[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19997]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AC87
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray
Wolf in Central Idaho Area
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to
reintroduce the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered species, into
central Idaho in order to establish a population of wolves. This
population would be classified as a nonessential experimental
population according to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). Gray wolves have been extirpated from most of
the western United States. They presently occur in a small population
in extreme northwestern Montana, and as incidental occurrences of a few
wolves in Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington that result from the dispersal
of wolves from Montana and Canada. This reintroduction is being
proposed to reestablish a viable wolf population in the central Idaho
area (including a portion of southwestern Montana), one of three wolf
recovery areas that have been identified in the Northern Rocky Mountain
Wolf Recovery Plan. Potential effects of this proposed rule were
evaluated in an environmental impact statement completed in May 1994.
This gray wolf reintroduction would not conflict with existing or
anticipated Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of park
lands, wilderness areas, or surrounding lands.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October
17, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments or other information may be sent to: Gray Wolf
Reintroduction, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 8017, Helena,
Montana 59601. The complete file for this proposed rule is available
for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at 100 N.
Park, Suite 320, Helena, Montana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Edward E. Bangs, at the above
address, or telephone (406)449-5202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
1. Legal
Amendments of 1982, P.L. 97-304, made significant changes to the
Endangered Species Act (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 populations of listed species as ``experimental
populations''. Under previous authorities in the Act, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to reintroduce populations of
a listed species into unoccupied portions of its historic range for
conservation and recovery purposes. However, local opposition to
reintroduction efforts from certain parties concerned about potential
restrictions, and prohibitions on Federal and private activities
contained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act, reduced the utility of
reintroductions as a management tool.
Under section 10(j), a reintroduced population of a listed species
established outside its current range, but within its historic range
may now be designated, at the discretion of the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary), as ``experimental.'' The Act requires that an
experimental population be separated geographically from
nonexperimental populations of the same species. Furthermore, an
experimental population is treated as a threatened species, except
that, solely for section 7 purposes (except for subsection (a)(1)), an
experimental population determined not to be essential to the continued
existence of a species is treated, except when it occurs in an area
within the National Wildlife Refuge System or the National Park System,
as a species proposed to be listed under section 4 of the Act.
Activities undertaken on private lands are not affected by section 7 of
the Act unless they are funded, authorized or carried out by a Federal
agency.
2. Biological
This proposal deals with the gray wolf (Canis lupus), an endangered
species of carnivore that was extirpated from the western portion of
the conterminous United States by about 1930. The gray wolf is native
to most of North America north of Mexico City, except for the
southeastern United States, which was occupied by a similar species,
the red wolf (Canis rufus). The gray wolf occupied nearly every area in
North America that supported populations of hooved mammals (ungulates),
its major food source.
Twenty-four distinct subspecies of gray wolf have been recognized
in North America. Recently, however, taxonomists have suggested that
there are five or fewer subspecies of gray wolf in North America and
that the wolves that once occupied the northern Rocky Mountains of the
United States belonged to a more widely distributed subspecies than was
previously believed.
The gray wolf historically occurred in the northern Rocky
Mountains, including mountainous portions of Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho. The great reduction in the distribution and abundance of this
species in North America was directly related to human activities,
especially elimination of native ungulates, conversion of wildland into
agricultural lands, and extensive predator control efforts by private,
State, and Federal agencies. When most wolves in the conterminous
United States were eradicated, the natural history of wolves was poorly
understood. As were other large predators, it was considered a nuisance
and a threat to humans. Today, the gray wolf's role as an important and
necessary part of natural ecosystems is better appreciated.
Wolf reproduction was not detected in the Rocky Mountain portion of
the United States for a period of about 50 years prior to 1986. At that
time, a wolf den was discovered near the Canadian border in Glacier
National Park. This event was presumably due to the southern expansion
of Canadian wolf populations, and the wolf population in Glacier
National Park has steadily expanded to an estimated size of about 65
wolves that now occupy northwestern Montana.
Reproducing wolf populations are not known to occur in Idaho or
southwestern Montana. Wolves occasionally have been sighted in these
States, but they have not established populations as defined by wolf
experts (Service 1994). Historical reports suggest wolves may have
produced young there several times in the recent past. However, based
on extensive surveys and interagency monitoring efforts (Service 1994),
no wolf population has persisted in these States.
3. Wolf Recovery Efforts
In the 1970s, the state of Montana led an interagency recovery
team, established by the Service, that developed a recovery plan for
the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf. That 1980 plan recommended a
combination of natural recovery and reintroduction be used to recover
wolf populations in the area around Yellowstone National Park (Park)
north to the Canadian border, including central Idaho.
A revised recovery plan was approved by the Service in 1987
(Service 1987). It identified a recovered wolf population as being at
least 10 breeding pairs of wolves, for 3 consecutive years, in each of
3 recovery areas (northwestern Montana, central Idaho and the
Yellowstone area). A population of this size would comprise
approximately 300 wolves. The plan recommended natural recovery in
Montana and Idaho, and using the experimental-population authority of
section 10(j) of the Act to quickly reintroduce wolves to Yellowstone
National Park and to conduct flexible management to address local
concerns about their potential negative impacts. If 2 wolf packs did
not become established in central Idaho within 5 years, the plan
recommended that conservation measures other than natural recovery be
considered.
In 1990 (Pub. L. 101-512), Congress directed appointment of a Wolf
Management Committee, composed of 3 Federal, 3 State and 4 interest
group representatives, to develop a plan for wolf restoration to
Yellowstone and central Idaho. That Committee provided a majority, but
not unanimous, recommendation to Congress in May 1991. Among the
measures recommended was a declaration by Congress directing
reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park, and possibly
central Idaho, as a special nonessential experimental population with
particularly liberal management by agencies and the public to resolve
potential conflicts. Wolves and ungulates under that plan would be
intensively managed by the States with Federal funding and thus
implementation costs were estimated to be high. Congress took no action
on the Committee's recommendation.
In November 1991 (Pub. L. 102-154), Congress directed the Service,
in consultation with the National Park Service and Forest Service, to
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS), that considered a
broad range of alternatives on wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone
National Park and central Idaho. In 1992 (Pub. L. 102-381), Congress
directed the Service to complete the EIS by January 1994 and indicated
that the preferred alternative should be consistent with existing law.
The Service formed and funded an interagency team to prepare the
EIS. In addition to the National Park Service and Forest Service, the
States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, USDA Animal Damage Control, and
the Wind River and Nez Perce Tribes participated. The Gray Wolf EIS
program emphasized public participation. In the spring of 1992, nearly
2,500 groups or individuals that had previously expressed an interest
in wolves were directly contacted and the EIS program was widely
publicized by the news media.
In April 1992, a series of 27 ``issue scoping'' open houses were
held in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho and 7 more in other locations
throughout the U.S. The meetings were attended by nearly 1,800 people
and thousands of brochures were distributed. Nearly 4,000 people
provided their thoughts on issues they felt should be addressed in the
EIS. A report describing the public's comments was mailed to 16,000
people in July 1992.
In August 1992, another series of 27 ``alternative scoping'' open
houses and 3 hearings were held in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Three
other hearings were held in Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, and
Washington DC. In addition, a copy of the alternative scoping brochure
was inserted into a Sunday edition of the two major newspapers in
Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (total circulation about 250,000). Nearly
2,000 people attended the meetings and nearly 5,000 comments were
received about different ways that wolf recovery might be managed.
Public comments reflected the strong polarization that has typified
management of wolves. A report on the public's ideas and suggestions
was mailed to about 30,000 people in November 1992. In April 1993, a
Gray Wolf EIS planning update report was published. It discussed the
status of the EIS, provided factual information about wolves, and
requested the public to report observations of wolves in the northern
Rocky Mountains. It was mailed to nearly 40,000 people that had
requested information, residing in all 50 states and over 40 foreign
countries.
The public comment period on the draft EIS (DEIS) began on July 1,
1993, and the notice of availability was published July 16. Full DEIS
documents were mailed to potentially affected agencies, public
libraries, many interest groups and to all who requested the complete
DEIS. In addition, the DEIS summary, a schedule of the 16 hearings, and
a request to report wolf sightings were printed in a flyer that was
inserted into the Sunday edition of 6 newspapers in Wyoming, Montana
and Idaho with a combined circulation of about 280,000. In mid-June
1993, the Service sent out a letter to over 300 groups, primarily in
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho offering a presentation on the DEIS. As a
result, 31 presentations were given to about 1,000 people during the
comment period on the DEIS.
During the public review period from July 1 to November 26, 1993,
on the DEIS, comments were received from over 160,200 individuals,
organizations, and government agencies. This degree of public response
indicated the strong interest people have in the management of wolves.
A summary of the public comments was mailed to about 42,000 people on
the EIS mailing list in early March 1994.
The final EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on
May 4, 1994, and a notice of availability was published on May 9, 1994.
The reintroduction of nonessential experimental populations of gray
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho was the Service's
proposed action. The four alternatives considered in detail in the EIS
were (1) Natural Recovery (No action), (2) No wolf, (3) Wolf Management
Committee, and (4) Reintroduction of Nonexperimental Wolves.
The Record of Decision on the EIS was signed by the Secretary of
the Interior on June 15, 1994. The Secretary of Agriculture signed a
letter concurring with that decision on July 13, 1994. The decision
directed the implementation of the Service's proposed action as soon as
practical.
The Service already has an active wolf management program in
Montana because of the presence of breeding pairs of wolves. About 65
wolves now occupy northwestern Montana, and most of these occur near
the Canadian border. The Montana program monitors wolves to determine
their status, encourages research on wolves and their prey, provides
accurate information to the public, and controls wolves that attack
domestic livestock. Wolf control consists of translocating wolves that
depredate on livestock to reduce livestock losses, and to foster local
tolerance of non-depredating wolves to promote and enhance the
conservation of the species. The control program does not relocate
wolves to accelerate the natural expansion of wolves into unoccupied
historic habitat. Wolf control includes removal of wolves that attack
livestock and, although 19 wolves have been removed from 1986 to
present in northwestern Montana, the wolf population in Montana has
continued to expand at about 22 per cent per year for the past 9 years.
4. Reintroduction Site
The Service proposes to reintroduce wolves into Federal lands
managed by the USDA Forest Service. The Idaho location was proposed as
a site for this experimental population area after much deliberation by
the Service and others. The central Idaho reintroduction site is a vast
area of about 53,000 km\2\ (20,000 mi\2\) of contiguous National
forests, including the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez
Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and Panhandle National Forests. In
the center of this area are three wilderness areas, the Frank Church
River-of-no-Return, Selway-Bitterroot, and the Gospel-Hump Wilderness
Areas that collectively comprise about 16,000 km\2\ (6,000 mi\2\) of
wilderness habitat.
This vast area of Federal lands has high quality wolf habitat and
good potential wolf release sites. Also, the central Idaho area is
sufficiently distant from the current southern expansion of naturally
formed wolf packs in Montana that any wolf pack documented inside the
experimental area would likely result from reintroduction rather than
from natural dispersal from extant wild wolf populations in Canada or
northwestern Montana.
The Service has determined that the proposed reintroduction effort
in central Idaho is necessary for the successful recovery of the gray
wolf in the conterminous United States, due to ecological and
landownership considerations (Service 1994). Reintroduction of wolves
into central Idaho will enhance wolf population viability by increasing
the genetic diversity of wolves in the Rocky Mountain population,
increase genetic interchange between segments of the population, and is
projected to accelerate reaching wolf population recovery goals 20
years sooner than under the current natural recovery policy. No
critical habitat would be designated; millions of acres of public lands
contain hundreds of thousands of wild ungulates (Service 1994) and
currently provide more than enough habitat to support a recovered
population of wolves in central Idaho.
Gray wolves that are reintroduced into central Idaho would be
placed on Federal lands. By doing so, the Service would accelerate the
recovery of the gray wolf in the northwestern United States while
reducing local concerns about excessive government regulation of
private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations, big game predation,
and the lack of State government involvement in the program. There are
only a few scattered parcels of private and State of Idaho lands in the
area in which wolves would be reintroduced (Service 1994), and no
conflicts with private or State land use is anticipated.
Establishment of an experimental population of gray wolves in
central Idaho would initiate wolf recovery in one of the three recovery
areas described as necessary for recovery of gray wolves in the
northern Rocky Mountains. The only other reintroduction site identified
at this time, Yellowstone National Park, is also the subject of a
proposal to establish a nonessential experimental population published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. There are no existing or
anticipated Federal or State actions identified for this release site
that are expected to have major effects on this experimental
population. For all these reasons, and based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, the Service finds that the release of wolves
and the establishment of an experimental population in central Idaho
and southwestern Montana will further the conservation of this
endangered species.
Gray wolves used for the reintroduction effort would be obtained
from healthy wolf populations in Canada by permission of the Canadian
and Provincial governments. Gray wolves are common in western Canada
(tens of thousands) and Alaska (about 7,000) and they are increasing in
the Great Lakes area. Thus, the removal of wolves from locations in
Canada would not significantly impact the wolf populations there.
5. Reintroduction Protocol
This wolf reintroduction project is undertaken by the Service in
cooperation with the USDA Forest Service, other Federal agencies,
potentially affected Tribes, States of Idaho and Montana, and entities
of the Canadian government. The Service would enter into agreements
with the Canadian and provincial governments and/or Canadian resource
management agencies to obtain wild wolves.
The wolf reintroduction project in the central Idaho area would
require the transfer of about 45 to 75 wolves from southwestern Canada
with assistance by Canadian and Provincial governments. About 15 wild
wolves would be captured annually from several different packs over the
course of 3-5 years by trapping, darting from helicopters, or net
gunning in the autumn and winter. Upon capture, the wolves would
receive veterinary care, including examinations and vaccinations as
necessary, and they would be transported to central Idaho by truck or
plane. In central Idaho, groups of wolves, each consisting of young
adults from various packs, would be fitted with radio collars, released
in several areas, and monitored by radiotelemetry. This method is
referred to as a ``hard release'', i.e., the wolves would be released
upon or shortly after transport to each release site. Wolves to be
released would not be held on site for acclimation, nor would any food
or care be provided after they were released. It is anticipated that
the wolves will move widely, but eventually find mates and form packs.
All wolves would be monitored by radiotelemetry, and if wolves
cause conflicts with humans, they will be recaptured and controlled
according to the procedures that have been used with other problem
wolves.
Subsequent releases would be modified depending upon information
obtained during the reintroduction effort. Utilizing information gained
from the initial phase of the project, an overall assessment of the
success of the reintroduction would be made after the first year, and
for every year thereafter. It is thought that the physical
reintroduction phase will be completed within 3-5 years. After the
reintroduction of wolves has resulted in two packs raising 2 pups each
for 2 consecutive years, the wolf population will be managed to grow
naturally toward recovery levels. This reintroduction attempt is
consistent with the recovery goals identified for this species by the
1987 recovery plan for the northern Rocky Mountain Wolf.
It is estimated that this program, in conjunction with natural
recovery in northwestern Montana and a similar reintroduction into
Yellowstone National Park, would result in a viable recovered wolf
population (ten breeding pairs in each of three recovery areas for
three consecutive years) by about the year 2002.
Private landowners and agency personnel that manage properties
adjacent to Federal lands used as release areas will be requested to
immediately report any observation of a gray wolf to the Service or to
a Service-designated agency. Take of gray wolves by the public will be
discouraged by an extensive information and education program and by
the assurance that, at least initially, all animals will be monitored
with radio telemetry and therefore easy to locate when they leave
public lands. The public would be encouraged to cooperate with the
Service in the attempt to closely monitor the wolves and quickly
resolve any conflicts.
More specific information on conduct of the wolf reintroduction
program can be obtained from Appendix 4 ``Scientific techniques for the
reintroduction of wild wolves'' in the environmental impact statement:
``The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and
Central Idaho'' (Service 1994).
Status of Reintroduced Population
Gray wolves would be reintroduced into central Idaho in order to
establish a nonessential experimental population according to the
provisions of section 10(j) of the Act. As previously stated, the
experimental population of wolves would be treated as a threatened
species or species proposed for listing for the purposes of sections
4(d), 7, and 9 of the Act. This enables the Service to propose a
special rule that can be less restrictive than the mandatory
prohibitions covering endangered species. In the case of the central
Idaho reintroduction, the biological status of the species, and the
need for management flexibility in reintroducing the gray wolf, has
resulted in the Service proposing to designate the reintroduced wolves
as ``nonessential''. The Service has found that the nonessential
designation, in concert with protective measures, is necessary to
conserve and recover the gray wolf in central Idaho and southwestern
Montana.
It is anticipated that wolves will occasionally come in contact
with the human population and domestic animals. Public opinion surveys,
public comments on wolf management planning, and the positions taken by
elected local, State, and Federal government officials have indicated
that wolves cannot be reintroduced without assurances that current uses
of public and private lands would not be disrupted by wolf recovery
activities. The following provisions respond to these concerns. There
would be no violation of the Act for unintentional, nonnegligent, and
accidental taking of wolves by the public if incidental to otherwise
lawful activities, and taking in defense of human life would not be
prohibited--provided such takings are reported to the Service or to an
authorized agency within 24 hours. Certain Federal, State, and/or
Tribal employees would be authorized by the Service to take wolves
needing special care or posing a threat to livestock or property.
Livestock owners with grazing allotments on public land and private
land owners or their immediate designates would be permitted to harass
adult wolves, i.e., wolves larger than about 23 Kg (50 lbs), in an
opportunistic non-injurious manner on their allotments or private
property at any time, provided that such harassment would have to be
reported within 7 days to a Service-designated authority.
Under the proposed status, livestock owners or their designates
could receive a permit from a Service-designated agency to take (injure
or kill) gray wolves that are attacking livestock on permitted public
livestock grazing allotments, but only after 6 or more breeding pairs
were established in the experimental area. Such take, however, would
only be permitted after due notification to Service-designated
agencies, unsuccessful efforts to capture the offending wolf by such
agencies, and documentation of additional livestock losses. Private
landowners or their designates would be permitted to take (injure or
kill) a wolf in the act of wounding or killing livestock on private
land. However, physical evidence (wounded or dead livestock) that such
an attack occurred at the time of the taking would have to be clearly
evident in such instances. Such take would be immediately (within 24
hours) reported to the Service or agencies authorized by the Service
for investigation.
Wolves that repeatedly (2 times in a calendar year) attack domestic
animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or pets (dogs
or cats) on private property would be designated as problem wolves and
would be moved from the area by the Service or a designated agency.
Wolves that depredate on domestic animals after being relocated once
after such previous conflicts would be designated chronic problem
wolves and be removed from the wild.
It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations will be
the primary cause for failure of States or Tribes to meet their
specific big game management objectives outside National Parks and
National Wildlife Refuges. Nor is such predation likely to inhibit wolf
population increases. However, if the Service deemed it necessary,
wolves from the responsible packs could be translocated to other sites
in the experimental area to resolve such predation problems. Wolves
could not be deliberately killed to resolve wolf predation conflicts
with big game while the experimental population of wolves were listed.
However, such take is expected to be rare and is unlikely to
significantly affect the overall rate of wolf recovery. The States and
Tribes would define such situations in their Service-approved wolf
management plans before such actions could be taken.
Wolves would be moved on a case-by-case basis to enhance wolf
recovery in the experimental population area. Generally there would not
be attempts to locate and/or move lone wolves dispersing in this area,
although this may occur.
Hunting, trapping, and animal damage control activities are
regulated inside and outside National Parks and National Wildlife
Refuges. Most of the area within the wolf reintroduction area is remote
and sparsely inhabited wild lands. There are some risks to wolf
recovery that would be associated with take of wolves, other land uses,
and various recreational activities. However, these risks are low
because take of wolves should occur so infrequently that wolf recovery
would not be significantly affected.
The Service finds that the stated protective measures and
management practices are necessary and advisable for the conservation
and recovery of the gray wolf in central Idaho and southwestern
Montana. No additional Federal regulations appear to be needed. The
Service also finds that the proposed nonessential experimental status
is appropriate for gray wolves released in central Idaho that are taken
from unendangered wild populations. As discussed above, although once
extirpated from its historic range in most of the conterminous United
States, the gray wolf is common in western Canada (tens of thousands)
and Alaska (about 7,000) and they are increasing in the Great Lakes
area. The gray wolf has also recently been recovering in a small
portion of its range in the western United States. Therefore, taking
fewer than 100 wolves from Canada will pose no threat to the survival
of the species in the wild.
An additional management flexibility would result from using the
nonessential status for wolves introduced into the central Idaho, due
to less stringent requirements of section 7 of the Act (interagency
consultation) for wolves that may occur outside National Parks and
National Wildlife Refuges. Wolves that are part of the nonessential
experimental population would be treated as animals proposed for
listing, rather than listed, when occurring outside of a National Park
or National Wildlife Refuge, and only two provisions of section 7 apply
to Federal actions outside National parks and refuges: section 7
(a)(l), which authorizes all Federal agencies to establish conservation
programs; and section 7(a)(4), which requires Federal agencies to
confer informally with the Service on actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The results of a
conference are advisory in nature; agencies are not required to refrain
from commitment of resources to projects as a result of a conference.
There are no conflicts envisioned with any current or anticipated
management actions of the Forest Service or other Federal agencies in
the reintroduction area. National Forests are typically managed in such
a fashion as to produce wild animals that would be natural prey to
wolves. The Service finds that there are no threats to the success of
the reintroduction project or the overall continued existence of the
gray wolf from the less restrictive section 7 requirements associated
with the nonessential designation.
The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental
populations in a National Park or National Wildlife Refuge. The
Service, 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 consider all experimental and nonexperimental wolves as
a single listed species for analysis purposes. The Service has reviewed
all ongoing and proposed uses of the affected National Forests and
found none that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
gray wolf, nor will such uses adversely affect the success of the
reintroduction program. Potential uses that could adversely affect
success are hunting, trapping, animal damage control activities and
high speed vehicular traffic. Hunting and trapping, and USDA Animal
Damage Control programs are prohibited or tightly regulated in National
Forests and are closely regulated by State and Federal law and policy
in other areas. There are very few paved roads in the proposed
reintroduction area, and wolf encounters with vehicles are likely to be
infrequent. Even most of the unpaved roads are used seasonally. In
addition, these unpaved roads typically have low vehicle traffic and
are constructed for low-speed use.
Location of Experimental Population
The release site for reintroducing wolves will be on National
Forest lands in central Idaho. The experimental population area will
include that portion of Idaho and Montana that is west of Interstate 15
and south of Interstate 90. Current information indicates that, if
wolves are found south of Interstate 90, they would likely be
experimental wolves from the central Idaho area. Wolves north of the
Interstate 90 would likely be naturally dispersing wolves from
northwestern Montana or Canada.
The proposed experimental area does not currently support
reproducing pairs of wolves, nor is it likely that 2 pairs of naturally
dispersing wolves from northwestern Montana would, within the next 3
years, move into the area and establish a breeding population of
wolves. In 3 years, the number of reintroduced wolves should be growing
and potentially dispersing into other areas, including Montana and the
proposed Yellowstone reintroduction area. Except for an established and
growing population of gray wolves in northwestern Montana, only gray
wolf individuals have been documented in the remainder of the northern
Rocky Mountains in the United States. Thus, the central Idaho
reintroduction site is consistent with provisions of section 10(j) of
the Act that requires that an experimental population be wholly
separate geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same
species. An occasional, solitary wolf has been reported, killed, or
otherwise documented in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and other western
States, and single packs occasionally have been reported throughout the
northern Rocky Mountains. However, these reported wolves and groups of
wolves, if all reports are factual, apparently disappeared for unknown
reasons and did not establish recoverable ``populations'' as defined by
wolf experts (Service 1994). However, it is possible that prior to
2002, other wolves may appear in the wild, and be attracted to the
experimental area by the presence of the reintroduced wolves, or by
other factors. These ``new'' wolves that appear in the experimental
population area might contribute to recovery of the experimental
population, and they also would be classified as part of the
nonessential experimental population.
It is anticipated that some wolves may disperse from the
experimental area and contribute to wolf recovery in northwestern
Montana. If so, these wolves would be classified as endangered, as in
the case of wolves that recolonized an area near Glacier National Park
in 1982. It is also possible, but not probable, that during the next 3
years, movements between recovery areas may result in some genetic
exchange between wolves resulting from natural recovery and those
resulting from the reintroduction. It is not anticipated that such
exchange will significantly affect the rate of recovery in the central
Idaho experimental population area.
For the purposes of establishment of this experimental population,
the Service has determined that there is no existing wolf population in
the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and establishment
of an experimental population in the central Idaho area. A wolf
population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of naturally
occurring gray wolves that successfully raise at least two young to
December 31 of their birth year for two consecutive years (Service
1994). If a wolf population were discovered in the proposed recovery
area, no reintroduction would occur. Instead, the success of the
naturally occurring wolf population would be monitored to determine if
population recovery was continuing. If this event occurs before the
effective date of the experimental population rule, those wolves would
be determined to be, and managed as, endangered wolves under the full
authority of the Act. In this case, the experimental rule would not be
implemented, and no wolves would be reintroduced in that experimental
area. If wolf population growth does not continue, and within 5 years
the wolf population has not doubled from the original founding animals,
reintroduction would proceed. Wolves will not be reintroduced if, prior
to introduction of wolves, breeding groups of wolves are discovered.
However, once the experimental population rule is established and the
reintroduction begun by the actual release of wolves into a recovery
area, the experimental population rule would remain in effect until
wolf recovery occurs or after a scientific review indicates that
modifications in the experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf
recovery.
If a wolf population (2 breeding pairs successfully raising two
young each for two consecutive years) were discovered in the proposed
central Idaho experimental population area, reintroduction under an
experimental population rule would not occur in that area and any such
wolf population would be managed as a natural recovering population in
that area. The boundaries of the proposed experimental population area
would be changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of any naturally
occurring, breeding wolf population if such natural population is
discovered prior to the establishment of the experimental population,
and before wolf reintroduction occurs. No experimental population area
will contain a portion of the home range of any active breeding pairs
of wolves that have successfully raised young. Any changes in the
boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area, required
because of the above conditions, would be reflected in a final rule.
It is possible that an exchange of reintroduced wolves may occur
between the central Idaho area and an experimental area established by
reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park. Such interchange,
if it occurs, would pose no problem in determining their status because
wolves from both areas would already be classified as part of
nonessential experimental population.
Utilization of Federal public lands including National Forests is
consistent with the legal responsibility of the Forest Service and all
other Federal agencies under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to utilize
their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying
out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened
species.
Management
As previously stated, the nonessential experimental population of
gray wolves would be established in central Idaho by introducing gray
wolves into Federal lands under authority of section 10(j) of the Act,
as amended. Ongoing wolf monitoring efforts (Service 1994) would
continue to document the presence of any wild wolves, and, prior to any
reintroduction, the Service would make a determination of the status of
any naturally occurring wolf population in this area. Wolves would not
be reintroduced into central Idaho if a naturally occurring wolf
population is documented in the recovery area. After introduction has
been completed according to the Reintroduction Protocol (section 5
above), management of the experimental population will begin.
The Forest Service and the Service will be the primary Federal
agencies implementing the experimental population rule inside the
boundaries of a National Forest. The States of Idaho and Montana and
potentially affected Tribes will be encouraged to enter into
cooperative agreements for management of the gray wolf in central Idaho
and southwestern Montana. These cooperative agreements would be
reviewed annually by the Service to ensure that the States and Tribes
have adequate regulatory authority to conserve listed species,
including the gray wolf. It is anticipated that the States and Tribes
will be the primary agencies implementing this experimental population
rule outside National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The Service
will provide oversight, coordinate wolf recovery activities, and
provide technical assistance. If the States and Tribes do not assume
wolf management responsibilities, the Service would do so, as needed.
Management of the reintroduced wolves would allow wolves to be
killed or moved under some conditions by Service-authorized Federal,
State, and Tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations and
excessive predation on big game populations. Under some conditions, the
public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock (cattle, sheep,
horses, and mules). There would be no Federal compensation program, but
compensation from existing private funding sources would be encouraged.
There would be no land-use restrictions applied when 6 or more wolf
packs were documented in the experimental population area because
sufficient wolf numbers would be available and no restrictions around
den sites or other critical areas would be necessary to promote wolf
recovery. Enhancement of prey populations would be encouraged. Use of
toxicants lethal to wolves in areas occupied by wolves would still be
prohibited by existing labeling restrictions.
Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate and, with 6 packs
of wolves present in a population, about 20-25 pups could be born each
year to greatly compensate for mortality that would result from
management actions. The Service believes that a possible 10 per cent
loss of wolves could occur due to control actions and an additional 10
per cent loss could occur from other mortality sources. However, once
the number of introduced wolves has reached the goal of 6 wolf packs,
the reproductive output of 6 packs of wolves would provide for a wolf
population increasing at or near 22 per cent per year. This increase in
numbers should easily accommodate more flexible wolf management to
further address local concerns and resistance to wolf recovery efforts,
and reduce the need and costs of agency actions to resolve wolf/human
conflicts. Closely regulated public control also can more effectively
focus on individual problem wolves as conflicts occur rather than hours
or days after a problem is documented. Agency control actions would
more likely target groups of wolves that contain problem individuals,
whereas public control could be focused on individual problem wolves.
The Service, or States and Tribes if authorized, may move wolves
that are having unacceptable impacts on ungulate populations in the
unlikely event that those impacts would inhibit wolf recovery. Wolves
could be moved to other places within the experimental population area.
Two examples are where wolf predation is dramatically affecting prey
availability because of unusual habitat or weather conditions (e.g.,
bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape habitat) or where wolves
cause prey to move onto private property and mix with livestock,
increasing potential conflicts. The States and Tribes will define such
unacceptable impacts, how they would be measured, and identify other
possible mitigation in their State or Tribal management plans. These
plans would be approved by the Service through cooperative agreement
before such control could be conducted. Wolves would not be
deliberately killed to resolve ungulate-wolf conflicts. These
unacceptable impacts would be identified in State and Tribal wolf
management plans and developed in consultation with the Service. If
such control by the States or Tribes were likely to be significant or
beyond the provisions of the experimental rule as determined by the
Service, then they would be specifically incorporated as part of an
amendment to this experimental rule, which would include national
public comment and review.
Management of wolves in the experimental population would not
result in any major change in existing private or public land-use
restrictions after 6 breeding pairs of wolves are established in this
experimental area. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in this
experimental area, land-use restrictions could be employed on an as
needed basis, at the discretion of land management and natural
resources agencies to control intrusive human disturbance. Temporary
restrictions on human access, when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are
established, may be required near active wolf den sites between April 1
and June 30.
The Service, or Federal, State or Tribal agencies authorized by the
Service would be allowed to promptly remove any wolf of the
experimental population that the Service, or agency authorized by the
Service, determined was presenting a threat to human life or safety.
Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a person
could legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate threat
to human life. The incidental and accidental nonnegligent take in the
course of otherwise lawful recreational activity or take in defense of
human life, would be permitted by the Service and Service-authorized
agencies, provided that such taking is immediately (within 24 hours)
reported to the authorized State or Federal authority.
The Service or State, Federal, or Tribal agencies designated by the
Service will control wolves that attack livestock (cattle, sheep,
horses, and mules) by management measures that may include aversive
conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when 5 or fewer
breeding pairs are established, and by previously described measures.
However, killing wolves or placing them in captivity may be considered
and used as management options after 6 or more breeding pairs are
established in the experimental population area. For depredation
occurring on public land and prior to 6 breeding pairs becoming
established, depredating females and their pups would be released on
site prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these
circumstances would be moved. Wolves that attack other domestic animals
and pets on private land 2 times in a calendar year would be moved.
Chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic animals after
being moved for previous domestic animal depredations) would be removed
from the wild.
The Service, other Federal agencies, and Tribal and State wildlife
agency personnel would be additionally authorized and should be
prepared to take wolves under special circumstances where there was an
immediate threat to livestock or property, or need to move individuals
for genetic purposes. Wolves could be captured alive and translocated
to resolve demonstrated conflicts with State big-game management
objectives or when they were outside designated wolf pack recovery
areas. Take procedures in such instances would involve live capture and
removal to a remote area, or if the animal is clearly unfit to remain
in the wild, return to a captive facility. Killing of animals would be
a last resort and would be authorized only if live capture attempts
fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
The Service and other authorized management agencies would use the
following conditions and criteria in determining the problem status of
wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:
(1) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must
be present with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976, Fritts 1982)
that wolves were responsible for the damage, and there must be reason
to believe that additional losses would occur if the problem wolf or
wolves were not controlled. Such evidence is essential since wolves may
feed on carrion they have found while not being responsible for the
kill.
(2) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have
occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where
depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal
lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any
control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not
being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies
authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or
otherwise disposed of so that the carcass(es) will not attract wolves.
(3) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating
plans for allotments must have been followed.
Final Federal responsibility for protection of gray wolves in the
experimental population under provisions of the Act would cease after:
(1) a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive
years in each of the three recovery areas presented by the revised wolf
recovery plan (Service 1987), and evaluated by the environmental impact
statement (Service 1994), providing that legal mechanisms are in place
to conserve this population, and (2) gray wolves in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming are delisted according to provisions of the Act. The Act
specifies that the status of a species must be monitored for a 5-period
after delisting. If, after delisting, the wolf population fell below
the minimum criteria of 10 breeding pairs in any recovery area for two
of three consecutive years, wolves in that area would be considered for
relisting under the Act.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final rule resulting from this
proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, comments
or suggestions from the public, States, Tribes, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited.
Comments must be received within 60 days of publication of the proposed
rule in the Federal Register.
Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration
the comments and any additional information received by the Service.
Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this
proposal.
The Service will also hold public hearings to obtain additional
verbal and written information. Hearings are proposed to be held in
Cheyenne, Wyoming; Boise, Idaho; Helena, Montana; Salt Lake City, Utah;
Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C. The location, dates, and
times of these six hearings will be announced in a forthcoming issue of
the Federal Register and in newspapers.
National Environmental Policy Act
An Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental
Policy Act has been prepared and is available to the public (see
ADDRESSES). This proposed rule is an implementation of the proposed
action and does not require revision of the environmental impact
statement on the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National
Park and central Idaho.
Required Determinations
This proposed rule was not subject to Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866. The rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on
the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and
private activities within the experimental population area, significant
economic impacts will not result from this action. Also, no direct
costs, enforcement costs, information collection, or recordkeeping
requirements are imposed on small entities by this action and the rule
contains no record-keeping requirements, as defined in the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule does not
require federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612 because it
would not have any significant federalism effects as described in the
order.
References Cited
Fritts, S.H. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock in Minnesota. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publication 145. 11 pp.
Roy, L.D., and M.J. Dorrance. 1976. Methods of investigating
predation of domestic livestock. Alberta Agriculture, Edmonton,
Alberta. 53 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Reintroduction of gray wolves
to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Helena, Montana. 608 pp.
Author
The principal author of this proposal is Edward E. Bangs (see
ADDRESSES section). Harold M. Tyus, Denver Regional Office, served as
editor.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), the table entry for ``Wolf, gray'' under
``MAMMALS'' is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
------------------------- Scientific name Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Wolf, gray.............. Canis lupus............ Holarctic.............. U.S.A. (48 conterminous E 1, 6, 13, 17.95(a) NA
States, except MN and 15, 35,
where listed as an ____
experimental
population below).
Do...................... ......do............... ......do............... U.S.A. (MN)............ T 35 17.95(a) 17.40(d)
Do...................... ......do............... ......do............... U.S.A. (specific XN ........... NA 17.84( )
portions of ID and MT--
see Sec. 17.84( ).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sec. 17.84 be amended by adding paragraph ( ) following the
last paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special Rules--Vertebrates.
* * * * *
( ) Gray wolf (Canis lupus)
(1) The gray wolf (wolf) population identified in paragraph ( )(6)
of this section is a nonessential experimental population. This
population will be managed in accordance with the respective provisions
of this section.
(2) No person may take this species in the wild in an experimental
population area except as provided in paragraphsP ( )(2), (4), and (7)
of this section.
(i) Landowners on their private land and livestock producers (i.e.,
producers of cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in State
and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service) that are
legally using public land (Federal land and any other public lands
designated in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service) may harass any adult wolf (a wolf that does not exceed 50 lbs
in weight is not considered an adult for these purposes) in an
opportunistic noninjurious manner at any time, Provided that all such
harassment is by methods that are not lethal or physically injurious to
the gray wolf and is reported within 7 days to the Service project
leader for wolf reintroduction or agency representative designated by
the Service.
(ii) Any livestock producers on their private land may take
(including to kill or injure) adult wolves in the act of killing,
wounding, or biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as
defined in State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the
Service), Provided that such incidents must be reported immediately but
no later than within 24 hours to the Service project leader for wolf
reintroduction or agency representative designated by the Service, and
livestock freshly (less than 24 hours) wounded (torn flesh and
bleeding) or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service
authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by
wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to
the appropriate authorities for prosecution. A gray wolf that does not
exceed 50 lbs in weight is not considered an adult and can not be
taken.
(iii) Any livestock producer or permittee with livestock grazing
allotments on public land may receive a written permit from the Service
or other agencies designated by the Service, to take (including to kill
or injure) adult wolves that are in the act of killing, wounding, or
biting livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or as defined in
State and Tribal wolf management plans as approved by the Service),
Provided that 6 or more breeding pairs of wolves have been documented
in that experimental population area and that the Service or other
agencies authorized by the Service has confirmed that the livestock
losses have been caused by wolves and has unsuccessfully attempted to
resolve the problem and subsequent livestock losses are documented.
Such take must be reported immediately but no later than within 24
hours to the Service project leader for wolf reintroduction or agency
representative designated by the Service and livestock freshly wounded
or killed by wolves must be evident. Service or other Service
authorized agencies will confirm if livestock were wounded or killed by
wolves. The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to
the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(iv) The potentially affected States and Tribes may move wolves to
other areas within an experimental population area as described in
paragraph ( )(6), Provided that the level of wolf predation is having
unacceptable impacts on localized ungulate populations and to the
extent that those impacts could inhibit wolf recovery. The States and
Tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, how they would be
measured, and identify other possible mitigation in their State or
Tribal wolf management plans. These plans must be approved by the
Service through cooperative agreement before such movement of wolves
may be conducted.
(v) The Service, or agencies authorized by the Service may promptly
remove (place in captivity or kill) any wolf the Service or agency
authorized by the Service determines to present a threat to human life
or safety.
(vi) Any person may harass or take (kill or injure) a wolf in self
defense or in defense of others, Provided that all such take is
reported immediately (within 24 hours) to the Service reintroduction
project leader or Service designated agent. The taking of any wolf
without such evidence of an immediate and direct threat to human life
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(vii) The Service or agencies designated by the Service may take
wolves that are designated as ``problem wolves'' (as defined below)
that attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules or domestic
animals or as defined by State and Tribal wolf management plans
approved by the Service) by nonlethal measures, including but not
limited to: aversive conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving
wolves when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established, and by
previously described measures. If such measures result in a wolf
mortality, it must be demonstrated that such mortality was
nondeliberate. Lethal control of wolves or placing them in permanent
captivity will be allowed only after 6 or more breeding pairs are
established in the experimental population area. For depredations
occurring on federally managed lands and any additional public lands
identified in State or Tribal wolf management plans and prior to 6
breeding pairs becoming established, depredating female wolves with
pups and their pups will be released at or near the site of capture
prior to October 1. Wolves on private land under these circumstances
will be moved to other areas within the experimental population area.
Wolves that attack domestic animals other than livestock, including
pets on private land, a total of 2 times in a calendar year will be
moved. All chronic problem wolves (wolves that depredate on domestic
animals after being moved once for previous domestic animal
depredations) will be removed from the wild (killed or placed in
captivity). The following three conditions and criteria will apply in
determining the problem status of wolves within the nonessential
experimental population area:
(A) Wounded livestock or some remains of a livestock carcass must
be present with clear evidence that wolves were responsible for the
damage and there must be reason to believe that additional losses would
occur if the problem wolf or wolves were not controlled. Such evidence
is essential because wolves may feed on carrion they have found and may
not be responsible for the death of livestock.
(B) Artificial or intentional feeding of wolves must not have
occurred. Livestock carcasses not properly disposed of in an area where
depredations have occurred will be considered attractants. On Federal
lands, removal or resolution of such attractants must accompany any
control action. Livestock carrion or carcasses on Federal land, not
being used as bait in an authorized control action (by agencies
authorized by the Service), must be removed, buried, burned, or
otherwise disposed of such that the carcass(es) will not attract
wolves.
(C) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously
identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating
plans for allotments must have been followed.
(viii) Any person may take gray wolves found in an area defined in
paragraph ( )(6), Provided that, the take is incidental, accidental,
unavoidable, unintentional, and not resulting from negligent conduct
lacking reasonable due care in the course of otherwise lawful
recreational activity, and that such taking is immediately (within 24
hours) reported to the authorized Service or Service-designated
authority. Take that does not conform with such provisions may be
referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(ix) Service or other Federal, State, or Tribal personnel may be
additionally authorized in writing by the Service to take animals under
special circumstances that pose an immediate threat to livestock or
property, or when animals need to be moved for genetic purposes. Wolves
may be live captured and translocated to resolve demonstrated conflicts
with ungulate populations or with other species listed under the
Endangered Species Act, or when they are outside the designated
experimental population area. Take procedures in such instances would
involve live capture and release to a remote area, or if the animal is
clearly unfit to remain in the wild, return to a captive facility.
Killing of animals will be a last resort and will be authorized only if
live capture attempts fail or there is some clear danger to human life.
(x) Any person with a valid permit issued by the Service under
Sec. 17.32 may take wolves in the wild in the experimental population
area, pursuant to terms of the permit.
(xi) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate Federal,
State or Tribal agency, who is designated in writing for such purposes
by the Service, when acting in the course of official duties, may take
a wolf in the wild in the experimental population area if such action
is necessary:
(A) For scientific purposes;
(B) To relocate wolves to avoid conflict with human activities;
(C) To relocate wolves within the experimental population areas to
improve wolf survival and recovery prospects;
(D) To relocate wolves that have moved outside the experimental
population area back into the experimental population area;
(E) To aid or euthanize sick, injured, or orphaned wolves;
(F) To salvage a dead specimen which may be used for scientific
study; or
(G) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves.
(xii) Any taking pursuant to this section must be reported
immediately (within 24 hours) to the appropriate Service or Service-
designated agency, which will determine the disposition of any live or
dead specimens.
(3) Human access to areas with facilities where wolves are confined
may be restricted at the discretion of Federal, State, and Tribal land
management agencies. When 5 or fewer breeding pairs are in an
experimental population area, land-use restrictions may also be
employed on an as-needed basis, at the discretion of Federal land
management and natural resources agencies to control intrusive human
disturbance around active wolf den sites. Such temporary restrictions
on human access, when 5 or fewer breeding pairs are established in an
experimental population area, may be required between April 1 and June
30, within 1 mile of active wolf den or rendezvous sites. When 6 or
more breeding pairs are established in an experimental population area,
no land use restrictions may be employed outside of National Parks or
National Wildlife Refuges.
(4) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or part thereof
from the experimental populations taken in violation of these
regulations or in violation of applicable State or Tribal fish and
wildlife laws or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
(5) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any offense defined in
paragraphs ( )(2) through (4) of this section.
(6) The site for reintroduction is within the historic range of the
species:
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) The central Idaho Management area is shown on the attached
map. The boundaries of the nonessential experimental population area
will be those portions of Idaho and Montana that are south of
Interstate Highway 90 and West of Interstate Highway 15.
(iii) All wolves found in the wild within the boundaries of this
paragraph ( )(6) after the first releases will be considered
nonessential experimental animals. In the conterminous United States, a
wolf that is outside an experimental area (as defined in paragraph (
)(6) of this section) would be considered as endangered (or threatened
if in Minnesota) unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an
experimental animal; such a wolf may be captured for examination and
genetic testing by the Service or Service-designated agency.
Disposition of the captured animal may take any of the following
courses:
(A) If the animal was not involved in conflicts with humans and is
determined likely to be an experimental wolf, it will be returned to
the reintroduction area.
(B) If the animal is determined likely to be an experimental wolf
and was involved in conflicts with humans as identified in the
management plan for the closest experimental area it may relocated,
placed in captivity, or killed.
(C) If the animal is determined not likely to be an experimental
animal, it will be managed according to any Service approved plans for
that area or will be marked and released near its point of capture.
(D) If the animal is determined not to be a wild grey wolf or if
the Service or agencies designated by the Service determine the animal
shows substantial evidence of recent hybridization with other canids
such as domestic dogs or coyotes or of being an animal raised in
captivity, it will be returned to captivity or killed.
(7) The reintroduced wolves will be continually monitored during
the life of the project, including by the use of radio telemetry and
other remote sensing devices as appropriate. All released animals will
be vaccinated against diseases and parasites prevalent in canids, as
appropriate, prior to release and during subsequent handling. Any
animal that is sick, injured, or otherwise in need of special care may
be captured by authorized personnel of the Service or Service
designated agencies and given appropriate care. Such an animal will be
released back into its respective reintroduction area as soon as
possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to
return the animal to captivity or euthanize it.
(8) The status of the experimental population will be reevaluated
within the first 5 years after the first year of releases of wolves to
determine future management needs. This review will take into account
the reproductive success and movement patterns of the individuals
released in the area, as well as the overall health of the experimental
wolves. Once recovery goals are met for downlisting or delisting the
species, a rule will be proposed to address downlisting or delisting.
(9) The Service does not intend to reevaluate the ``nonessential
experimental'' designation. The Service does not foresee any likely
situation which would result in changing the nonessential experimental
status until the gray wolf is recovered and delisted in the Northern
Rocky Mountains according to provisions outlined in the Act.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
TP16AU94.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Dated: August 8, 1994.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-19997 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P