
    conference are advisory in nature; agencies are not required to refrain 
    from commitment of resources to projects as a result of a conference. 
    There are, in reality, no conflicts envisioned with any current or 
    anticipated management actions of the Forest Service or other Federal 
    agencies in the areas. National Forests are a benefit to the project 
    because they form a buffer to private properties in many areas, and 
    National Forests are typically managed to produce wild animals that 
    would be prey to wolves. The Service finds that there are no threats to 
    the success of the reintroduction project or the overall continued 
    existence of the gray wolf from the less restrictive section 7 
    requirements associated with the nonessential designation.
        The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental 
    populations in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge. The 
    Service, National Park Service, Forest Service or any other Federal 
    agency is prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out an 
    action within a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge that is 
    likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf. Pursuant 
    to 50 CFR 17.83(b), section 7 determinations must consider all 
    experimental and nonexperimental wolves as a single listed species for 
    analysis purposes. The Service has reviewed all ongoing and proposed 
    uses of the Parks and Refuges and found none that are likely to 
    jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf, nor will they 
    adversely affect the success of the reintroduction program. Potential 
    uses that could adversely affect success are hunting, trapping, animal 
    damage control activities and high speed vehicular traffic. Hunting and 
    trapping and USDA Animal Damage Control programs are prohibited or 
    tightly regulated in National Parks and are closely regulated by State 
    and Federal law and policy in other areas. There are very few paved 
    roads in the proposed reintroduction area and wolf encounters with 
    vehicles are likely to be infrequent. Even most of the unpaved roads 
    are used seasonally, and are on the outside fringes of the 
    reintroduction area. In addition, these unpaved roads typically have 
    low vehicle traffic and are constructed for low speed use.
    
    Location of Experimental Population
    
        The release site for reintroducing wolves will be in Yellowstone 
    National Park. The experimental population area will include all of the 
    State of Wyoming, that portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15, 
    and all the State of Montana east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of 
    the Missouri River east of Great Falls, Montana, to the Montana/North 
    Dakota border. Comments obtained by the Service during review of the 
    DEIS resulted in changing the boundary of the experimental population 
    area to the Missouri River in central Montana (Service 1994). The 
    Missouri River was chosen as the northern boundary because the record 
    of wolf sightings and wolf mortalities indicated that, during the last 
    several decades, wolves have occurred north, but not south of the 
    river. The river may not act as a complete barrier to wolf movements, 
    but current information indicates that, if wolves are found south of 
    the river, they would likely be experimental wolves from the 
    Yellowstone area. Wolves north of the river would likely be naturally 
    dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana or Canada.
        The proposed experimental area does not currently support 
    reproducing pairs of wolves nor is it likely to support 2 pairs of 
    naturally dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana within the next 3 
    years, at which time the reintroduced population should be growing and 
    potentially dispersing into Montana and central Idaho. Except for an 
    established and growing population of gray wolves in northwestern 
    Montana, only gray wolf individuals have been documented in the 
    remainder or the northern Rocky Mountains in the United States. Thus, 
    the Yellowstone National Park reintroduction is consistent with 
    provisions of section 10(j) of the Act that requires that an 
    experimental population be wholly separate geographically from 
    nonexperimental populations of the same species. An occasional, 
    solitary wolf has been reported, killed, or otherwise documented in 
    Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and other western States, and single packs 
    occasionally have been reported throughout the northern Rocky 
    Mountains. However, these reported wolves and groups of wolves, if all 
    reports are factual, apparently disappeared for unknown reasons and did 
    not establish recoverable ``populations'' as defined by wolf experts 
    (Service 1994). However, it is possible that prior to 2002, other 
    wolves may appear in the wild, and be attracted to the experimental 
    area by the presence of the reintroduced wolves, or by other factors. 
    These ``new'' wolves that appear in the experimental population area 
    might contribute to recovery of the experimental population, and they 
    also would be classified as part of the experimental, nonessential 
    population.
        It is anticipated that some wolves may disperse from the 
    experimental area and contribute to wolf recovery in northwestern 
    Montana. If so, these wolves would be classified as endangered, as in 
    the case of wolves that recolonized an area near Glacier National Park 
    in 1982. It is also possible, but not probable, that during the next 3 
    years, movements between recovery areas would result in some genetic 
    exchange between wolves resulting from natural recovery and those 
    resulting from the reintroduction. It is not anticipated that such 
    exchange will significantly affect the rate of recovery in the 
    Yellowstone National Park experimental population area.
        For the purposes of establishment of this experimental population, 
    the Service has determined that there is no existing wolf population in 
    the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and establishment 
    of an experimental population in Yellowstone National Park. A wolf 
    population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of naturally 
    occurring gray wolves that successfully raise at least two young to 
    December 31 of their birth year for two consecutive years (Service 
    1994). If a wolf population were discovered in the proposed recovery 
    area, no reintroduction would occur. Instead, the success of the 
    naturally occurring wolf population would be monitored to determine if 
    population recovery was continuing. If this event occurs before the 
    effective date of the experimental population rule, those wolves would 
    be determined to be, and managed as, endangered wolves under the full 
    authority of the Act. In this case, the experimental rule would not be 
    implemented, and no wolves would be reintroduced in that experimental 
    area. If wolf population growth does not continue, and within 5 years 
    the wolf population has not doubled from the original founding pairs 
    and pups, reintroduction would proceed. Wolves will not be introduced 
    as an experimental population if, prior to introduction of wolves, 
    breeding groups of wolves are discovered. However, once the 
    experimental population rule is established and the reintroduction 
    begun by the actual release of wolves into a recovery area, the 
    experimental population rule would remain in effect until wolf recovery 
    occurs or after a scientific review indicates that modifications in the 
    experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf recovery.
        If a wolf population (2 breeding pairs successfully raising two 
    young each for two consecutive years) were discovered in the proposed 
    Yellowstone experimental population area, reintroduction under an 
    experimental population rule would not occur into that area and any 
    such wolf population would be managed as a natural recovering 
    population in that area. The boundaries of the proposed experimental 
    population area would be changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of 
    any naturally occurring, breeding wolf population if such natural 
    population is discovered prior to the establishment of the experimental 
    population, and before wolf reintroduction occurs. No experimental 
    population area will contain a portion of the home range of any active 
    breeding pairs of wolves that have successfully raised young. Any 
    changes in the boundaries of the nonessential experimental population 
    area, required because of the above conditions, would be reflected in a 
    final rule.
        Utilization of Federal public lands including National Parks and 
    Forests is consistent with the legal responsibility of the National 
    Park Service to sustain the native wildlife resources of the United 
    States, and of the Forest Service and all other Federal agencies under 
    section 7(a)(1) to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the 
    purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of 
    endangered species and threatened species.
    
    Management
    
        As previously stated, the nonessential experimental population of 
    gray wolves would be established in the Yellowstone area by introducing 
    gray wolves into Yellowstone National Park under authority of section 
    10(j) of the Act, as amended. The Yellowstone area includes all of 
    Wyoming and parts of Montana and Idaho that surround the Park. Ongoing 
    wolf monitoring efforts (Service 1994) would continue to document the 
    presence of any wild wolves, and, prior to any reintroduction, the 
    Service would make a determination of the status of any naturally 
    occurring wolf population in this area. Wolves would not be 
    reintroduced into the Park if a wolf population is documented in the 
    recovery area. After introduction has been completed according to the 
    Reintroduction Protocol (section 5 above), management of the 
    experimental population will begin.
        The National Park Service will be the primary agency implementing 
    the experimental population rule inside the boundaries of National 
    Parks. The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and potentially 
    affected Tribes will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements 
    for management of the gray wolf in the Park. These cooperative 
    agreements would be reviewed annually by the Service to ensure that the 
    States and Tribes have adequate regulatory authority to conserve listed 
    species, including the gray wolf. It is anticipated that the States and 
    Tribes will be the primary agencies implementing this experimental 
    population rule outside National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. 
    The Service will provide oversight, coordinate wolf recovery 
    activities, and provide technical assistance. If the States and Tribes 
    do not assume wolf management responsibilities, the Service would do 
    so, as needed.
        Management of the reintroduced wolves would allow wolves to be 
    killed or moved under some conditions by Service authorized Federal, 
    State, and Tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations and 
    excessive predation on big game populations. Under some conditions, the 
    public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, 
    horses, and mules). There would be no Federal compensation program, but 
    compensation from existing private funding sources would be encouraged. 
    There would be no land-use restrictions applied when 6 or more wolf 
    packs were documented in the experimental population area because 
    sufficient wolf numbers would be available and no restrictions around 
    den sites or other critical areas would be necessary to promote wolf 
    recovery. Enhancement of prey populations would be encouraged. Use of 
    toxicants lethal to wolves in areas occupied by wolves would still be 
    prohibited by existing labeling restrictions.
        Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate and, with 6 packs 
    of wolves present in a population, about 20-25 pups could be born each 
    year to greatly compensate for mortality which would result from 
    management actions. The Service believes that a possible 10 per cent 
    loss of wolves could occur due to control actions and an additional 10 
    per cent loss could occur from other mortality sources. However, once 
    the number of introduced wolves has reached the goal of 6 wolf packs, 
    the reproductive output of 6 packs of wolves would provide for a wolf 
    population increasing at or near 22 per cent per year. This increase in 
    numbers should easily accommodate more flexible wolf management to 
    further address local concerns and resistance to wolf recovery efforts, 
    and reduce the need and costs of agency actions to resolve wolf/human 
    conflicts. Closely regulated public control also can more effectively 
    focus on individual problem wolves as conflicts occur rather than hours 
    or days after a problem is documented. Agency control actions would 
    more likely target groups of wolves that contain problem individuals, 
    whereas public control could be focused on individual problem wolves.
        The Service, or States and Tribes if authorized, may move wolves 
    that are having unacceptable impacts on ungulate populations in the 
    unlikely event that those impacts would inhibit wolf recovery. Wolves 
    could be moved to other places within the experimental population area. 
    Two examples are where wolf predation is dramatically affecting prey 
    availability because of unusual habitat or weather conditions (e.g., 
    bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape habitat) or where wolves 
    cause prey to move onto private property and mix with livestock, 
    increasing potential conflicts. The States and Tribes will define such 
    unacceptable impacts, how they would be measured, and identify other 
    possible mitigation in their State or Tribal management plans. These 
    plans would be approved by the Service through cooperative agreement 
    before such control could be conducted. Wolves would not be 
    deliberately killed to address ungulate-wolf conflicts. These 
    unacceptable impacts would be identified in State and Tribal wolf 
    management plans and developed in consultation with the Service. If 
    such control by the States or Tribes were likely to be significant or 
    beyond the provisions of the experimental rule as determined by the 
    Service, then they would be specifically incorporated as part of an 
    amendment to this experimental rule, which would be adopted following 
    national public comment and review.
        Management of wolves in the experimental population would not 
    result in any major change in existing private or public land-use 
    restrictions (except at containment facilities during reintroduction) 
    after 6 breeding pairs of wolves are established in this experimental 
    area. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in this experimental area, 
    land-use restrictions could be employed on an as needed basis, at the 
    discretion of land management and natural resources agencies to control 
    intrusive human disturbance. Temporary restrictions on human access, 
    when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established, may be required near 
    active wolf den sites between April 1 and June 30.
        The Service, or Federal, State or Tribal agencies authorized by the 
    Service would be allowed to promptly remove any wolf of the 
    experimental population that the Service, or agency authorized by the 
    Service, determined was presenting a threat to human life or safety. 
    Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a person 
    could legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate threat 
    to human life. The incidental and accidental nonnegligent take in the 
    course of otherwise lawful recreational activity, or take in defense of 
    human life, would be permitted by the Service and Service-authorized 
    agencies, provided that such taking is immediately (within 24 hours) 
    reported to the authorized State or Federal authority.
        The Service or State, Federal, or Tribal agencies designated by the 
    Service will control wolves that attack livestock (cattle, sheep, 
    horses, and mules) by management measures that may include aversive 
    conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when 5 or fewer 
    breeding pairs are established, and by previously described measures. 
    However, killing wolves or placing them in captivity may be considered 
    and used as management options after 6 or more breeding pairs are 
    established in the experimental population area. For depredation 
    occurring on public land and prior to 6 breeding pairs becoming 
    established, depredating females and their pups would be released on 
    site prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these 
    circumstances would be moved. Wolves that attack other domestic animals 
    and pets on private land 2 times in a calendar year would be moved. 
    Chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic animals after 
    being moved for previous domestic animal depredations) would be removed 
    from the wild.
        The Service, other Federal agencies, and Tribal and State Wildlife 
    Agency personnel would be additionally authorized and should be 
    prepared to take wolves under special circumstances where there was an 
    immediate threat to livestock or property, or a need to move 
    individuals for genetic purposes. Wolves could be captured alive and 
    translocated to resolve demonstrated conflicts with State big-game 
    management objectives or when they were outside designated wolf pack 
    recovery areas. Take procedures in such instances would involve live 
    capture and removal to a remote area, or if the animal is clearly unfit 
    to remain in the wild, return to a captive facility. Killing of animals 
    would be a last resort and would be authorized only if live capture 
    attempts fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
        The Service and other authorized management agencies would use the 
    following conditions and criteria in determining the problem status of 
    wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:
        (1) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must 
    be present with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976: Fritts 1982) 
    that wolves were responsible for the damage and there must be reason to 
    believe that additional losses would occur if the problem wolf or 
    wolves were not controlled. Such evidence is essential since wolves may 
    feed on carrion they have found while not being responsible for the 
    kill.
        (2) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have 
    occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where 
    depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal 
    lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any 
    control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not 
    being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies 
    authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or 
    otherwise disposed of so that the carcass(es) will not attract wolves.
        (3) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously 
    identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating 
    plans for allotments must have been followed.
        Final Federal responsibility for protection of gray wolves in the 
    experimental population under provisions of the Act would cease after: 
    (1) A minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive 
    years in each of the three recovery areas presented by the revised wolf 
    recovery plan (Service 1987), and evaluated by the environmental impact 
    statement (Service 1994), providing that legal mechanisms are in place 
    to conserve this population, and (2) gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and 
    Wyoming are delisted according to provisions of the Act. The Act 
    specifies that the status of a species must be monitored for a 5-period 
    after delisting. If, after delisting, the wolf population fell below 
    the minimum criteria of 10 breeding pairs in any recovery area for two 
    of three consecutive years, wolves in that area would be considered for 
    relisting under the Act.
    
    Public Comments Solicited
    
        The Service intends that any final rule resulting from this 
    proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, comments 
    or suggestions from the public, States, Tribes, other concerned 
    governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
    interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. 
    Comments must be received within 60 days of publication of the proposed 
    rule in the Federal Register.
        Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration 
    the comments and any additional information received by the Service. 
    Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this 
    proposal.
        The Service will also hold public hearings to obtain additional 
    verbal and written information. Hearings are proposed to be held in 
    Cheyenne, Wyoming; Boise, Idaho; Helena, Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah; 
    Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C. The location, dates, and 
    times of these six hearings will be announced in a forthcoming issue of 
    the Federal Register and in newspapers.
    
    National Environmental Policy Act
    
        An Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act has been prepared and is available to the public (see 
    ADDRESSES). This proposed rule is an implementation of the proposed 
    action and does not require revision of the environmental impact 
    statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National 
    Park and central Idaho.
    
    Required Determinations
    
        This proposed rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and 
    Budget under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a 
    significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
    under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on 
    the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and 
    private activities within the experimental population area, significant 
    economic impacts will not result from this action. Also, no direct 
    costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or recordkeeping 
    requirements are imposed on small entities by this action and the rule 
    contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the Paperwork 
    Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule does not 
    require federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because it 
    would not have any significant federalism effects as described in the 
    order.
    
    References Cited
    
    Fritts, S.H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U.S. 
    Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 145. 11 pp.
    Roy, L.D., and M.J. Dorrance. 1976. Methods of investigating 
    predation of domestic livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton, 
    Alberta. 53 pp.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf 
    recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 
    pp.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Reintroduction of gray wolves 
    to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Final Environmental 
    Impact Statement, Helena, Montana. 608 pp.
    
    Author
    
        The principal author of this proposal is Edward E. Bangs (see 
    ADDRESSES section). Harold M. Tyus, Denver Regional Office, served as 
    editor.
    
    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
    
        Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
    
    Proposed Regulation Promulgation
    
        Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part l7, 
    subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
    as set forth below:
    
    PART 17--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
    4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
    
        2. In Sec. 17.11(h), the table entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under 
    ``MAMMALS'' is revised to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.
    
    * * * * *
        (h) * * *
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Species                                                    Vertebrate population                                                  
    ----------------------------------------------------      Historic range          where endangered or      Status    When listed    Critical    Special 
           Common name             Scientific name                                        threatened                                    habitat      rules  
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                          * * * * * * *                                                                     
    Wolf, gray...............  Canis lupus.............  Holarctic...............  U.S.A. (48 conterminous   E             1, 6, 13,     17.95(a)         NA
                                                                                    States, except MN and                    15, 35,                        
                                                                                    where listed as an                        ______                        
                                                                                    experimental population                                                 
                                                                                    below).                                                                 
    Do.......................  ......do................  ......do................  U.S.A. (MN).............  T             35 ______     17.95(a)   17.40(d)
    Do.......................  ......do................  ......do................  U.S.A. (WY and portions   XN          ...........           NA    17.84()
                                                                                    of ID and MT--see.                                                      
                                                                                   Sec. 17.84()............                                                 
                                                                                                                                                            
                                                                         * * * * * * *                                                                      
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        3. Sec. 17.84 be amended by adding paragraph (  ) following the 
    last paragraph to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 17.84  Special Rules--Vertebrates.
    
    * * * * *
        (  ) Gray wolf (Canis lupus).
        (1) The gray wolf (wolf) population identified in paragraph (  )(6) 
    of this section is a nonessential experimental population. This 
    population will be managed in accordance with the respective provisions 
    of this section.
        (2) No person may take this species in the wild in an experimental 
    population area except as provided in paragraphs (  )(2), (4), and (7) 
    of this section.
        (i) Landowners on their private land and livestock producers (i.e., 
    producers of cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in State 
    and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service) that are 
    legally using public land (Federal land and any other public lands 
    designated in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
    Service) may harass any adult wolf (a wolf that does not exceed 50 lbs 
    in weight is not considered an adult for these purposes) in an 
    opportunistic noninjurious manner at any time, Provided that all such 
    harassment is by methods that are not lethal or physically injurious to 
    the gray wolf and is reported within 7 days to the Service project 
    leader for wolf reintroduction or agency representative designated by 
    the Service.
        (ii) Any livestock producers on their private land may take 
    (including to kill or injure) adult wolves in the act of killing, 
    wounding, or biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as 
    defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the 
    Service), Provided that such incidents must be reported immediately but 
    no later than within 24 hours to the Service project leader for wolf 
    reintroduction or agency representative designated by the Service, and 
    livestock freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded (torn flesh and 
    bleeding) or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service 
    authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by 
    wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to 
    the appropriate authorities for prosecution. A gray wolf that does not 
    exceed 50 lbs in weight is not considered an adult and can not be 
    taken.
        (iii) Any livestock producer or permittee with livestock grazing 
    allotments on public land may receive a written permit from the Service 
    or other agencies designated by the Service, to take (including to kill 
    or injure) adult wolves that are in the act of killing, wounding, or 
    biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in 
    State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service), 
    Provided that 6 or more breeding pairs of wolves have been documented 
    in that experimental population area and that the Service or other 
    agencies authorized by the Service has confirmed that the livestock 
    losses have been caused by wolves and has unsuccessfully attempted to 
    resolve the problem and subsequent livestock losses are documented. 
    Such take must be reported immediately but no later than within 24 
    hours to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction or agency 
    representative designated by the Service and livestock freshly wounded 
    or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service 
    authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by 
    wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to 
    the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
        (iv) The potentially affected States and Tribes may move wolves to 
    other areas within an experimental population area as described in 
    paragraph (  )(6), Provided that the level of wolf predation is having 
    unacceptable impacts on localized ungulate populations and to the 
    extent that those impacts could inhibit wolf recovery. The States and 
    Tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, how they would be 
    measured, and identify other possible mitigation in their State or 
    Tribal wolf management plans. These plans must be approved by the 
    Service through cooperative agreement before such movement of wolves 
    may be conducted.
        (v) The Service, or agencies authorized by the Service may promptly 
    remove (place in captivity or kill) any wolf the Service or agency 
    authorized by the Service determines to present a threat to human life 
    or safety.
        (vi) Any person may harass or take (kill or injure) a wolf in self 
    defense or in defense of others, Provided that all such take is 
    reported immediately (within 24 hours) to the Service reintroduction 
    project leader or Service designated agent. The taking of any wolf 
    without such evidence of an immediate and direct threat to human life 
    may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
        (vii) The Service or agencies designated by the Service may take 
    wolves that are designated as ``problem wolves'' (as defined below) 
    that attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or domestic 
    animals or as defined by State and Tribal wolf management plans 
    approved by the Service) by nonlethal measures, including but not 
    limited to: aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving 
    wolves when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established, and by 
    previously described measures. If such measures result in a wolf 
    mortality, it must be demonstrated that such mortality was 
    nondeliberate. Lethal control of wolves or placing them in permanent 
    captivity will be allowed only after 6 or more breeding pairs are 
    established in the experimental population area. For depredations 
    occurring on federally managed lands and any additional public lands 
    identified in State or Tribal wolf management plans and prior to 6 
    breeding pairs becoming established, depredating female wolves with 
    pups and their pups will be released at or near the site of capture 
    prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these circumstances 
    will be moved to other areas within the experimental population area. 
    Wolves that attack domestic animals other than livestock, including 
    pets on private land, a total of 2 times in a calendar year will be 
    moved. All chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic 
    animals after being moved once for previous domestic animal 
    depredations) will be removed from the wild (killed or placed in 
    captivity). The following three conditions and criteria will apply in 
    determining the problem status of wolves within the nonessential 
    experimental population area:
        (A) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must 
    be present with clear evidence that wolves were responsible for the 
    damage and there must be reason to believe that additional losses would 
    occur if the problem wolf or wolves were not controlled. Such evidence 
    is essential because wolves may feed on carrion they have found and may 
    not be responsible for the death of livestock.
        (B) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have 
    occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where 
    depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal 
    lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any 
    control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not 
    being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies 
    authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or 
    otherwise disposed of such that the carcass(es) will not attract 
    wolves.
        (C) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously 
    identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating 
    plans for allotments must have been followed.
        (viii) Any person may take gray wolves found in an area defined in 
    paragraph (  )(6), Provided that, the take is incidental, accidental, 
    unavoidable, unintentional, and not resulting from negligent conduct 
    lacking reasonable due care in the course of otherwise lawful 
    recreational activity, and that such taking is immediately (within 24 
    hours) reported to the authorized Service or Service-designated 
    authority. Take that does not conform with such provisions may be 
    referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
        (ix) Service or other Federal, State, or Tribal personnel may be 
    additionally authorized in writing by the Service to take animals under 
    special circumstances that pose an immediate threat to livestock or 
    property, or when animals need to be moved for genetic purposes. Wolves 
    may be live captured and translocated to resolve demonstrated conflicts 
    with ungulate populations or with other species listed under the 
    Endangered Species Act, or when they are outside the designated 
    experimental population area. Take procedures in such instances would 
    involve live capture and release to a remote area, or if the animal is 
    clearly unfit to remain in the wild, return to a captive facility. 
    Killing of animals will be a last resort and will be authorized only if 
    live capture attempts fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
        (x) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under 
    Sec. 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in the experimental population 
    area, pursuant to terms of the permit.
        (xi) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate Federal, 
    State or Tribal agency, who is designated in writing for such purposes 
    by the Service, when acting in the course of official duties, may take 
    a wolf in the wild in the experimental population area if such action 
    is necessary:
        (A) For scientific purposes;
        (B) To relocate wolves to avoid conflict with human activities;
        (C) To relocate wolves within the experimental population areas to 
    improve wolf survival and recovery prospects;
        (D) To relocate wolves that have moved outside the experimental 
    population area back into the experimental population area;
        (E) To aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
        (F) To salvage a dead specimen which may be used for scientific 
    study; or
        (G) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves.
        (xii) Any taking pursuant to this section must be reported 
    immediately (within 24 hours) to the appropriate Service or Service-
    designated agency, which will determine the disposition of any live or 
    dead specimens.
        (3) Human access to areas with facilities where wolves are confined 
    may be restricted at the discretion of Federal, State, and Tribal land 
    management agencies. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in an 
    experimental population area, land-use restrictions may also be 
    employed on an as-needed basis, at the discretion of Federal land 
    management and natural resources agencies to control intrusive human 
    disturbance around active wolf den sites. Such temporary restrictions 
    on human access, when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established in an 
    experimental population area, may be required between April 1 and June 
    30, within 1 mile of active wolf den or rendezvous sites. When 6 or 
    more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population area, 
    no land use restrictions may be employed outside of National Parks or 
    National Wildlife Refuges.
        (4) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
    import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or part thereof 
    from the experimental populations taken in violation of these 
    regulations or in violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and 
    wildlife laws or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
        (5) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
    another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in 
    paragraphs (  )(2) through (4) of this section.
        (6) The site for reintroduction is within the historic range of the 
    species:
        (i) The Yellowstone Management area is shown on the following map. 
    The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area will be 
    that portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 15; that 
    portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of 
    the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana 
    border; and all of Wyoming.
        (ii) [Reserved]
        (iii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this 
    paragraph (  )(6) after the first releases will be considered 
    nonessential experimental animals. In the conterminous United States, a 
    wolf that is outside an experimental area (as defined in paragraph (  
    )(6) of this section) would be considered as endangered (or threatened 
    if in Minnesota) unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an 
    experimental animal; such a wolf may be captured for examination and 
    genetic testing by the Service or Service-designated agency. 
    Disposition of the captured animal may take any of the following 
    courses:
        (A) If the animal was not involved in conflicts with humans and is 
    determined likely to be an experimental wolf, it will be returned to 
    the reintroduction area.
        (B) If the animal is determined likely to be an experimental wolf 
    and was involved in conflicts with humans as identified in the 
    management plan for the closest experimental area it may relocated, 
    placed in captivity, or killed.
        (C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental 
    animal, it will be managed according to any Service approved plans for 
    that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.
        (D) If the animal is determined not to be a wild grey wolf or if 
    the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the animal 
    shows substantial evidence of recent hybridization with other canids 
    such as domestic dogs or coyotes or of being an animal raised in 
    captivity, it will be returned to captivity or killed.
        (7) The reintroduced wolves will be continually monitored during 
    the life of the project, including by the use of radio telemetry and 
    other remote sensing devices as appropriate. All released animals will 
    be vaccinated against diseases and parasites prevalent in canids, as 
    appropriate, prior to release and during subsequent handling. Any 
    animal that is sick, injured, or otherwise in need of special care may 
    be captured by authorized personnel of the Service or Service 
    designated agencies and given appropriate care. Such an animal will be 
    released back into its respective reintroduction area as soon as 
    possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to 
    return the animal to captivity or euthanize it.
        (8) The status of the experimental population will be reevaluated 
    within the first 5 years after the first year of releases of wolves to 
    determine future management needs. This review will take into account 
    the reproductive success and movement patterns of the individuals 
    released in the area, as well as the overall health of the experimental 
    wolves. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting or delisting the 
    species, a rule will be proposed to address downlisting or delisting.
        (9) The Service does not intend to reevaluate the ``nonessential 
    experimental'' designation. The Service does not foresee any likely 
    situation which would result in changing the nonessential experimental 
    status until the gray wolf is recovered and delisted in the Northern 
    Rocky Mountains according to provisions outlined in the Act.
    
    BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    
    TP16AU94.000
    
    
    BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    
        Dated: August 8, 1994.
    George T. Frampton, Jr.,
    Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
    [FR Doc. 94-19998 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
08/16/1994
Department:
Fish and Wildlife Service
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
94-19998
Dates:
Comments from all interested parties must be received by October 17, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: August 16, 1994
RINs:
1018-AC86
CFR: (4)
50 CFR 17.84()
50 CFR 17.11
50 CFR 17.32
50 CFR 17.84