DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
50 CFR Part 17
Final rule: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves
in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana / RIN
1018-AC86
Contact: Mr. Edward E. Bangs, (406) 449-5202
Effective Date: 11/18/94
*Rules and Regulations*
(FEDREGISTER 59 FR 60252 11/22/94; 1938 lines.)
Item Key: 29358
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC86
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Gray Wolves in Yellowstone
National Park in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) will reintroduce
the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, into Yellowstone
National Park, which is located in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. These
wolves will be classified as nonessential experimental wolves
according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended. Gray wolf populations have been extirpated from
most of the Western United States. They presently occur in a small
population in extreme northwestern Montana, and as incidental
occurrences in Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington due to wolves dispersing
from populations in Montana and Canada. This reintroduction plan is to
reestablish a viable wolf population in the Yellowstone area, one of
three wolf recovery areas identified in the Northern Rocky Mountain
Wolf Recovery Plan. Potential effects of this final rule were
evaluated in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed in May
1994. This gray wolf reintroduction does not conflict with existing or
anticipated Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of park
lands, wilderness areas, or surrounding lands.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 18, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments or other information may be sent to Gray Wolf
Reintroduction, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 8017, Helena,
Montana 59601. The complete file for this final rule is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 100 North
Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward E. Bangs, at the above
address, or telephone (406) 449-5202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
1. Legal: The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, Pub. L.
97-304, made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., including the creation of
section 10(j), which provides for the designation of specific animals
as "experimental." Under previous authorities in the Act, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to reintroduce a
listed species into unoccupied portions of its historic range for
conservation and recovery purposes. However, local opposition to
reintroduction efforts from certain parties concerned about potential
restrictions, and prohibitions on Federal and private activities
contained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, reduced the utility of
reintroduction as a management tool.
Under section 10(j), a listed species reintroduced outside of its
current range, but within its historic range, may be designated, at
the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), as
"experimental." This designation increases the Service's flexibility
and discretion in managing reintroduced endangered species because
such experimental animals may be treated as a threatened species. The
Act requires that animals used to form an experimental population be
separated geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same
species.
Additional management flexibility is possible if the experimental
animals are found to be "nonessential" to the continued existence of
the species in question. Nonessential experimental animals located
outside national wildlife refuges or national park lands are treated
for purposes of section 7 of the Act, as if they were only proposed
for listing. Consequently, only two provisions of section 7 would
apply to animals located outside of national wildlife refuges and
national parks-section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4). Section 7(a)(1)
requires all Federal agencies to establish conservation programs for
the particular species. Utilization of Federal public lands, including
national parks and national forests, is consistent with the legal
responsibility of these agencies to sustain the native wildlife
resources of the United States and to use their authorities to further
the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for
endangered and threatened species. Section 7(a)(4) requires all
Federal agencies to informally confer with the Service on actions that
will likely jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed to be
listed as threatened or endangered species. The results of a
conference are advisory in nature, and agencies are not required to
refrain from committing resources to projects as a result of a
conference. In addition, section 10(j) of the Act states that
nonessential experimental animals are not subject to the formal
consultation of the Act unless they occur on land designated as a
national wildlife refuge or national park. Activities undertaken on
private lands are not affected by section 7 of the Act unless they are
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency.
Specimens used to establish an experimental population may be
removed from a source or donor population, provided their removal is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and
appropriate permits have been issued in accordance with 50 CFR 17.22.
Gray wolves for the reintroduction will be obtained from healthy
Canadian wolf populations with permission from the Canadian and
Provincial governments. Gray wolves are common in western Canada (tens
of thousands) and Alaska (about 7,000). No adverse biological impact
is expected from the removal of about 150 wolves from the Canadian
population. Consequently, the Service finds that wolves to be used in
the reintroduction effort meet the definition of "non-essential" (50
CFR 17.80(b)) because the loss of the reintroduced wolves is not
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species
in the wild.
In 1967, the timber wolf was listed as a subspecies (Canis lupus
lycaon) as endangered (32 FR 4001), and in 1973 the northern Rocky
Mountain subspecies, as then understood, (C. l. irremotus) was also
listed as endangered, as was the Texas subspecies (C. l. monstrabilis)
(38 FR 14678). In 1978, the legal status of the gray wolf in North
America was clarified by listing the Minnesota wolf population as
threatened and other members of the species south of Canada were
listed as endangered, without referring to subspecies (43 FR 9607).
2. Biological: This final rule deals with the gray wolf (Canis
lupus), an endangered species of carnivore that was extirpated from
the western portion of the conterminous United States by about 1930.
The gray wolf is native to most of North America north of Mexico City,
except for the southeastern United States, where a similar species,
the red wolf (Canis rufus), is found. The gray wolf occupied nearly
every area in North America that supported populations of hoofed
mammals (ungulates), its major food source.
Twenty-four distinct subspecies of gray wolf had been recognized in
North America. Recently, however, taxonomists have suggested that
there are five or fewer subspecies or group types of gray wolf in
North America and that the wolf type that once occupied the northern
Rocky Mountains of the United States was more widely distributed than
was previously believed.
The gray wolf occurred historically in the northern Rocky
Mountains, including mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho. The drastic reduction in the distribution and abundance of this
species in North America was directly related to human activities,
such as the elimination of native ungulates, conversion of wildland
into agricultural lands, and extensive predator control efforts by
private, State, and Federal agencies. The natural history of wolves
and their ecological role was poorly understood during the period of
their eradication in the conterminous United States. As with other
large predators, wolves were considered a nuisance and threat to
humans. Today, the gray wolf's role as an important and necessary part
of natural ecosystems is better understood and appreciated.
For 50 years prior to 1986, no detection of wolf reproduction was
found in the Rocky Mountain portion of the United States. However in
1986, a wolf den was discovered near the Canadian border in Glacier
National Park. This find was presumably due to the southern expansion
of the Canadian wolf population. The Glacier National Park wolf
population has steadily grown to about 65 wolves and now exists
throughout northwestern Montana.
Reproducing wolf populations are not known to occur in Idaho or
Wyoming. Wolves have occasionally been sighted in these States, but do
not constitute a population as defined by scientific experts (Service
1994). Historical reports suggest that wolves may have produced young
in these States; however, based on extensive surveys and interagency
monitoring efforts (Service 1994), no wolf population presently
persists in these States.
3. Wolf Recovery Efforts: In the 1970's, the State of Montana led
an interagency recovery team, established by the Service, that
developed a recovery plan for the Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
The 1980 recovery plan recommended a combination of natural recovery
and reintroduction be used to recover wolves in the area around
Yellowstone National Park (the Park) north to the Canadian border,
including central Idaho.
A revised recovery plan was approved by the Service in 1987
(Service 1987). It identified a recovered wolf population as being at
least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3 consecutive years, in each of
3 recovery areas (northwestern Montana, central Idaho, and
Yellowstone). A population of this size would be comprised of about
300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery in Montana and
Idaho. If two wolf packs did not become established in central Idaho
within 5 years, the plan recommended that conservation measures other
than natural recovery be considered. The plan recommended use of the
Act's section 10(j) authority to reintroduce experimental wolves in
the Park. By establishing a nonessential experimental population, more
liberal management practices may be implemented to address potential
negative impacts or concerns regarding the reintroduction.
In 1990 (Pub. L. 101-512), Congress directed appointment of a Wolf
Management Committee, composed of three Federal, three State, and four
interest group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration
in the Park and central Idaho. That committee provided a majority, but
not unanimous, recommendation to Congress in May 1991. Among the
measures recommended was a declaration by Congress directing
reintroduction of wolves in the Park, and possibly central Idaho, as
special nonessential experimental populations with flexible management
practices by agencies and the public to resolve potential conflicts.
Wolves and ungulates would be intensively managed by the States with
Federal funding; thus, implementation was expected to be costly.
Congress took no action on the committee's recommendation which would
have required an amendment to the Act.
In November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-154), Congress directed the Service,
in consultation with the National Park Service and Forest Service, to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider a broad
range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National
Park and central Idaho. In 1992 (Pub. L. 102-381), Congress directed
the Service to complete the EIS by January 1994 and indicated the
preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.
The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the
EIS. Team participants were the National Park Service; Forest Service;
the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana; USDA Animal Damage Control;
and Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes. The Gray Wolf EIS program
emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, the news media
and nearly 2,500 groups/individuals interested in wolves were
contacted to publicize the EIS process.
In April 1992, a series of 27 "issue scoping" open houses were held
in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, as well as 7 other locations
throughout the United States. The meetings were attended by nearly
1,800 people, and thousands of brochures were distributed. In total,
nearly 4,000 people gave comments on EIS issues. In July 1992, a
report narrating the public comments was mailed to 16,000 people.
In August 1992, 27 additional "alternative scoping" open houses and
3 additional hearings were held in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
Hearings were also held in Seattle, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah;
and Washington, D.C. Two major newspapers with circulation in Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho (total circulation about 250,000) distributed a
copy of the alternative scoping brochure in the Sunday edition. Nearly
2,000 people attended the meetings, and nearly 5,000 comments were
received on methods for managing reintroduced wolves. Public comments
typified the strong polarization of concerns regarding wolf
management. A report on the public's ideas and suggestions was mailed
to about 30,000 people in November 1992. In April 1993, a Gray Wolf
EIS planning update report was published. It discussed the status of
the EIS, provided factual information on wolves, and requested the
public to report wolf observations in the northern Rocky Mountains. It
was mailed to nearly 40,000 interested individuals residing in all 50
States and over 40 foreign countries.
The public comment period on the draft EIS (DEIS) began on July 1,
1993, and the notice of availability was published on July 16. The
DEIS documents were mailed to potentially affected agencies, public
libraries, interested groups, and anyone who requested a copy.
Additionally, a flyer containing the DEIS summary, a schedule of the
16 public hearings, and a request to report wolf sightings was
inserted into the Sunday edition of 6 newspapers (combined circulation
of about 280,000) in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. In mid-June 1993,
the Service mailed a letter to over 300 groups, primarily in Wyoming,
Montana, and Idaho, offering a presentation on the DEIS. This resulted
in 31 presentations to about 1,000 people during the comment period.
During the DEIS public review period (July 1 to November 26, 1993)
over 160,200 individuals, organizations, and government agencies
commented. The magnitude of the response shows the strong interest
people have in wolf management. In early March 1994, a summary of the
public comments was mailed to about 42,000 people on the EIS mailing
list.
The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on
May 4, 1994, and the notice of availability was published on May 9,
1994. The EIS considered five alternatives: (1) Reintroduction of
Wolves Designated as Experimental, (2) Natural Recovery (No action),
(3) No Wolves, (4) Wolf Management Committee Recommendations, and (5)
Reintroduction of Wolves Designated as Nonexperimental. After careful
review, the Service's proposed action was to reintroduce nonessential
experimental gray wolves in the Park and central Idaho.
The Secretary signed the EIS Record of Decision on June 15, 1994. A
letter of concurrence was signed by the Secretary of Agriculture on
July 13, 1994. The decision directed the Service to implement its
proposed action plan as soon as practical.
Two nonessential experimental population proposed rules, one for
the Park and one for central Idaho, were published in the Federal
Register on August 16, 1994 (59 FR 42108 and 59 FR 42118,
respectively). On September 6, 1994, a brochure containing the Record
of Decision, proposed rules, and schedule of public hearings was
mailed to about 50,000 people. From September 14-22, 1994, a legal
notice announcing the proposed rules, hearings, and inviting public
comment was published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Olympia
Olympian, New Paper Agency (Salt Lake City Papers), Washington Times,
Lewiston Morning Tribune, The Idaho Statesman, Wyoming Tribune, Casper
Star Tribune, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and Billings Gazette.
The Service held six public hearings on the proposed rules. The
availability of the Record of Decision, public hearings, and proposed
rules was published in the Federal Register on September 14, 1994 (59
FR 47112). Copies of the proposed rules were distributed to all
interested parties. Public hearings were held on September 27, 1994,
in Boise, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Helena, Montana, and on
September 29, 1994, in Salt Lake City, Utah; Washington, D.C.; and
Seattle, Washington. About 90 people testified at these hearings and
about 330 people submitted written comments. Comments on the proposed
rules were accepted until October 17, 1994.
In Montana, the Service has an active wolf management program due
to the presence of breeding pairs of wolves. The Service's program
monitors wolves to determine their status, encourages research,
provides the public with accurate information, and controls wolves
that attack domestic livestock. Wolves that depredate on livestock are
translocated or removed. Such action is required to reduce livestock
losses, to foster local tolerance, and promote and enhance
conservation of wolves. The relocation of wolves under the control
program is not intended to accelerate the natural expansion of wolves
into unoccupied historic habitat. Although 19 wolves have been removed
under the control program, the number of wolves has continued to
expand in Montana at about 22 percent per year for the past 9 years.
4. Reintroduction Site: The Service decided to reintroduce wolves
into the Park because of the following factors. The Park is under
Federal jurisdiction, it has high-quality wolf habitat and good
potential wolf release sites. It is also far from the natural southern
expansion of wolf packs from Montana. Thus, any wolf pack documented
inside the Yellowstone experimental population area would probably be
from reintroduction efforts rather than from naturally dispersing
extant wolf populations in Canada or northwestern Montana. The Service
will also reintroduce wolves into central Idaho as a nonessential
experimental population published under a separate rule in the Federal
Register.
The Service determined that reintroduction of wolves into the Park
had the highest probability to succeed due to ecological and political
considerations (Service 1994). The reintroduction effort will enhance
wolf viability by increasing genetic diversity through genetic
interchange between segments of the population. The reintroduction
plan for the Park should help in achieving wolf recovery goals 20
years sooner than under current natural recovery policy.
Because reintroduced gray wolves will be classified as a
nonessential experimental population, the Service's management
practices can reduce local concerns about excessive government
regulation of private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations,
excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government
involvement in the program.
Establishment of gray wolves in the Park will initiate wolf
recovery in one of the three recovery areas described as necessary for
the species recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains. No existing or
anticipated Federal or State actions identified for this release site
are expected to have major effects on the experimental population.
Central Idaho is identified as the only other alternative site, and it
will also receive wolves for reintroduction which will facilitate
recovery in that experimental area.
5. Reintroduction Protocol: The wolf reintroduction project is
undertaken by the Service in cooperation with the National Park
Service, Forest Service, other Federal agencies, potentially affected
tribes, the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and entities of the
Canadian government. To obtain wolves, the Service will enter into
formal agreements with the Canadian and Provincial governments and/or
resource management agencies.
The Park's wolf reintroduction plan requires transferring 45 to 75
wolves from southwestern Canada, representing various sex and age
classes, over a 3- to 5-year period. The capture of about 15 wild
wolves from several different packs using standard capture techniques
will be done annually over 3 to 5 years. Captured wolves will be
transported to the Park. Wolves from the same pack will be placed in
individual holding pens of about 0.4 hectare (1 acre) for up to 2
months for acclimation to the new environment. The acclimation pens
will be isolated to protect the wolves from other animals and to
prevent habituation to humans. During the acclimation period but after
release, each wolf will be monitored by radiotelemetry to ensure quick
retrieval, if necessary. Carcasses of natural prey taken in the Park
will be provided to the wolves. Veterinary care, including
examinations and vaccinations, will be provided as needed.
Once acclimated, the wolves will be released into the Park. Food
(ungulate carcasses) will be provided until the wolves no longer use
it. Initially, all wolves will be closely monitored with a gradual
reduction over time. Previous experiences with reintroduced wolves
have shown that they may not remain together. In general, attempts to
locate and/or move lone wolves dispersing throughout the Park will not
be done. However, wolves may be moved on a case-by-case basis, if
necessary, to enhance wolf recovery in the experimental area.
Reintroduced wolves will remain in the wild, as long as they are
capable of sustaining themselves on carrion or wild prey. Conflicts
between wolves and humans may result in the recapture and/or removal
of a wolf in accordance with procedures successfully used with other
problem wolves.
An overall assessment of the success of the reintroduction will be
made after the first year and for every year thereafter. Procedures
for subsequent releases could be modified, if information from the
previous reintroduction warrants such changes. The physical
reintroduction phase should be completed within 3-5 years. Once the
reintroduced wolves form two packs with each pack raising two pups,
for 2 consecutive years, management practices would allow the wolves
to grow naturally toward recovery levels. Wolves would only be
monitored, and no further reintroduction would take place unless fewer
than two litters were produced in a single year. This reintroduction
effort is consistent with the recovery goals identified in the 1987
recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.
It is estimated that the Park's reintroduction effort with a
similar effort in central Idaho, plus the natural recovery occurring
in northwestern Montana, could result in a viable recovered wolf
population (10 breeding pairs in each of 3 recovery areas for 3
consecutive years) by the year 2002.
The Service will continue to ask private landowners and agency
personnel adjacent to the Park to immediately report any wolf
observations to the Service or other authorized agencies. An extensive
information and education program will discourage the taking of gray
wolves by the public. Initially, all wolves will be monitored by radio
telemetry and, therefore, easy to locate if necessary. Public
cooperation with the Service will be encouraged to ensure close
monitoring of the wolves and quick resolution of any conflicts that
might arise.
Specific information on wolf reintroduction procedures can be found
in Appendix 4 "Scientific techniques for the reintroduction of wild
wolves" in the environmental impact statement: "The Reintroduction of
Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho" (Service
1994).
Status of Reintroduced Populations
In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, wolves reintroduced
into the Park are designated as nonessential experimental. Such
designation allows the wolves to be treated as a threatened species or
species proposed for listing for the purposes of sections 4(d), 7, and
9 of the Act. This allows the Service to establish a less restrictive
special rule rather than using the mandatory prohibitions covering
endangered species. The biological status of the wolf and the need for
management flexibility resulted in the Service designating gray wolves
reintroduced into the Park as "nonessential." The Service determined
that the "nonessential" designation, with other protective measures,
will conserve and recover the gray wolf in the Yellowstone ecosystem.
It is anticipated that released wolves will come into contact with
humans and domestic animals inside and outside of the Park. Public
opinion surveys, public comments on wolf management planning, and the
positions taken by elected local, State, and Federal government
officials indicate that wolves should not be reintroduced without
assurances that current uses of public and private lands will not be
disrupted by wolf recovery activities. The following provisions
respond to these concerns. There would be no violation of the Act for
unintentional, nonnegligent, and accidental taking of wolves by the
public, provided the take was incidental to otherwise lawful
activities, it did not result from negligent conduct lacking
reasonable due care or was in defense of human life. Such wolf takings
would need to be reported to the Service or other authorized agency
within 24 hours. The Service may designate certain Federal, State,
and/or tribal employees to take wolves that required special care or
pose a threat to livestock or property. Private land owners or their
designates would be permitted to harass wolves in an opportunistic
noninjurious manner on their leases or private property, provided such
harassment was reported within 7 days to the Service or other
authorized agency.
Under the "nonessential" status, private landowners or their
designates would be permitted to take (injure or kill) a wolf in the
act of wounding or killing livestock on private land. However,
physical evidence (wounded or dead livestock) of such an attack would
be required to document that the attack occurred simultaneously with
the taking. A report of such a take would need to be immediately
(within 24 hours) reported to the Service or other authorized agency
personnel for investigation. Once six or more breeding pairs are
established in the Park or experimental area, livestock owners or
their designates could receive a permit from a Service-designated
agency to take (injure or kill) gray wolves that are attacking
livestock on permitted public livestock grazing allotments. Such a
take would be only permitted after due notification to Service-
designated agencies and unsuccessful capture efforts.
Wolves that repeatedly (two times in a calendar year) attack
domestic animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or
pets (dogs or cats) on private land would be designated as problem
wolves and relocated from the area by the Service or a designated
agency. After one relocation, wolves that continued to depredate on
domestic animals would be considered chronic problem wolves and would
be removed from the wild.
It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations would be
primary cause for failure of the States or tribes to meet their
specific big game management objectives outside of the national parks
and national wildlife refuges. The Service could, however, determine
that wolves responsible for excessive depredation should be
translocated to other sites in the experimental area. Such actions are
expected to be rare and unlikely to impact the overall recovery rate.
States and tribes would need to define such situations in their
Service-approved wolf management plans before such actions could be
taken. Under the nonessential designation, wolves could not be
deliberately killed solely to resolve predation conflicts with big
game.
The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho and potentially affected
tribes will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements for
management of the gray wolf outside of national parks and national
wildlife refuges. These cooperative agreements would be reviewed
annually by the Service to ensure that the States and tribes have
adequate regulatory authority to conserve listed species, including
the gray wolf. The National Park Service will be the primary agency
implementing the experimental population rule inside the boundaries of
national parks. States and tribes are anticipated to be the primary
agencies implementing this experimental population rule outside of
national parks and national wildlife refuges after their wolf
management plans are approved by the Service. The Service will provide
oversight, coordinate wolf recovery activities, and provide technical
assistance. If the States and tribes do not assume wolf management
responsibilities or adhere to provisions of their wolf management
plans, the Service would assume management authority. If for
unforeseen reasons the wolf population failed to sustain positive
growth toward recovery levels for 2 consecutive years, the influencing
factors would be identified. The Service, and affected States or
tribes would be responsible for determining if any management
strategies needed modification. The Service in coordination with the
States and tribes would implement those strategies to ensure wolf
population recovery.
The Service finds that protective measures and management practices
are necessary and advisable for the conservation and recovery of the
gray wolf and that no additional Federal regulations are required. The
Service also finds that the nonessential experimental status is
appropriate for gray wolves taken from wild populations and released
in the Park. The nonessential status for such wolves allows for
additional management flexibility. Nonessential experimental
populations located outside of a national park or national wildlife
h)
0*0*0*refuge are treated under the Act as if they were only proposed for
listing, and not listed. Only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4)
apply to Federal actions outside national parks and wildlife refuges.
Presently, there are no conflicts envisioned with any current or
anticipated management actions of the Forest Service or other Federal
agencies in the areas. The national forests are beneficial to the
reintroduction effort in that they form a natural buffer to private
properties and are typically managed to produce wild animals that
wolves could prey upon. The Service finds the less restrictive section
7 requirements associated with the nonessential designation do not
pose a threat to the recovery effort and continued existence of the
gray wolf.
The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental
populations in a national park or national wildlife refuge.
Consequently, the Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, or
any other Federal agency is prohibited from authorizing, funding, or
carrying out an action within a national park or national wildlife
refuge that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
gray wolf. Pursuant to 50 CFR 17.83(b), section 7 determinations must
consider all experimental and nonexperimental wolves as a listed
species for analysis purposes in national parks. The Service has
reviewed all ongoing and proposed uses of the parks and refuges and
determined that none are likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the gray wolf, nor will they adversely affect the success of the
reintroduction program.
Most of the reintroduction area is remote and sparsely inhabited
wild lands. However, there are some risks to wolf recovery associated
with take of wolves in regard to other land uses and various
recreational activities. Potential threats are hunting, trapping,
animal damage control activities, and high speed vehicular traffic.
Hunting, trapping, and USDA Animal Damage Control programs are
prohibited or strictly regulated in national parks, as well as closely
regulated by State and Federal law and policy. There are very few
paved or unpaved roads in the proposed reintroduction area or
immediately outside of it. The unpaved roads typically have low
vehicle traffic, are constructed for low speeds and used only
seasonally. Thus, wolves should encounter vehicles infrequently. In
accordance with existing labeling, the use of toxicants lethal to
wolves in areas occupied by wolves is prohibited. Overall, the
possible risks and threats that could impact the success of the
reintroduction effort are thought to be minimal.
Location of Experimental Population
The release site for reintroducing wolves will be in Yellowstone
National Park. The designated experimental population area will
include the State of Wyoming; that portion of Idaho east of Interstate
Highway 15; and the State of Montana east of Interstate Highway 15 and
south of the Missouri River east of Great Falls, Montana, to the
Montana/North Dakota border.
Management
To date, the experimental population area does not currently
support any reproducing pairs of wolves. It is also unlikely that
wolves from the natural southern expansion from northwestern Montana
have arrived in the Park. Except for the gray wolves in northwestern
Montana, only an occasional, isolated wolf has been reported, killed,
or otherwise documented in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, or other Western
States. Single packs have been reported throughout the northern Rocky
Mountains. However, these reported wolves or groups of wolves, if
factual, apparently disappeared for unknown reasons and did not
establish recoverable "populations" as defined by wolf experts. A wolf
population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of gray wolves
that each successfully raise at least two young to December 31 of
their birth year for 2 consecutive years (Service 1994). Thus, the
Service has determined that there is no population of wolves in the
Park and therefore, the Park reintroduction is consistent with
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act; specifically, that
experimental wolves need to be geographically separate from other
nonexperimental populations. It is possible that prior to 2002, other
wolves may appear in the wild and be attracted to the experimental
area occupied by the reintroduced wolves. Any "new" arrivals would be
classified as part of the experimental population. These wolves could
assist in the recovery and expansion of the experimental population to
where wolves could be dispersing into central Idaho and Montana.
Wolves dispersing into areas in Idaho and Montana, outside of the
experimental area, would continue to receive endangered species
protection under the Act, as did the wolves that recolonized an area
near Glacier National Park in 1982. It is also possible, but not
probable, that during the next 3 years wolves could move between
recovery areas and enhance the genetic diversity between natural
recovery areas and reintroduction sites. It is not anticipated that
such exchange will significantly alter the recovery rate in the Park's
experimental population area.
Although the Service determined that there is no existing wolf
population in the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and
establishment of an experimental population in the Park, the Service
will continue to determine the presence of any wild wolves. Prior to
any reintroduction, the Service would evaluate the status of any
wolves found in the experimental population area. If a wolf population
is discovered in the proposed experimental area, no reintroduction of
wolves would occur. Instead, the success of the naturally occurring
wolf population would be monitored to determine if recovery was
continuing. If a natural wolf population is located in the
experimental area prior to the effective date of the final rule, then
the final rule would not be implemented and there would be no
reintroduction program. Wolves naturally occurring would be endangered
and managed as such, with full protection under the Act. If the
natural wolf population failed to maintain positive growth for two
consecutive years, then the reintroduction effort could proceed or
other recovery measures taken. After reintroduction is completed,
according to the Reintroduction Protocol (section 5 above), management
of the experimental population will begin.
Once this rule is effective and wolves have been released into the
recovery area, the rule would remain in effect until wolf recovery
occurs or a scientific review indicates that modifications in the
experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf recovery.
If a wolf population is discovered in the Park's recovery area,
after the effective date of the experimental population rule but
before release, reintroduction under the rule would not occur in that
area and any such wolves would be managed as a natural recovering
population. Boundaries of the proposed experimental population area
would be changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of the naturally
occurring, breeding wolf population. No experimental population area
will contain a portion of the home range of any active breeding pairs
of wolves that have successfully raised young, prior to the
establishment of the experimental area.
Management of the nonessential experimental wolf population would
allow reintroduced wolves to be killed or moved by Service authorized
Federal, State, and tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations
and excessive predation on big game populations. Under special
conditions, the public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock
(cattle, sheep, horses, and mules). There would be no Federal
compensation program, but compensation from existing private funding
sources would be encouraged. When six or more wolf packs are
documented in the experimental population area outside of the national
parks and national wildlife refuges, there would be no land-use
restrictions, including areas around den sites or other critical
areas.
Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate. Projected
recruitment would off-set the anticipated 10 percent mortality
resulting from management control actions. An additional 10 percent
loss could occur from other mortality sources. Once reintroduced
wolves reach the goal of six wolf packs, the reproductive output of
the packs would provide a population increase at or near 22 percent
per year. Closely regulated public control (taking of depredating
wolves) would effectively focus on only individual problem wolves.
Agency control actions would more likely target groups of wolves
containing problem individuals.
The Service, and States or tribes as authorized, could move wolves
that are negatively impacting ungulate populations. Such wolves would
be moved to other places within the experimental population area. Two
examples when this would occur are (1) when wolf predation is
dramatically affecting prey availability because of unusual habitat or
weather conditions (e.g., bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape
habitat) and (2) when wolves cause prey to move onto private property
and mix with livestock, increasing potential conflicts. The States and
tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, how they would be
measured, and identify other possible mitigation in their State or
tribal management plans which are to be approved by the Service
through cooperative agreement before such control actions are
conducted. Wolves will not be deliberately killed solely to address
h)
0*0*0*ungulate-wolf conflicts. Control actions by the States or tribes
likely to be significant or beyond the provisions of the experimental
rule as determined by the Service would have to be specifically
incorporated into an amendment of this experimental rule and subject
to national public comment and review.
Management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause
major changes to existing private or public land-use restrictions
(except at containment facilities during reintroduction) after six
breeding pairs of wolves are established in this experimental area.
When five or fewer breeding pairs are in the experimental area, land-
use restrictions could be used, as needed, to control intrusive human
disturbance on public lands. Their implementation would be at the
discretion of land management and natural resources agencies. Before
five or fewer breeding wolf pairs are established, temporary
restrictions on human access near active wolf den sites may be
required between April 1 and June 30. Any restrictions on private land
would only occur with complete landowner cooperation and concurrence.
The Service, and Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after they
have been authorized by the Service, could promptly remove any wolf
from the experimental population once the Service, or its authorized
agencies, has determined it was presenting a threat to human life or
safety. Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a
person can legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate
threat to human life. The incidental, unavoidable, unintentional,
accidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activity, or in
defense of human life, would be permitted by the Service and its
authorized agencies, provided that such taking was not resulting from
negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, due care was exercised
to avoid taking a wolf, and the taking was immediately (within 24
hours) reported to the appropriate authorities. Shooters have the
responsibility to identify their target before shooting. The act of
taking a wolf that is wrongly identified as another species, for
purposes of this rule, will be considered as intentional, negligent,
and not accidental. Such take may be referred to the appropriate
authorities for prosecution.
The Service, and other Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after
they have been designated by the Service, may control wolves that
attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) by aversive
conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when five or
fewer breeding pairs are established, or by other previously described
measures. Killing wolves or placing them in captivity may only be
considered when there are six or more breeding pairs established in
the experimental population area. When depredation occurs on public
land and prior to the establishment of six breeding pairs, depredating
females and their pups would be captured and released, at or near the
site of capture, one time prior to October 1. If depredations
continue, or if six packs are present, females and their pups would be
removed. Wolves on private land under these same circumstances would
be moved. Wolves that attack other domestic animals or pets on private
land twice in a calendar year would be moved, and chronic problem
wolves would be removed from the wild.
The Service, other Federal agencies, and State or tribal wildlife
personnel would be authorized and trained to take wolves under special
circumstances. Wolves could be live-captured and translocated to
resolve conflicts with State or tribal big-game management objectives,
when they are located outside of the experimental areas, or to enhance
wolf recovery. If the captured animal is clearly unfit to remain in
the wild, it could be placed in a captive facility. Killing of any
wolves would be a last resort and only authorized when live capture
attempts fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
The Service and authorized agencies of the Service would use the
following conditions and criteria to determine the status of problem
wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:
(1) Wounded livestock or the partial remains of a livestock carcass
must be presented with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976; Fritts
1982) that the livestock injury or death was directly caused by a wolf
or wolves. Such evidence is essential for justifying any control
action because wolves may feed on carrion they did not kill.
Additionally, there must be an indication that additional livestock
losses may occur if the problem wolf or wolves are not controlled.
(2) No evidence of artificial or intentional feeding of wolves can
be present. Improperly disposed livestock carcasses located in the
area of depredation will be considered attractants. On Federal lands,
removal or a decision on the use of such attractants must accompany
any control action. If livestock carrion or carcasses are not being
used as bait for an authorized control action on Federal lands, it
must be removed or otherwise disposed of so that they will not attract
wolves.
(3) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating
plans for allotments must have been followed.
Federal responsibility for protecting gray wolves under the
experimental population provisions of the Act would continue until
formal delisting rulemaking procedures are completed. In accordance
with the Act, delisting may occur when analysis of the best available
scientific and commercial information shows that gray wolves are no
longer threatened with extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2)
overutilization, (3) disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In
addition to the above, the following criteria must be met: (1) For 3
consecutive years, a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented in
each of the 3 recovery areas described in the revised wolf recovery
plan (Service 1987); (2) protective legal mechanisms are in place; and
(3) the EIS evaluation has been completed (Service 1994). After
delisting, the Act specifies a species population must be monitored
for a 5-year period. After delisting, if in any 1 of the 3 recovery
areas the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10 breeding pairs
for 2 consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery area would be
considered for protective status under the Act. h)
0*0*0*
All reintroduced wolves designated as nonessential experimental
will be removed from the wild and the experimental status and
regulations revoked when (1) legal actions or lawsuits change the
wolves status to endangered under the Act or (2) within 90 days of the
initial release date, naturally occurring wolves, consisting of two
breeding pairs that for 2 consecutive years have each successfully
raised two offspring, are discovered in the experimental population
area. The naturally occurring wolves would be managed and protected as
endangered species under the Act.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
Two proposed nonessential experimental population rules for the
areas of Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho were published in
the Federal Register on August 16, 1994 (59 FR 42108 and 59 FR 42118,
respectively) (Service 1994a). The Record of Decision, notification of
the proposed rules, and tentative schedule for public hearings were
mailed to nearly 50,000 people on September 6, 1994. All interested
parties were requested to submit factual reports or information that
might contribute to the development of the final rule. Appropriate
Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. A legal notice announcing the proposed rules,
hearings, and inviting public comment were published in the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, Olympia Olympian, New Paper Agency (Salt Lake City
Papers), Washington Times, Lewiston Morning Tribune, The Idaho
Statesman, Wyoming Tribune, Casper Star Tribune, Bozeman Daily
Chronicle, and Billings Gazette beginning on September 14, 1994.
The Service held six public hearings on the proposed rules. A
notification of the hearings and availability of the Record of
Decision and proposed rules was published in the Federal Register on
September 14, 1994 (59 FR 47112). Copies of the proposed rules were
distributed to all interested parties. Public hearings were held on
September 27, 1994, in Boise, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Helena,
Montana, and on September 29, 1994, in Salt Lake City, Utah;
Washington, D.C.; and Seattle, Washington. About 90 people testified
at these hearings and about 330 people submitted written comments.
Comment on the proposed rules was accepted until October 17, 1994.
A total of 426 written and oral responses, representing 621
signatures, were received during the proposed rule 34-day comment
period. Several letters, including letters from the Governor of the
State of Wyoming and the Colorado Wool Growers Association, were
received after comment period closed. However, these letters were
reviewed and considered. From October 17 to 24, 1994, a specialized
interagency team analyzed the public comments. After October 31, 1994,
the team's report was distributed to agency cooperators and to anyone
requesting it (Service 1994c). In addition to the public comments,
three Notices of Intent to Sue were received. The Service has
completed its review and consideration of all written and oral
comments. All of the issues raised by the public on the proposed rules
were previously identified and addressed in the final EIS. Analysis of
the comments revealed 25 issues which are identified and discussed
below.
Changes in final rule as a result of public comment: The following
minor changes and clarifications were made to the final rule or to
discussions of the final rule based on public comments on the proposed
rule. These individual or cumulative changes do not alter the
predicted impact or effect of the final rule.
1. Several conditions on when wolves may be harassed or taken were
removed from the final rule. The following conditions are not part of
the final rule: (1) Distinction between adult wolves and pups, and (2)
harassment may only occur for 15 minutes.
2. In the background discussion of the final rule, it was clarified
that after a private individual takes a depredating wolf, no
additional agency actions will be conducted to control problem wolves
in an area, unless more livestock depredations occur. This assumes
that the problem wolf was killed, and therefore, no other control
actions are required.
3. Several terms in the final rule were clarified and defined,
including: "opportunistic noninjurious harassment," "unintentional
take," "disposal of livestock carrion," issuance criteria for a wolf
take permit to a grazing lessee on public lands, and criteria for
resolving wolf/ungulate conflicts.
4. A termination clause was added to the final rule. The clause
clarifies the Service's role and responsibilities regarding the
establishment of an experimental population.
5. Three years following the initial reintroduction of wolves, a
thorough review will be conducted. The review will determine if
further reintroductions are required and if, to date, the management
program has been successful. A provision to the rule was added that if
the reintroduction and management practices under the experimental
population rule did not result in wolf recovery, the Service would
take appropriate actions. Such actions would be caused by the failure
of the wolf population to maintain positive growth for 2 consecutive
years. All corrective actions would be coordinated with affected
States, tribes, and other Federal agencies.
6. Language regarding scientific or technical decisions in the
background discussion of the rule was changed. Study design and
reintroduction techniques may be changed or modified when expert and
skilled biologists determine such changes are necessary and prudent.
A list of relevant issues based on public comments and the
Service's response to those issues follows.
Issue 1: The subspecies of wolf that occupied the Yellowstone area
was Canis lupus irremotus. The reintroduction program will use wolves
from Canada which were once classified as a different subspecies;
therefore, this violates the experimental population provision of the
Act.
Service Response: In recent times, there have been several
revisions to the taxonomic classification of wolves in North America.
Several scientific investigations have dealt with this issue (Brewster
and Fritts 1994, Nowak 1994, Wayne et al. 1994). These investigations
concluded (1) there were fewer wolf subspecies than previously
believed, (2) irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, and (3) that
wolves might be better classified as types or representative groups of
geographic or climatic conditions rather than distinct subspecies. The
northern Rocky Mountains are within the historic range of Canis lupus.
Investigators conclude that reintroduction of wolves from Canada to
the Park or central Idaho would accelerate the ongoing natural
southern expansion of the species. Additionally, it was determined
that current taxonomic discussions of wolf subspecies should not
affect wolf recovery efforts in the northern Rocky Mountains of the
United States.
Issue 2: The amendment to section 10(j) of the Act states that
experimental populations may only be designated when there is
geographical separation between the experimental population and other
existing populations of the species. The occasional occurrence of lone
wolves in the areas of central Idaho and Yellowstone would prohibit
the use of the experimental population designation since there would
be no geographic separation between natural occurring and experimental
wolves. Comments also stated that the boundaries of the experimental
areas should be adjusted or the reintroduction program should be
delayed, particularly, in central Idaho due to the presence of
naturally occurring wolves.
Service Response: For many years, the Service and other agencies
have tried to document wolf activity in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming
(Service 1994a Appendix 12). Since the 1970's, wolf observations
particularly from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, have been reported.
However, to date the only documented breeding groups of wolves are in
northwestern Montana. Based on scientific inquiry, the Service defines
a wolf population as at least two breeding pairs of wild wolves each
successfully raising at least two young each year, for 2 consecutive
years, and that a population is composed of breeding groups of wolves
(Service 1994a, Appendix 9). Presently, there are no known breeding
pairs of wolves within the experimental area. Nor does the
experimental area contain any portions of home ranges of any breeding
pairs of wolves. The Service finds that there is no geographic overlap
between any Montana wolf population home range and the experimental
area. The northern boundary of the Idaho experimental population area
was moved further south because, in 1990 and 1992, there were a few
instances when an active breeding group of wolves from Montana were
located south of the experimental boundary recommended in the proposed
rule. The rulemaking language now allows revocation of this rule and
removal of all reintroduced wolves, if within 90 days after the
initial reintroduction a naturally occurring wolf population is
discovered in the experimental area. Any naturally occurring wolves
will be managed as endangered species under the Act and afforded the
same terms and conditions as wolves in Montana. The Service has had a
wolf monitoring program in place in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for
over two years. This system is designed to accept reports from anyone,
and when a report focuses on a particular area a wolf biologist
investigates to verify the presence or absence of wolves. Through this
method the Service has identified newly formed packs in northwestern
Montana. Within the experimental area, no confirmation of wolves from
provided reports has occurred.
Issue 3: The experimental population rules did not utilize the best
scientific and commercial data available to reach decisions, as
required by the Act.
Service Response: The Service contends that this rule and the
Secretary's decision to reintroduce wolves used the best scientific
data available and underwent peer review and scientific analysis. The
EIS on the impacts of this rule includes several appendices and a list
of persons who contributed their expert opinions or relevant data to
the decisionmaking process (Service 1994a). Professional wildlife
biologists and scientific organizations complimented the Service on
the depth and detail of its scientific investigation in regards to the
reintroduction of wolves.
Issue 4: The reintroduction plan does not enhance the conservation
and recovery of wolves, as required by the Act. Reintroduction,
particularly in central Idaho, should not be conducted or should be
delayed for several years while a search for existing wolves is
conducted.
Service Response: For the past 20 years and presently, the Service
and others have searched for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Reviews of correspondence from the past 25 years show the longstanding
and widespread view that wolves already occupied Idaho and the
discovery of their presence imminent. Very extensive monitoring within
the experimental population area has not confirmed the presence of
wolves. This particular species is not habitat limited and if allowed
to get into the experimental area would reproduce and survive. The
translocation of wild wolves from Canada to the Park will provide the
opportunity to start a wolf population. This translocation effort will
greatly facilitate recovery of the gray wolf in the Yellowstone
ecosystem. The 1987 Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan recommended an
additional 5 years of monitoring for natural wolf recovery in Idaho.
However, the recovery plan provided other options if two breeding
pairs of wolves had not become established in Idaho during the 5
years. Because no breeding pairs have been located, the draft and
final EIS and Record of Decision allow the simultaneous reintroduction
of wolves into central Idaho and the Park in an effort to ensure the
viability and conservation of wolves in the Rocky Mountains (Service
1994a, Appendix 16).
Issue 5: The Service proposed a very liberal experimental rule to
accommodate concerns of local residents and the affected States.
However, it did not make allowances for unforeseen circumstances that
may impede or prevent wolf population growth and recovery. Options
such as increased management or greater numbers of reintroductions
should be allowed if required.
Service Response: The Service believes that, as proposed,
reintroduction and management techniques will result in wolf
population recovery and delisting by about 2002. Rulemaking language
was added clarifying that take activities must lead to eventual
recovery of the wolf. Additionally, if there is no progress in
achieving wolf population recovery (i.e., if wolves in a recovery area
do not exhibit positive growth for 2 consecutive years), then factors
impacting population growth will be investigated. Information from the
investigation will be made available to the public and appropriate
Federal, State, and tribal agencies. Within a year, the agencies may
recommend and implement new management actions or modifications to
their wolf management plans to correct factors negatively impacting
wolf recovery. Only as a last resort would changes or modifications to
sections of the experimental rule be made.
Issue 6: The proposed rules' requirements that "only adult wolves
(greater than 50 pounds) can be harassed" and then "only for 15
minutes" and "only adult wolves that are witnessed attacking livestock
on private land can be killed by private parties" are overly
restrictive. The provision that wolves can only be killed under a
special permit when (1) seen attacking livestock for the third time on
Federal lands, (2) six or more wolf packs are present in the
experimental population, and (3) all agency control efforts have
failed, does not address the issues in a timely or efficient manner.
The implication that land-use restrictions may be employed on private
lands when five or fewer wolf packs are present in the experimental
area also needs clarification.
Service Response: The Service agrees and has eliminated (1) the
distinction between adult wolves and pups for both noninjurious
harassment and take and (2) the length of time wolves may be harassed
(as long as physical injury is not incurred). Permittees with grazing
rights on public land can readily obtain a written take permit for
wolves seen attacking livestock. However, issuance criteria still
require that prior to issuing the 45-day take permit (1) six or more
wolf packs must be present in the experimental population area, (2)
authorized agencies must confirm that a wolf caused the livestock
injury or death, and (3) other agency control actions have failed to
resolve the problem. The final rule also clarifies that no land-use
restrictions will be exercised by Federal agencies on private land at
any time.
Issue 7: Certain parts of the rule need to be more specific, so
that potential management situations are individually described and
addressed in the final rule. Commenters provided a variety of
scenarios as examples.
Service Response: The Service added or clarified definitions and/or
language in the final rule. However, the wolf reintroduction program
is complex and has many unforeseen variables. It is impossible to
imagine or describe in detail every situation that might arise during
its implementation. Some situations can only be accurately addressed
on a case-by-case basis and judged by their particular circumstances.
It is the intent of the Service to use the experimental rule to aid
the conservation, recovery, and eventual delisting of wolf populations
in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. The Service in
cooperation with other Federal, State, and tribal agencies will use
the flexibility of the experimental rule to address local concerns and
unforeseen situations. The professional expertise and experience of
wildlife managers will facilitate the implementation and any
modifications needed to improve the wolf reintroduction program.
Additional language was added to the rule, clarifying that management
flexibility is required as the program is implemented and refined.
Issue 8: The Service should make a clear commitment to fund all
aspects of wolf reintroduction and management, including compensation
to the States and tribes for their efforts. The Service should closely
monitor the compliance of other agencies to the experimental
population rules.
Service Response: To date, the Federal government has funded the
participation of affected States and tribes in regard to wolf
restoration program. The Service plans to continue its funding
commitment with Congressional appropriations until wolves are
delisted. The public stated its concern over the use of taxpayer
dollars and the need for government to wisely spend tax dollars. The
Service, therefore, must keep expenses for wolf reintroduction as low
as possible while maintaining an effective program. The Service will
encourage the States and tribes to submit reasonable budgets for wolf
management programs, as well as search for ways to pool and coordinate
resources so that overall costs are reduced. It is the legal
responsibility of the Service to monitor the progress and adherence of
State and tribal agencies to their management plans. The Service will
ensure and work cooperatively with others to meet the stated recovery
goals.
Issue 9: The wolf reintroduction effort needs to have a federally
funded livestock damage compensation program. Wolf reintroduction will
result in the "taking" of constitutionally protected private property
rights.
Service Response: In Montana, the Defenders of Wildlife implemented
a private livestock compensation program. Because the Defenders
Program has been successful, it was expanded to include Idaho and
Wyoming. The Service will not directly fund a livestock compensation
program. The Service will encourage livestock producers to utilize
private compensation programs when depredation occurs. The Service and
USDA Animal Damage Control will aid livestock producers by maintaining
an effective control program that minimizes livestock losses due to
wolves. The rule addresses the concerns of private property owners by
(1) providing an effective control program, (2) allowing landowners to
take wolves on their private land when justified, and (3) invoking no
land-use restrictions on private land. The Service has reviewed the
constitutionality of this rule in regard to protected private property
rights. The review concludes the Service's actions do not violate the
private property rights of individuals (Service 1994a, Appendix 6).
Issue 10: The Act requires the Service to consult with appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, and local entities or private landowners, to
the maximum extent practicable, prior to promulgating regulations. The
Service has failed to meet such requirements.
Service Response: It is well documented that the Service made an
extraordinary effort to involve the public and other government
entities in developing management practices and the experimental
population rules regarding the wolf reintroduction program. During the
past 3 years, the Service held over 100 meetings, open houses, and
hearings. The Service distributed over 750,000 documents and reviewed
and considered nearly 170,000 public comments during development of
the rule. Federal agencies and affected States and tribes were active
participants during the process. This final rule represents the
participatory work and consensus of affected agencies and others
interested or impacted by the rulemaking.
Issue 11: Further discussion and detail are needed on how State and
tribal agencies will manage wolf predation and ungulate population
levels. The public needs to know exactly what will be done in regard
to this issue.
Service Response: The Service is confident in the States' and
tribes' ability to evaluate the impact wolf predation may have on
ungulate populations and, when appropriate, implement corrective
management actions. An evaluation of possible impacts and/or actions
in regard to a specific ungulate species and location is best
accomplished by biologists most familiar with the situation. The
Service, States, and tribes will coordinate wolf management plans to
ensure that State and tribal interests in native ungulate management
are met while meeting the Service's mandate for wolf recovery.
Rulemaking language was added to the section on how States and tribes
will manage ungulate/wolf conflicts. States and tribes are required to
prepare acceptable management plans for approval by the Service. It is
expected that since these management plans may affect State wildlife
management programs, the States will go through a public review
process as part of their development. Such plans will indicate the
point at which wolf/ungulate conflicts become so critical that
corrective action must be taken. A decision to translocate wolves to
reduce such conflicts must serve to enhance, or at a minimum not
inhibit, wolf recovery.
Issue 12: The timeframe for submitting a report on the harassing
and/or taking of wolves by the public should be changed (both
shortened or lengthened were mentioned).
Service Response: The timeframes for a person to report the
harassing (7 days) and/or the unintentional taking (24 hours) of
wolves were not changed. The harassing or taking of a wolf is a
critical and potentially serious event. A person who harasses a wolf
is best served by reporting the incident as soon as possible so agency
management actions can be implemented, if necessary. Submission of a
report on wolf harassment provides a record which can document the
continuation of suspected or actual livestock depredations or
rationale for taking a wolf. The immediate reporting of livestock
depredation by a wolf also allows the immediate investigation of the
incident and gathering of fresh evidence. In Montana, agency
professionals who investigate livestock depredations are readily
accessible during the night, weekends, and holidays. During the past 9
years in Montana, the reporting, documenting, and resolution of
livestock depredations have not been significant issues. Therefore,
they are not anticipated to be a problem for wolf reintroductions into
the experimental population areas. The United States legal system
often takes into account unusual mitigating circumstances, such as the
remoteness of a livestock allotment interfering with an individual
being able to report an incident as required by regulation. The
Service could determine that an incident would not be referred for
prosecution, when a person failed to meet the reporting requirements
and could justify their action.
Issue 13: The delisting criteria should be clearly identified. The
delisting of one recovery area should be independent of the status of
other recovery areas.
Service Response: In accordance with the Act, delisting may occur
when analysis of the best available scientific and commercial
information shows that gray wolves are no longer threatened with
extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2) overutilization, (3)
disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In addition to
the above, the final EIS, states that the following criteria must be
met: (1) For 3 consecutive years, a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are
documented in each of the 3 recovery areas described in the revised
wolf recovery plan (Service 1987); (2) protective legal mechanisms are
in place; and (3) the EIS evaluation has been completed (Service
1994). After delisting, the Act specifies a species population must be
monitored for a 5-year period. After delisting, if in any 1 of the 3
recovery areas the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10
breeding pairs for 2 consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery
area would be considered for protective status under the Act.
Delisting procedures have been discussed (Service 1994a, Appendix 11).
Endangered wolves in northwestern Montana can be downlisted to
threatened once 10 breeding pairs are documented for 3 consecutive
years. Experimental populations of wolves cannot be downlisted because
their protective status is based on the experimental population rule.
Experimental population rules can be withdrawn when wolf numbers have
reached recovery levels, no further protection under the Act is
required, and the wolf is delisted.
Issue 14: The reintroduction of wolves will negatively affect the
recovery of other species listed under the Act. This issue was not
addressed in the rule.
Service Response: The Service prepared and published an intra-
Service evaluation of its proposed action in the draft and final EIS
(Service 1994a, Appendix 7). The evaluation concluded that wolf
reintroduction and implementation of the experimental rules would not
adversely impact other endangered or threatened species. In November
1994, Service field offices in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming reviewed
the proposed rules and came to the same conclusion. The Service finds
that the impact of the final rules, like the predicated impact
reviewed of the proposed rules, will not adversely affect other
protected species.
Issue 15: The proposed rules did not discuss how potential wolf/dog
hybrids or wolf/coyote hybrids will be addressed.
Service Response: The hybridization of wolves with other canids may
occur; however, it is not a significant problem anywhere in North
America where ranges of wolves, domestic dogs, coyotes, and foxes
overlap (Service 1994a, Chapter 1). Thus, it is not anticipated to be
a problem in the northern Rocky Mountains. The rules state the Service
or other authorized agencies may remove reintroduced wolves that breed
with domestic dogs, coyotes, or foxes, or their hybrid-offspring.
Individual animals that agency biologists suspect to be domesticated
wolves or wild wolf/other canid species hybrids would be removed from
the wild after examination of the canid's physical or behavioral
characteristics.
Issue 16: The experimental population rule improperly removes full
endangered species protection and bestows experimental status on any
naturally occurring wolves found inside the experimental population
boundaries.
Service Response: It is documented that individual wolves may
disperse over 500 miles. However, for the past 10 years, there has
been no evidence of naturally occurring wolves dispersing to and
producing a viable wolf population in the central Idaho or Yellowstone
areas. After the effective date of the experimental population rules,
any such wolves and their offspring would be treated as experimental
population animals. From a practical wildlife management perspective,
the Service cannot be expected to determine if an individual wolf had
naturally dispersed into the area or been reintroduced. The initial
reintroduced animals will be radio collared and differentiated. Once
they have reproduced it would be impossible to determine if the wolf
was a wild dispersing animal or progeny of experimental wolves. The
rule as written helps avoid the possible conflict. Such a distinction,
therefore, cannot be treated separately by regulation. Undoubtedly,
the establishment of a viable wolf population and recovery of the
species will be enhanced by the reintroduction of 30 wolves annually
for the next 3-5 years. The presence of reintroduced wolves may
increase the probability of naturally dispersing wolves from
northwestern Montana or Canada to move into, stay, and reproduce in an
experimental area. While this event would contribute to population
recovery, it would not greatly impact the overall population growth
rate since the majority of breeding wolves would be reintroduced
animals.
Issue 17: Denning and rendezvous sites must be protected, even
after 6 packs are established. There needs to be more types of land
use restrictions (road closures) to protect wolves.
Service Response: Wolves are adaptable to a wide variety of human
activities, except for deliberate killing. Experiences in North
America indicate that human disturbance, even around active den sites,
is not a significant factor affecting wolf survival or population
growth (Service 1994a, Appendix 13). The rule protects active wolf
dens during the earliest stages of wolf recovery, if necessary.
Killing wolves is illegal except for a very few limited exceptions.
The rule allows flexibility to reconsider land use restrictions if
wolf populations do not grow toward recovery levels. Wolves in Montana
have not needed land-use restrictions and, at this time, land-use
restrictions do not appear necessary for wolf populations to recover
in Idaho or Wyoming.
Issue 18: Private individuals should not be able to kill wolves,
even by permit.
Service Response: The opportunity for private individuals to kill
wolves in the experimental population areas is limited to when wolves
are actually in the act of killing livestock. The Service has
determined that wolves that exhibit this behavior do not further
conservation of the species and for that reason are currently
controlled (Service 1988). The selective removal of this type of
individual by the public is warranted in certain limited circumstances
and their removal contributes to conservation of the species. Agency
control would be initiated anyway and, under tight regulation, public
control can be more likely to remove the specific problem individual
than agency control actions. If a wolf is taken in the act of
depredating, further agency control would not be conducted unless
additional depredations occur. This limited taking of wolves by the
private sector could reduce the total number of wolves that might be
taken in response to livestock depredations and reduces the
opportunity for other wolves to feed on or learn to depredate on
livestock.
Issue 19: The Secretary has not made the determination that use of
an experimental rule and reintroduction of wolves would further the
conservation of the species as required by 50 CFR 17.81.
Service Response: As stated in the Service's EIS, in the proposed
rule, and in the final rule, removal of wolves from Canadian
populations would not significantly impact those populations (59 FR
42110); the likelihood that wolf populations would become permanently
established and grow to recovery level is extremely high (59 FR
42111); reintroduction would greatly accelerate wolf population
recovery, enhance wolf population viability, and lead to subsequent
delisting (59 FR 42110); and the reintroduced wolves and subsequent
population that developed would not be affected by existing or
anticipated Federal or State actions or private activities within or
adjacent to the experimental population area (59 FR 42112), therefore,
the release of the experimental wolves would further the conservation
of the species (Service 1994a, Service 1994b).
Issue 20: Wolf management should remain with the Service until
delisting. The States or federal agencies like Animal Damage Control
should not be involved in wolf recovery.
Service Response: The rule clarifies that while the States and
Tribes are encouraged to lead implementation of the experimental rule,
the Service will monitor and is ultimately responsible for the
recovery of the species. Should progress toward wolf recovery not be
evident (two years of no growth would trigger other conservation
measures), the Service will cooperate with the states and tribes to
assure steps are taken to resume progress toward recovery. The states
and tribes already have highly professional wildlife management
programs in place and their expertise, authorities, knowledge, and
organizations can greatly enhance recovery of the species. Animal
Damage Control is a professional federal wildlife management agency
that has the responsibility, like all federal agencies, to use their
authorities to enhance the recovery of listed species. Animal Damage
Control has been a valuable and necessary component of wolf recovery
activities in Montana and Minnesota.
Issue 21: There should be a mortality limit that triggers more
restrictive management or reintroduced wolves that are killed should
be quickly replaced.
Service Response: The measure of success in the wolf recovery
program is not the level of wolf population mortality but growth of
the wolf population. Wolf populations can withstand varying levels of
mortality and individual wolf mortality is very difficult to measure
accurately. Language was added to the final rule that clarifies the
need to modify the state and tribal plans, which must be in compliance
with the rule, if wolf population growth is not evident. Wolf
population growth is easier to accurately monitor and is the criteria
that is used to implement other provisions in the rule (e.g. when
lethal control may be used, when a population is established, when
reintroductions stop, and when wolf populations are recovered). A "put
and take" strategy does not address the problem of a wolf population
failing to maintain growth and is an expensive process to conduct. It
is more productive to identify the factors preventing wolf population
growth and correct them before simply continually adding more wolves
that may die from the same causes. A population that required constant
reintroductions to compensate for excessive mortality rates could not
be delisted.
Issue 22: The experimental population boundaries are not
scientifically based and should be modified.
Service Response: The Service determined the boundaries of the
experimental populations based upon the distribution of the wolf
population in Montana. The experimental population boundaries do not
include any portion of any known area used by breeding wolves in
Montana. It was also determined that any wolf population inside the
experimental boundaries would most likely be the result of
reintroduced wolves and any breeding groups of wolves outside the
experimental boundaries would likely be the result of natural
dispersal of wolves from northwestern Montana or Canadian populations.
The definition of a wolf population underwent scientific peer review
(Service 1994a, Appendix 8). The rationale and location of the
experimental population boundaries were also reviewed, and no better
consensus of a way to define the geographic range of a wolf population
was brought to the Service's attention.
Issue 23: Wolves should be reintroduced for more than 3 years.
Service Response: Once a wolf population is established in an
experimental area there is no need to conduct further reintroductions
and to do so would not be cost effective. The soonest the "wolf
population" criteria could be met is in three years. At that time
about 45 wolves would have been reintroduced to each area, assuring
substantial genetic diversity, and 10-20 pups should be born annually.
Issue 24: What does legally present livestock mean? Who is
responsible for determining livestock husbandry practices?
Service Response: The provisions on legally present livestock are
part of the rule so that control of problem wolves will occur only
when livestock are present on public land in a manner already allowed
by conditions in their federal, state, or tribal grazing permit. No
new conditions are expected because of wolf reintroduction. Control of
wolves that attack livestock should not be expected when livestock are
illegally present on federal lands. Proper livestock husbandry
practices means the current community standards and practices used by
livestock producers as already determined by the land management
agency issuing the permit. No changes from the standard livestock
grazing practices already being used on federal grazing leases are
envisioned. Wolf management in Montana has not affected livestock
management practices on public lands and would likely not affect those
practices in other areas. Issues like proper disposal of livestock
carrion are already being addressed in the Yellowstone area because of
other concerns such as grizzly bear recovery. Language in the final
rule reflects that carrion must be managed in such a way as not to
present a continuing attractant to wolves if problems occur, but
leaves the livestock producer and land management agency to determine
how best to address potential problems.
Issue 25: Nearly every one of the 39 issues addressed in the public
scoping process and review of the draft EIS were again discussed,
questioned, or disagreed with during public comment about the proposed
rule.
Service Response: The Service has reviewed public concern about the
accuracy of its early responses to issues raised in the draft and
final EIS and which were also raised by persons commenting on the
proposed rule. At this time, the information provided during the
public comment period on the proposed rule does not provide sufficient
data or cause for the Service to significantly change any of its
earlier findings which were published in the final EIS regarding the
issues of: Amending the Endangered Species Act, wolves as a missing
component of the ecosystem, humane treatment of wolves, enjoying
wolves, regulated public take, cost of the program, state, tribal, and
federal authority, viable population, travel corridors, range
requirements, control strategies, illegal killing, compensation,
delisting, need for public education, spiritual and cultural
significance, social and cultural environment, recovery areas,
ungulate populations, hunter harvest, domestic livestock, land use,
visitor use, economics, wolves not native to Yellowstone, wolf rights,
federal subsides, human health and safety, predators and scavengers,
other endangered species, other plants, invertebrates, fish, reptiles,
amphibians, birds, and mammals, diseases and parasites, private
property rights, wolf recovery in other areas, existing wolves in
Idaho and Yellowstone, existing wolves in northwestern Montana, wolf
subspecies, wolf/dog/coyote hybridization, and the need for research
(Service 1994a).
The Service adjusted the experimental population boundaries to
exclude any portion of known wolf pack territories in an effort to
reduce the likelihood that any naturally dispersing breeding groups of
wolves would fall under the proposed experimental rule regulations.
Based on the above, and using the best scientific and commercial
data available, in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81, the Service finds
that releasing wolves into Yellowstone National Park constitutes
reintroduction into a high-priority site and will further advance
conservation and recovery of this species.
National Environmental Policy Act
A Final Environmental Impact Statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act is available to the public (see ADDRESSES).
This rule is an implementation of the proposed action and does not
require revision of the EIS statement on the reintroduction of gray
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho.
Required Determinations
This rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Based on the information discussed in this rule concerning
public projects and private activities within the experimental
population area, significant economic impacts will not result from
this action. Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs, information
collection, or recordkeeping requirements are imposed on small
entities by this action and the rule contains no recordkeeping
requirements, as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule does not require federalism assessment
under Executive Order 12612 because it would not have any significant
federalism effects as described in the order.
Due to biological requirements, the wolf reintroduction program
needs to be conducted in November through February, as recommended by
wolf scientists during the EIS process. The nonessential experimental
population rule has been extensively debated and thoroughly
investigated during development of the EIS and draft rules. Because of
the extensive public review of the EIS, Record of Decision, and
proposed rules, all being similar to this final rule, implementation
of the wolf reintroduction program should start as of the date of
publication, without a 30-day waiting period. Therefore, for good
cause and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Service has
determined that the rule should become effective immediately upon
filing for public inspection.
References Cited
Brewster, W.G. and S.H. Fritts. 1994. Taxonomy and genetics of the
gray wolf in western North America: a review. Pages xxx-xxx in Carbyn,
L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of
wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar Inst., Univ. of
Alberta. (in press).
Fritts, S.H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 145. 11 pp.
Nowak, M.R. 1994. Another look at wolf taxonomy. Pages xxx-xxx in
Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds. Ecology and
conservation of wolves in a changing world. Canadian Circumpolar
Inst., Univ. of Alberta. (in press).
Roy, L.D., and M.J. Dorrance. 1976. Methods of investigating predation
of domestic livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton, Alberta. 53 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf
Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a. Reintroduction of gray wolves
to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Helena, Montana. 608 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Proposing Establishment of a nonessential
experimental population of gray wolf in Yellowstone National Park in
Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and in Central Idaho area. Federal
Register Vol. 59, No. 157: 42108-42127.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994c. Summary of Public Comments on
the Proposed Rules for The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to
Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. 41 pp.
Wayne, W.K., N. Lehman, and T.K. Fuller. 1994. Conservation genetics
of the gray wolf. Pages xxx-xxx in Carbyn, L.N., S.H. Fritts, and D.R.
Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world.
Canadian Circumpolar Inst., Univ. of Alberta. (in press).
Author
The principal author of this rule is Edward E. Bangs (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby amends part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17-[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), the table entry for "Wolf, gray" under
"MAMMALS" is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 -- Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
Species
Common name Scientific Historic range Vertebrate
name population where
endangered or
threatened
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray Canis lupus Holarctic U.S.A. (48
conterminous
States, except
MN and where
listed as an
experimental
population)
Do ......do ......do U.S.A. (MN)
Do ......do ......do U.S.A. (WY and
portions of ID
and MT-see Sec.
17.84(i))
* * * * * * *
Species
Common name Status When listed
Mammals * * * * * * *
Wolf, gray E 1, 6, 13, 15, 35, 561
Do T 35
Do XN 561
* * * * * * *
Species
Common name Critical habitat Special rules
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray 17.95(a) NA
Do 17.95(a) 17.40(d)
Do NA 17.84(i)
* * * * * * *
3. Section 17.84 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.84 -- Special rules-Vertebrates.
* * * * *
(i) Gray wolf (Canis lupus).
(1) The gray wolves identified in paragraph (i)(7) of this section
are nonessential experimental. These wolves will be managed in
accordance with the respective provisions of this section.
(2) The Service finds that reintroduction of nonessential
experimental gray wolves, as defined in (i)(7), will further the
conservation of the species.
(3) No person may take this species in the wild in an experimental
population area except as provided in paragraphs (i) (3), (7), and (8)
of this section.
(i) Landowners on their private land and livestock producers (i.e.,
producers of cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in State
and tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service) that are
legally using public land (Federal land and any other public lands
designated in State and tribal wolf management plans as approved by
the Service) may harass any wolf in an opportunistic (the wolf cannot
be purposely attracted, tracked, waited for, or searched out, then
harassed) and noninjurious (no temporary or permanent physical damage
may result) manner at any time, Provided that such harassment is non-
lethal or is not physically injurious to the gray wolf and is reported
within 7 days to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction or
agency representative designated by the Service.
(ii) Any livestock producers on their private land may take
(including to kill or injure) a wolf in the act of killing, wounding,
or biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in
State and tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service),
Provided that such incidents are to be immediately reported within 24
hours to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction or agency
representative designated by the Service, and livestock freshly (less
than 24 hours) wounded (torn flesh and bleeding) or killed by wolves
must be evident. Service or other Service authorized agencies will
confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by wolves. The taking of
any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate
authorities for prosecution.
(iii) Any livestock producer or permittee with livestock grazing
allotments on public land may receive a written permit, valid for up
to 45 days, from the Service or other agencies designated by the
Service, to take (including to kill or injure) a wolf that is in the
act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses,
and mules or as defined in State and tribal wolf management plans as
approved by the Service), Provided that six or more breeding pairs of
wolves have been documented in the experimental population area and
the Service or other agencies authorized by the Service has confirmed
that the livestock losses were caused by wolves and have completed
agency efforts to resolve the problem. Such take must be reported
immediately within 24 hours to the Service project leader for wolf
reintroduction or agency representative designated by the Service.
There must be evidence of freshly wounded or killed livestock by
wolves. Service or other agencies, authorized by the Service, will
investigate and determine if the livestock were wounded or killed by
wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred
to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(iv) Potentially affected States and tribes may capture and
translocate wolves to other areas within an experimental population
area as described in paragraph (i)(7), Provided the level of wolf
predation is negatively impacting localized ungulate populations at an
unacceptable level. Such translocations cannot inhibit wolf population
recovery. The States and tribes will define such unacceptable impacts,
how they would be measured, and identify other possible mitigation in
their State or tribal wolf management plans. These plans must be
approved by the Service before such movement of wolves may be
conducted.
(v) The Service, or agencies authorized by the Service, may
promptly remove (place in captivity or kill) any wolf the Service or
agency authorized by the Service determines to present a threat to
human life or safety.
(vi) Any person may harass or take (kill or injure) a wolf in self
defense or in defense of others, Provided that such take is reported
immediately (within 24 hours) to the Service reintroduction project
leader or Service designated agent. The taking of a wolf without an
immediate and direct threat to human life may be referred to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(vii) The Service or agencies designated by the Service may take
wolves that are determined to be "problem" wolves. Problem wolves are
defined as: wolves that in a calendar year attack livestock (cattle,
sheep, horses, and mules) or as defined by State and tribal wolf
h) 0*0*0*management plans approved by the Service, or wolves that twice in a
calendar year attack domestic animals (all domestic animals other than
livestock). Authorized take includes, but is not limited to non-lethal
measures such as: aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or
translocating wolves. Such taking may be implemented when five or
fewer breeding pairs are established in a experimental population
area. If the take results in a wolf mortality, then evidence that the
mortality was nondeliberate, nonnegligent, accidental, and unavoidable
must be provided. When six or more breeding pairs are established in
the experimental population area, lethal control of problem wolves or
permanent placement in captivity will be authorized but only after
other methods to resolve livestock depredations have been exhausted.
Depredations occurring on Federal lands or other public lands
identified in State or tribal wolf management plans and prior to six
breeding pairs becoming established in an experimental population
area, may result in capture and release of the female wolf with pups,
and her pups at or near the site of capture prior to October 1. All
wolves on private land, including female wolves with pups, may be
relocated or moved to other areas within the experimental population
area if continued depredation occurs. Wolves attacking domestic
animals other than livestock, including pets on private land, two or
more times in a calendar year will be relocated. All chronic problem
wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic animals after being moved
once for previous domestic animal depredations) will be removed from
the wild (killed or placed in captivity). The following three criteria
will be used in determining the status of problem wolves within the
nonessential experimental population area:
(A) There must be evidence of wounded livestock or partial remains
of a livestock carcass that clearly shows that the injury or death was
caused by wolves. Such evidence is essential since wolves may feed on
carrion which they found and did not kill. There must be reason to
believe that additional livestock losses would occur if no control
action is taken.
(B) There must be no evidence of artificial or intentional feeding
of wolves. Improperly disposed of livestock carcasses in the area of
depredation will be considered attractants. Livestock carrion or
carcasses on public land, not being used as bait under an agency
authorized control action, must be removed or otherwise disposed of so
that it will not attract wolves.
(C) On public lands, animal husbandry practices previously
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating
plans for allotments must have been followed.
(viii) Any person may take a gray wolf found in an area defined in
paragraph (i)(7), Provided that the take is incidental to an otherwise
lawful activity, accidental, unavoidable, unintentional, not resulting
from negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, and due care was
exercised to avoid taking a gray wolf. Such taking is to be reported
within 24 hours to a Service or Service-designated authority. Take
that does not conform with such provisions may be referred to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution. h)!0*0*0*
(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
h)"0*0*0*June 30, within 1 mile of active wolf den or rendezvous sites and
would only apply to public lands or other such lands designated in
State and tribal wolf management plans. When six or more breeding
pairs are established in an experimental population area, no land-use
restrictions may be employed outside of national parks or national
wildlife refuges, unless wolf populations fail to maintain positive
growth rates toward population recovery levels for 2 consecutive
years. If such a situation arose, State and tribal agencies would
identify, recommend, and implement corrective management actions
within 1 year, possibly including appropriate land-use restrictions to
promote growth of the wolf population.
(5) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or part thereof
from the experimental populations taken in violation of the
regulations in paragraph (i) of this section or in violation of
applicable State or tribal fish and wildlife laws or regulations or
the Endangered Species Act.
(6) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in
this section.
(7) The site for reintroduction is within the historic range of the
species:
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) The Yellowstone Management Area is shown on the following map.
The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area will
be that portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 15; that
portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of
the Missouri River from Great Falls, Montana, to the eastern Montana
border; and all of Wyoming.
(SEE ILLUSTRATION(S) IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT)
(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
h)#0*0*0*management plan for the closest experimental area, it may be
relocated, placed in captivity, or killed.
(C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental
animal, it will be managed according to any Service-approved plans for
that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.
(D) If the animal is determined not likely to be a wild gray wolf
or if the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the
animal shows physical or behavioral evidence of hybridization with
other canids, such as domestic dogs or coyotes, or of being an animal
raised in captivity, it will be kept in captivity or killed.
(8) The reintroduced wolves will be monitored during the life of
the project, including by the use of radio telemetry and other remote
sensing devices as appropriate. All released animals will be
vaccinated against diseases and parasites prevalent in canids, as
appropriate, prior to release and during subsequent handling. Any
animal that is sick, injured, or otherwise in need of special care may
be captured by authorized personnel of the Service or Service-
designated agencies and given appropriate care. Such an animal will be
released back into its respective reintroduction area as soon as
possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to
return the animal to captivity or euthanize it.
(9) The status of the experimental population will be reevaluated
within the first 3 years, after the first year of releases of wolves,
to determine future management needs and if further reintroductions
are required. This review will take into account the reproductive
success and movement patterns of the individuals released in the area,
as well as the overall health and fate of the experimental wolves.
Once recovery goals are met for downlisting or delisting the species,
a rule will be proposed to address downlisting or delisting.
(10) The Service does not intend to reevaluate the "nonessential
experimental" designation. The Service does not foresee any likely
situation which would result in changing the nonessential experimental
status until the gray wolf is recovered and delisted in the northern
Rocky Mountains according to provisions outlined in the Act. However,
if the wolf population does not demonstrate positive growth toward
recovery goals for 2 consecutive years, the affected States and
tribes, in cooperation with the Service, would, within 1 year,
identify and initiate wolf management strategies, including
appropriate public review and comment, to ensure continued wolf
population growth toward recovery levels. All reintroduced wolves
designated as nonessential experimental will be removed from the wild
and the experimental status and regulations revoked when (i) legal
actions or lawsuits change the wolves status to endangered under the
Act or (ii) within 90 days of the initial release date, naturally
occurring wolves, consisting of two breeding pairs that for 2
consecutive years have each successfully raised two offspring, are
discovered in the experimental population area. The naturally
occurring wolves would be managed and protected as endangered species
under the Act. h)$0*0*0*
Dated: November 15, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-28746 Filed 11-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P