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

Federal RegisterNov 22, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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

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

The Service determined that reintroduction of wolves into the Park

had the highest probability to succeed due to ecological and political

considerations (Service 1994). The reintroduction effort will enhance

wolf viability by increasing genetic diversity through genetic

interchange between segments of the population. The reintroduction plan

for the Park should help in achieving wolf recovery goals 20 years

sooner than under current natural recovery policy.

Because reintroduced gray wolves will be classified as a

nonessential experimental population, the Service's management

practices can reduce local concerns about excessive government

regulation of private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations,

excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government

involvement in the program.

Establishment of gray wolves in the Park will initiate wolf

recovery in one of the three recovery areas described as necessary for

the species recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains. No existing or

anticipated Federal or State actions identified for this release site

are expected to have major effects on the experimental population.

Central Idaho is identified as the only other alternative site, and it

will also receive wolves for reintroduction which will facilitate

recovery in that experimental area.

5. Reintroduction Protocol: The wolf reintroduction project is

undertaken by the Service in cooperation with the National Park

Service, Forest Service, other Federal agencies, potentially affected

tribes, the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and entities of the

Canadian government. To obtain wolves, the Service will enter into

formal agreements with the Canadian and Provincial governments and/or

resource management agencies.

The Park's wolf reintroduction plan requires transferring 45 to 75

wolves from southwestern Canada, representing various sex and age

classes, over a 3- to 5-year period. The capture of about 15 wild

wolves from several different packs using standard capture techniques

will be done annually over 3 to 5 years. Captured wolves will be

transported to the Park. Wolves from the same pack will be placed in

individual holding pens of about 0.4 hectare (1 acre) for up to 2

months for acclimation to the new environment. The acclimation pens

will be isolated to protect the wolves from other animals and to

prevent habituation to humans. During the acclimation period but after

release, each wolf will be monitored by radiotelemetry to ensure quick

retrieval, if necessary. Carcasses of natural prey taken in the Park

will be provided to the wolves. Veterinary care, including examinations

and vaccinations, will be provided as needed.

Once acclimated, the wolves will be released into the Park. Food

(ungulate carcasses) will be provided until the wolves no longer use

it. Initially, all wolves will be closely monitored with a gradual

reduction over time. Previous experiences with reintroduced wolves have

shown that they may not remain together. In general, attempts to locate

and/or move lone wolves dispersing throughout the Park will not be

done. However, wolves may be moved on a case-by-case basis, if

necessary, to enhance wolf recovery in the experimental area.

Reintroduced wolves will remain in the wild, as long as they are

capable of sustaining themselves on carrion or wild prey. Conflicts

between wolves and humans may result in the recapture and/or removal of

a wolf in accordance with procedures successfully used with other

problem wolves.

An overall assessment of the success of the reintroduction will be

made after the first year and for every year thereafter. Procedures for

subsequent releases could be modified, if information from the previous

reintroduction warrants such changes. The physical reintroduction phase

should be completed within 3-5 years. Once the reintroduced wolves form

two packs with each pack raising two pups, for 2 consecutive years,

management practices would allow the wolves to grow naturally toward

recovery levels. Wolves would only be monitored, and no further

reintroduction would take place unless fewer than two litters were

produced in a single year. This reintroduction effort is consistent

with the recovery goals identified in the 1987 recovery plan for the

northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf.

It is estimated that the Park's reintroduction effort with a

similar effort in central Idaho, plus the natural recovery occurring in

northwestern Montana, could result in a viable recovered wolf

population (10 breeding pairs in each of 3 recovery areas for 3

consecutive years) by the year 2002.

The Service will continue to ask private landowners and agency

personnel adjacent to the Park to immediately report any wolf

observations to the Service or other authorized agencies. An extensive

information and education program will discourage the taking of gray

wolves by the public. Initially, all wolves will be monitored by radio

telemetry and, therefore, easy to locate if necessary. Public

cooperation with the Service will be encouraged to ensure close

monitoring of the wolves and quick resolution of any conflicts that

might arise.

Specific information on wolf reintroduction procedures can be found

in Appendix 4 ``Scientific techniques for the reintroduction of wild

wolves'' in the environmental impact statement: ``The Reintroduction of

Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho'' (Service

1994).

Status of Reintroduced Populations

In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, wolves reintroduced

into the Park are designated as nonessential experimental. Such

designation allows the wolves to be treated as a threatened species or

species proposed for listing for the purposes of sections 4(d), 7, and

9 of the Act. This allows the Service to establish a less restrictive

special rule rather than using the mandatory prohibitions covering

endangered species. The biological status of the wolf and the need for

management flexibility resulted in the Service designating gray wolves

reintroduced into the Park as ``nonessential.'' The Service determined

that the ``nonessential'' designation, with other protective measures,

will conserve and recover the gray wolf in the Yellowstone ecosystem.

It is anticipated that released wolves will come into contact with

humans and domestic animals inside and outside of the Park. Public

opinion surveys, public comments on wolf management planning, and the

positions taken by elected local, State, and Federal government

officials indicate that wolves should not be reintroduced without

assurances that current uses of public and private lands will not be

disrupted by wolf recovery activities. The following provisions respond

to these concerns. There would be no violation of the Act for

unintentional, nonnegligent, and accidental taking of wolves by the

public, provided the take was incidental to otherwise lawful

activities, it did not result from negligent conduct lacking reasonable

due care or was in defense of human life. Such wolf takings would need

to be reported to the Service or other authorized agency within 24

hours. The Service may designate certain Federal, State, and/or tribal

employees to take wolves that required special care or pose a threat to

livestock or property. Private land owners or their designates would be

permitted to harass wolves in an opportunistic noninjurious manner on

their leases or private property, provided such harassment was reported

within 7 days to the Service or other authorized agency.

Under the ``nonessential'' status, private landowners or their

designates would be permitted to take (injure or kill) a wolf in the

act of wounding or killing livestock on private land. However, physical

evidence (wounded or dead livestock) of such an attack would be

required to document that the attack occurred simultaneously with the

taking. A report of such a take would need to be immediately (within 24

hours) reported to the Service or other authorized agency personnel for

investigation. Once six or more breeding pairs are established in the

Park or experimental area, livestock owners or their designates could

receive a permit from a Service-designated agency to take (injure or

kill) gray wolves that are attacking livestock on permitted public

livestock grazing allotments. Such a take would be only permitted after

due notification to Service-designated agencies and unsuccessful

capture efforts.

Wolves that repeatedly (two times in a calendar year) attack

domestic animals other than livestock (fowl, swine, goats, etc.) or

pets (dogs or cats) on private land would be designated as problem

wolves and relocated from the area by the Service or a designated

agency. After one relocation, wolves that continued to depredate on

domestic animals would be considered chronic problem wolves and would

be removed from the wild.

It is unlikely that wolf predation on big game populations would be

primary cause for failure of the States or tribes to meet their

specific big game management objectives outside of the national parks

and national wildlife refuges. The Service could, however, determine

that wolves responsible for excessive depredation should be

translocated to other sites in the experimental area. Such actions are

expected to be rare and unlikely to impact the overall recovery rate.

States and tribes would need to define such situations in their

Service-approved wolf management plans before such actions could be

taken. Under the nonessential designation, wolves could not be

deliberately killed solely to resolve predation conflicts with big

game.

The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho and potentially affected

tribes will be encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements for

management of the gray wolf outside of national parks and national

wildlife refuges. These cooperative agreements would be reviewed

annually by the Service to ensure that the States and tribes have

adequate regulatory authority to conserve listed species, including the

gray wolf. The National Park Service will be the primary agency

implementing the experimental population rule inside the boundaries of

national parks. States and tribes are anticipated to be the primary

agencies implementing this experimental population rule outside of

national parks and national wildlife refuges after their wolf

management plans are approved by the Service. The Service will provide

oversight, coordinate wolf recovery activities, and provide technical

assistance. If the States and tribes do not assume wolf management

responsibilities or adhere to provisions of their wolf management

plans, the Service would assume management authority. If for unforeseen

reasons the wolf population failed to sustain positive growth toward

recovery levels for 2 consecutive years, the influencing factors would

be identified. The Service, and affected States or tribes would be

responsible for determining if any management strategies needed

modification. The Service in coordination with the States and tribes

would implement those strategies to ensure wolf population recovery.

The Service finds that protective measures and management practices

are necessary and advisable for the conservation and recovery of the

gray wolf and that no additional Federal regulations are required. The

Service also finds that the nonessential experimental status is

appropriate for gray wolves taken from wild populations and released in

the Park. The nonessential status for such wolves allows for additional

management flexibility. Nonessential experimental populations located

outside of a national park or national wildlife refuge are treated

under the Act as if they were only proposed for listing, and not

listed. Only section 7(a)(1) and section 7(a)(4) apply to Federal

actions outside national parks and wildlife refuges. Presently, there

are no conflicts envisioned with any current or anticipated management

actions of the Forest Service or other Federal agencies in the areas.

The national forests are beneficial to the reintroduction effort in

that they form a natural buffer to private properties and are typically

managed to produce wild animals that wolves could prey upon. The

Service finds the less restrictive section 7 requirements associated

with the nonessential designation do not pose a threat to the recovery

effort and continued existence of the gray wolf.

The full provisions of section 7 apply to nonessential experimental

populations in a national park or national wildlife refuge.

Consequently, the Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, or

any other Federal agency is prohibited from authorizing, funding, or

carrying out an action within a national park or national wildlife

refuge that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the gray

wolf. Pursuant to 50 CFR 17.83(b), section 7 determinations must

consider all experimental and nonexperimental wolves as a listed

species for analysis purposes in national parks. The Service has

reviewed all ongoing and proposed uses of the parks and refuges and

determined that none are likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of the gray wolf, nor will they adversely affect the success of the

reintroduction program.

Most of the reintroduction area is remote and sparsely inhabited

wild lands. However, there are some risks to wolf recovery associated

with take of wolves in regard to other land uses and various

recreational activities. Potential threats are hunting, trapping,

animal damage control activities, and high speed vehicular traffic.

Hunting, trapping, and USDA Animal Damage Control programs are

prohibited or strictly regulated in national parks, as well as closely

regulated by State and Federal law and policy. There are very few paved

or unpaved roads in the proposed reintroduction area or immediately

outside of it. The unpaved roads typically have low vehicle traffic,

are constructed for low speeds and used only seasonally. Thus, wolves

should encounter vehicles infrequently. In accordance with existing

labeling, the use of toxicants lethal to wolves in areas occupied by

wolves is prohibited. Overall, the possible risks and threats that

could impact the success of the reintroduction effort are thought to be

minimal.

Location of Experimental Population

The release site for reintroducing wolves will be in Yellowstone

National Park. The designated experimental population area will include

the State of Wyoming; that portion of Idaho east of Interstate Highway

15; and the State of Montana east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of

the Missouri River east of Great Falls, Montana, to the Montana/North

Dakota border.

Management

To date, the experimental population area does not currently

support any reproducing pairs of wolves. It is also unlikely that

wolves from the natural southern expansion from northwestern Montana

have arrived in the Park. Except for the gray wolves in northwestern

Montana, only an occasional, isolated wolf has been reported, killed,

or otherwise documented in Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, or other Western

States. Single packs have been reported throughout the northern Rocky

Mountains. However, these reported wolves or groups of wolves, if

factual, apparently disappeared for unknown reasons and did not

establish recoverable ``populations'' as defined by wolf experts. A

wolf population is defined as at least two breeding pairs of gray

wolves that each successfully raise at least two young to December 31

of their birth year for 2 consecutive years (Service 1994). Thus, the

Service has determined that there is no population of wolves in the

Park and therefore, the Park reintroduction is consistent with

provisions of section 10(j) of the Act; specifically, that experimental

wolves need to be geographically separate from other nonexperimental

populations. It is possible that prior to 2002, other wolves may appear

in the wild and be attracted to the experimental area occupied by the

reintroduced wolves. Any ``new'' arrivals would be classified as part

of the experimental population. These wolves could assist in the

recovery and expansion of the experimental population to where wolves

could be dispersing into central Idaho and Montana.

Wolves dispersing into areas in Idaho and Montana, outside of the

experimental area, would continue to receive endangered species

protection under the Act, as did the wolves that recolonized an area

near Glacier National Park in 1982. It is also possible, but not

probable, that during the next 3 years wolves could move between

recovery areas and enhance the genetic diversity between natural

recovery areas and reintroduction sites. It is not anticipated that

such exchange will significantly alter the recovery rate in the Park's

experimental population area.

Although the Service determined that there is no existing wolf

population in the recovery area that would preclude reintroduction and

establishment of an experimental population in the Park, the Service

will continue to determine the presence of any wild wolves. Prior to

any reintroduction, the Service would evaluate the status of any wolves

found in the experimental population area. If a wolf population is

discovered in the proposed experimental area, no reintroduction of

wolves would occur. Instead, the success of the naturally occurring

wolf population would be monitored to determine if recovery was

continuing. If a natural wolf population is located in the experimental

area prior to the effective date of the final rule, then the final rule

would not be implemented and there would be no reintroduction program.

Wolves naturally occurring would be endangered and managed as such,

with full protection under the Act. If the natural wolf population

failed to maintain positive growth for two consecutive years, then the

reintroduction effort could proceed or other recovery measures taken.

After reintroduction is completed, according to the Reintroduction

Protocol (section 5 above), management of the experimental population

will begin.

Once this rule is effective and wolves have been released into the

recovery area, the rule would remain in effect until wolf recovery

occurs or a scientific review indicates that modifications in the

experimental rule are necessary to achieve wolf recovery.

If a wolf population is discovered in the Park's recovery area,

after the effective date of the experimental population rule but before

release, reintroduction under the rule would not occur in that area and

any such wolves would be managed as a natural recovering population.

Boundaries of the proposed experimental population area would be

changed, as needed, to encourage recovery of the naturally occurring,

breeding wolf population. No experimental population area will contain

a portion of the home range of any active breeding pairs of wolves that

have successfully raised young, prior to the establishment of the

experimental area.

Management of the nonessential experimental wolf population would

allow reintroduced wolves to be killed or moved by Service authorized

Federal, State, and tribal agencies for domestic animal depredations

and excessive predation on big game populations. Under special

conditions, the public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock

(cattle, sheep, horses, and mules). There would be no Federal

compensation program, but compensation from existing private funding

sources would be encouraged. When six or more wolf packs are documented

in the experimental population area outside of the national parks and

national wildlife refuges, there would be no land-use restrictions,

including areas around den sites or other critical areas.

Wolves have a relatively high reproductive rate. Projected

recruitment would off-set the anticipated 10 percent mortality

resulting from management control actions. An additional 10 percent

loss could occur from other mortality sources. Once reintroduced wolves

reach the goal of six wolf packs, the reproductive output of the packs

would provide a population increase at or near 22 percent per year.

Closely regulated public control (taking of depredating wolves) would

effectively focus on only individual problem wolves. Agency control

actions would more likely target groups of wolves containing problem

individuals.

The Service, and States or tribes as authorized, could move wolves

that are negatively impacting ungulate populations. Such wolves would

be moved to other places within the experimental population area. Two

examples when this would occur are (1) when wolf predation is

dramatically affecting prey availability because of unusual habitat or

weather conditions (e.g., bighorn sheep in areas with marginal escape

habitat) and (2) when wolves cause prey to move onto private property

and mix with livestock, increasing potential conflicts. The States and

tribes will define such unacceptable impacts, how they would be

measured, and identify other possible mitigation in their State or

tribal management plans which are to be approved by the Service through

cooperative agreement before such control actions are conducted. Wolves

will not be deliberately killed solely to address ungulate-wolf

conflicts. Control actions by the States or tribes likely to be

significant or beyond the provisions of the experimental rule as

determined by the Service would have to be specifically incorporated

into an amendment of this experimental rule and subject to national

public comment and review.

Management of wolves in the experimental population would not cause

major changes to existing private or public land-use restrictions

(except at containment facilities during reintroduction) after six

breeding pairs of wolves are established in this experimental area.

When five or fewer breeding pairs are in the experimental area, land-

use restrictions could be used, as needed, to control intrusive human

disturbance on public lands. Their implementation would be at the

discretion of land management and natural resources agencies. Before

five or fewer breeding wolf pairs are established, temporary

restrictions on human access near active wolf den sites may be required

between April 1 and June 30. Any restrictions on private land would

only occur with complete landowner cooperation and concurrence.

The Service, and Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after they

have been authorized by the Service, could promptly remove any wolf

from the experimental population once the Service, or its authorized

agencies, has determined it was presenting a threat to human life or

safety. Although not a management option per se, it is noted that a

person can legally kill or injure wolves in response to an immediate

threat to human life. The incidental, unavoidable, unintentional,

accidental take in the course of otherwise lawful activity, or in

defense of human life, would be permitted by the Service and its

authorized agencies, provided that such taking was not resulting from

negligent conduct lacking reasonable due care, due care was exercised

to avoid taking a wolf, and the taking was immediately (within 24

hours) reported to the appropriate authorities. Shooters have the

responsibility to identify their target before shooting. The act of

taking a wolf that is wrongly identified as another species, for

purposes of this rule, will be considered as intentional, negligent,

and not accidental. Such take may be referred to the appropriate

authorities for prosecution.

The Service, and other Federal, State, or tribal agencies, after

they have been designated by the Service, may control wolves that

attack livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) by aversive

conditioning, nonlethal control, and/or moving wolves when five or

fewer breeding pairs are established, or by other previously described

measures. Killing wolves or placing them in captivity may only be

considered when there are six or more breeding pairs established in the

experimental population area. When depredation occurs on public land

and prior to the establishment of six breeding pairs, depredating

females and their pups would be captured and released, at or near the

site of capture, one time prior to October 1. If depredations continue,

or if six packs are present, females and their pups would be removed.

Wolves on private land under these same circumstances would be moved.

Wolves that attack other domestic animals or pets on private land twice

in a calendar year would be moved, and chronic problem wolves would be

removed from the wild.

The Service, other Federal agencies, and State or tribal wildlife

personnel would be authorized and trained to take wolves under special

circumstances. Wolves could be live-captured and translocated to

resolve conflicts with State or tribal big-game management objectives,

when they are located outside of the experimental areas, or to enhance

wolf recovery. If the captured animal is clearly unfit to remain in the

wild, it could be placed in a captive facility. Killing of any wolves

would be a last resort and only authorized when live capture attempts

fail or there is some clear danger to human life.

The Service and authorized agencies of the Service would use the

following conditions and criteria to determine the status of problem

wolves within the nonessential experimental population area:

(1) Wounded livestock or the partial remains of a livestock carcass

must be presented with clear evidence (Roy and Dorrance 1976; Fritts

1982) that the livestock injury or death was directly caused by a wolf

or wolves. Such evidence is essential for justifying any control action

because wolves may feed on carrion they did not kill. Additionally,

there must be an indication that additional livestock losses may occur

if the problem wolf or wolves are not controlled.

(2) No evidence of artificial or intentional feeding of wolves can

be present. Improperly disposed livestock carcasses located in the area

of depredation will be considered attractants. On Federal lands,

removal or a decision on the use of such attractants must accompany any

control action. If livestock carrion or carcasses are not being used as

bait for an authorized control action on Federal lands, it must be

removed or otherwise disposed of so that they will not attract wolves.

(3) On Federal lands, animal husbandry practices previously

identified in existing approved allotment plans and annual operating

plans for allotments must have been followed.

Federal responsibility for protecting gray wolves under the

experimental population provisions of the Act would continue until

formal delisting rulemaking procedures are completed. In accordance

with the Act, delisting may occur when analysis of the best available

scientific and commercial information shows that gray wolves are no

longer threatened with extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2)

overutilization, (3) disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In

addition to the above, the following criteria must be met: (1) For 3

consecutive years, a minimum of 10 breeding pairs are documented in

each of the 3 recovery areas described in the revised wolf recovery

plan (Service 1987); (2) protective legal mechanisms are in place; and

(3) the EIS evaluation has been completed (Service 1994). After

delisting, the Act specifies a species population must be monitored for

a 5-year period. After delisting, if in any 1 of the 3 recovery areas

the wolf population fell below the minimum of 10 breeding pairs for 2

consecutive years, then wolves in that recovery area would be

considered for protective status under the Act.

All reintroduced wolves designated as nonessential experimental

will be removed from the wild and the experimental status and

regulations revoked when (1) legal actions or lawsuits change the

wolves status to endangered under the Act or (2) within 90 days of the

initial release date, naturally occurring wolves, consisting of two

breeding pairs that for 2 consecutive years have each successfully

raised two offspring, are discovered in the experimental population

area. The naturally occurring wolves would be managed and protected as

endangered species under the Act.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

Two proposed nonessential experimental population rules for the

areas of Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho were published in

the Federal Register on August 16, 1994 (59 FR 42108 and 59 FR 42118,

respectively) (Service 1994a). The Record of Decision, notification of

the proposed rules, and tentative schedule for public hearings were

mailed to nearly 50,000 people on September 6, 1994. All interested

parties were requested to submit factual reports or information that

might contribute to the development of the final rule. Appropriate

Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific

organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and

requested to comment. A legal notice announcing the proposed rules,

hearings, and inviting public comment were published in the Seattle

Post-Intelligencer, Olympia Olympian, New Paper Agency (Salt Lake City

Papers), Washington Times, Lewiston Morning Tribune, The Idaho

Statesman, Wyoming Tribune, Casper Star Tribune, Bozeman Daily

Chronicle, and Billings Gazette beginning on September 14, 1994.

The Service held six public hearings on the proposed rules. A

notification of the hearings and availability of the Record of Decision

and proposed rules was published in the Federal Register on September

14, 1994 (59 FR 47112). Copies of the proposed rules were distributed

to all interested parties. Public hearings were held on September 27,

1994, in Boise, Idaho; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Helena, Montana, and on

September 29, 1994, in Salt Lake City, Utah; Washington, D.C.; and

Seattle, Washington. About 90 people testified at these hearings and

about 330 people submitted written comments. Comment on the proposed

rules was accepted until October 17, 1994.

A total of 426 written and oral responses, representing 621

signatures, were received during the proposed rule 34-day comment

period. Several letters, including letters from the Governor of the

State of Wyoming and the Colorado Wool Growers Association, were

received after comment period closed. However, these letters were

reviewed and considered. From October 17 to 24, 1994, a specialized

interagency team analyzed the public comments. After October 31, 1994,

the team's report was distributed to agency cooperators and to anyone

requesting it (Service 1994c). In addition to the public comments,

three Notices of Intent to Sue were received. The Service has completed

its review and consideration of all written and oral comments. All of

the issues raised by the public on the proposed rules were previously

identified and addressed in the final EIS. Analysis of the comments

revealed 25 issues which are identified and discussed below.

Changes in final rule as a result of public comment: The following

minor changes and clarifications were made to the final rule or to

discussions of the final rule based on public comments on the proposed

rule. These individual or cumulative changes do not alter the predicted

impact or effect of the final rule.

1. Several conditions on when wolves may be harassed or taken were

removed from the final rule. The following conditions are not part of

the final rule: (1) Distinction between adult wolves and pups, and (2)

harassment may only occur for 15 minutes.

2. In the background discussion of the final rule, it was clarified

that after a private individual takes a depredating wolf, no additional

agency actions will be conducted to control problem wolves in an area,

unless more livestock depredations occur. This assumes that the problem

wolf was killed, and therefore, no other control actions are required.

3. Several terms in the final rule were clarified and defined,

including: ``opportunistic noninjurious harassment,'' ``unintentional

take,'' ``disposal of livestock carrion,'' issuance criteria for a wolf

take permit to a grazing lessee on public lands, and criteria for

resolving wolf/ungulate conflicts.

4. A termination clause was added to the final rule. The clause

clarifies the Service's role and responsibilities regarding the

establishment of an experimental population.

5. Three years following the initial reintroduction of wolves, a

thorough review will be conducted. The review will determine if further

reintroductions are required and if, to date, the management program

has been successful. A provision to the rule was added that if the

reintroduction and management practices under the experimental

population rule did not result in wolf recovery, the Service would take

appropriate actions. Such actions would be caused by the failure of the

wolf population to maintain positive growth for 2 consecutive years.

All corrective actions would be coordinated with affected States,

tribes, and other Federal agencies.

6. Language regarding scientific or technical decisions in the

background discussion of the rule was changed. Study design and

reintroduction techniques may be changed or modified when expert and

skilled biologists determine such changes are necessary and prudent.

A list of relevant issues based on public comments and the

Service's response to those issues follows.

Issue 1: The subspecies of wolf that occupied the Yellowstone area

was Canis lupus irremotus. The reintroduction program will use wolves

from Canada which were once classified as a different subspecies;

therefore, this violates the experimental population provision of the

Act.

Service Response: In recent times, there have been several

revisions to the taxonomic classification of wolves in North America.

Several scientific investigations have dealt with this issue (Brewster

and Fritts 1994, Nowak 1994, Wayne et al. 1994). These investigations

concluded (1) there were fewer wolf subspecies than previously

believed, (2) irremotus was not a distinct subspecies, and (3) that

wolves might be better classified as types or representative groups of

geographic or climatic conditions rather than distinct subspecies. The

northern Rocky Mountains are within the historic range of Canis lupus.

Investigators conclude that reintroduction of wolves from Canada to the

Park or central Idaho would accelerate the ongoing natural southern

expansion of the species. Additionally, it was determined that current

taxonomic discussions of wolf subspecies should not affect wolf

recovery efforts in the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States.

Issue 2: The amendment to section 10(j) of the Act states that

experimental populations may only be designated when there is

geographical separation between the experimental population and other

existing populations of the species. The occasional occurrence of lone

wolves in the areas of central Idaho and Yellowstone would prohibit the

use of the experimental population designation since there would be no

geographic separation between natural occurring and experimental

wolves. Comments also stated that the boundaries of the experimental

areas should be adjusted or the reintroduction program should be

delayed, particularly, in central Idaho due to the presence of

naturally occurring wolves.

Service Response: For many years, the Service and other agencies

have tried to document wolf activity in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming

(Service 1994a Appendix 12). Since the 1970's, wolf observations

particularly from Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, have been reported.

However, to date the only documented breeding groups of wolves are in

northwestern Montana. Based on scientific inquiry, the Service defines

a wolf population as at least two breeding pairs of wild wolves each

successfully raising at least two young each year, for 2 consecutive

years, and that a population is composed of breeding groups of wolves

(Service 1994a, Appendix 9). Presently, there are no known breeding

pairs of wolves within the experimental area. Nor does the experimental

area contain any portions of home ranges of any breeding pairs of

wolves. The Service finds that there is no geographic overlap between

any Montana wolf population home range and the experimental area. The

northern boundary of the Idaho experimental population area was moved

further south because, in 1990 and 1992, there were a few instances

when an active breeding group of wolves from Montana were located south

of the experimental boundary recommended in the proposed rule. The

rulemaking language now allows revocation of this rule and removal of

all reintroduced wolves, if within 90 days after the initial

reintroduction a naturally occurring wolf population is discovered in

the experimental area. Any naturally occurring wolves will be managed

as endangered species under the Act and afforded the same terms and

conditions as wolves in Montana. The Service has had a wolf monitoring

program in place in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming for over two years. This

system is designed to accept reports from anyone, and when a report

focuses on a particular area a wolf biologist investigates to verify

the presence or absence of wolves. Through this method the Service has

identified newly formed packs in northwestern Montana. Within the

experimental area, no confirmation of wolves from provided reports has

occurred.

Issue 3: The experimental population rules did not utilize the best

scientific and commercial data available to reach decisions, as

required by the Act.

Service Response: The Service contends that this rule and the

Secretary's decision to reintroduce wolves used the best scientific

data available and underwent peer review and scientific analysis. The

EIS on the impacts of this rule includes several appendices and a list

of persons who contributed their expert opinions or relevant data to

the decisionmaking process (Service 1994a). Professional wildlife

biologists and scientific organizations complimented the Service on the

depth and detail of its scientific investigation in regards to the

reintroduction of wolves.

Issue 4: The reintroduction plan does not enhance the conservation

and recovery of wolves, as required by the Act. Reintroduction,

particularly in central Idaho, should not be conducted or should be

delayed for several years while a search for existing wolves is

conducted.

Service Response: For the past 20 years and presently, the Service

and others have searched for wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains.

Reviews of correspondence from the past 25 years show the longstanding

and widespread view that wolves already occupied Idaho and the

discovery of their presence imminent. Very extensive monitoring within

the experimental population area has not confirmed the presence of

wolves. This particular species is not habitat limited and if allowed

to get into the experimental area would reproduce and survive. The

translocation of wild wolves from Canada to the Park will provide the

opportunity to start a wolf population. This translocation effort will

greatly facilitate recovery of the gray wolf in the Yellowstone

ecosystem. The 1987 Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan recommended an

additional 5 years of monitoring for natural wolf recovery in Idaho.

However, the recovery plan provided other options if two breeding pairs

of wolves had not become established in Idaho during the 5 years.

Because no breeding pairs have been located, the draft and final EIS

and Record of Decision allow the simultaneous reintroduction of wolves

into central Idaho and the Park in an effort to ensure the viability

and conservation of wolves in the Rocky Mountains (Service 1994a,

Appendix 16).

Issue 5: The Service proposed a very liberal experimental rule to

accommodate concerns of local residents and the affected States.

However, it did not make allowances for unforeseen circumstances that

may impede or prevent wolf population growth and recovery. Options such

as increased management or greater numbers of reintroductions should be

allowed if required.

Service Response: The Service believes that, as proposed,

reintroduction and management techniques will result in wolf population

recovery and delisting by about 2002. Rulemaking language was added

clarifying that take activities must lead to eventual recovery of the

wolf. Additionally, if there is no progress in achieving wolf

population recovery (i.e., if wolves in a recovery area do not exhibit

positive growth for 2 consecutive years), then factors impacting

population growth will be investigated. Information from the

investigation will be made available to the public and appropriate

Federal, State, and tribal agencies. Within a year, the agencies may

recommend and implement new management actions or modifications to

their wolf management plans to correct factors negatively impacting

wolf recovery. Only as a last resort would changes or modifications to

sections of the experimental rule be made.

Issue 6: The proposed rules' requirements that ``only adult wolves

(greater than 50 pounds) can be harassed'' and then ``only for 15

minutes'' and ``only adult wolves that are witnessed attacking

livestock on private land can be killed by private parties'' are overly

restrictive. The provision that wolves can only be killed under a

special permit when (1) seen attacking livestock for the third time on

Federal lands, (2) six or more wolf packs are present in the

experimental population, and (3) all agency control efforts have

failed, does not address the issues in a timely or efficient manner.

The implication that land-use restrictions may be employed on private

lands when five or fewer wolf packs are present in the experimental

area also needs clarification.

Service Response: The Service agrees and has eliminated (1) the

distinction between adult wolves and pups for both noninjurious

harassment and take and (2) the length of time wolves may be harassed

(as long as physical injury is not incurred). Permittees with grazing

rights on public land can readily obtain a written take permit for

wolves seen attacking livestock. However, issuance criteria still

require that prior to issuing the 45-day take permit (1) six or more

wolf packs must be present in the experimental population area, (2)

authorized agencies must confirm that a wolf caused the livestock

injury or death, and (3) other agency control actions have failed to

resolve the problem. The final rule also clarifies that no land-use

restrictions will be exercised by Federal agencies on private land at

any time.

Issue 7: Certain parts of the rule need to be more specific, so

that potential management situations are individually described and

addressed in the final rule. Commenters provided a variety of scenarios

as examples.

Service Response: The Service added or clarified definitions and/or

language in the final rule. However, the wolf reintroduction program is

complex and has many unforeseen variables. It is impossible to imagine

or describe in detail every situation that might arise during its

implementation. Some situations can only be accurately addressed on a

case-by-case basis and judged by their particular circumstances. It is

the intent of the Service to use the experimental rule to aid the

conservation, recovery, and eventual delisting of wolf populations in

the northern Rocky Mountains of the United States. The Service in

cooperation with other Federal, State, and tribal agencies will use the

flexibility of the experimental rule to address local concerns and

unforeseen situations. The professional expertise and experience of

wildlife managers will facilitate the implementation and any

modifications needed to improve the wolf reintroduction program.

Additional language was added to the rule, clarifying that management

flexibility is required as the program is implemented and refined.

Issue 8: The Service should make a clear commitment to fund all

aspects of wolf reintroduction and management, including compensation

to the States and tribes for their efforts. The Service should closely

monitor the compliance of other agencies to the experimental population

rules.

Service Response: To date, the Federal government has funded the

participation of affected States and tribes in regard to wolf

restoration program. The Service plans to continue its funding

commitment with Congressional appropriations until wolves are delisted.

The public stated its concern over the use of taxpayer dollars and the

need for government to wisely spend tax dollars. The Service,

therefore, must keep expenses for wolf reintroduction as low as

possible while maintaining an effective program. The Service will

encourage the States and tribes to submit reasonable budgets for wolf

management programs, as well as search for ways to pool and coordinate

resources so that overall costs are reduced. It is the legal

responsibility of the Service to monitor the progress and adherence of

State and tribal agencies to their management plans. The Service will

ensure and work cooperatively with others to meet the stated recovery

goals.

Issue 9: The wolf reintroduction effort needs to have a federally

funded livestock damage compensation program. Wolf reintroduction will

result in the ``taking'' of constitutionally protected private property

rights.

Service Response: In Montana, the Defenders of Wildlife implemented

a private livestock compensation program. Because the Defenders Program

has been successful, it was expanded to include Idaho and Wyoming. The

Service will not directly fund a livestock compensation program. The

Service will encourage livestock producers to utilize private

compensation programs when depredation occurs. The Service and USDA

Animal Damage Control will aid livestock producers by maintaining an

effective control program that minimizes livestock losses due to

wolves. The rule addresses the concerns of private property owners by

(1) providing an effective control program, (2) allowing landowners to

take wolves on their private land when justified, and (3) invoking no

land-use restrictions on private land. The Service has reviewed the

constitutionality of this rule in regard to protected private property

rights. The review concludes the Service's actions do not violate the

private property rights of individuals (Service 1994a, Appendix 6).

Issue 10: The Act requires the Service to consult with appropriate

Federal, State, tribal, and local entities or private landowners, to

the maximum extent practicable, prior to promulgating regulations. The

Service has failed to meet such requirements.

Service Response: It is well documented that the Service made an

extraordinary effort to involve the public and other government

entities in developing management practices and the experimental

population rules regarding the wolf reintroduction program. During the

past 3 years, the Service held over 100 meetings, open houses, and

hearings. The Service distributed over 750,000 documents and reviewed

and considered nearly 170,000 public comments during development of the

rule. Federal agencies and affected States and tribes were active

participants during the process. This final rule represents the

participatory work and consensus of affected agencies and others

interested or impacted by the rulemaking.

Issue 11: Further discussion and detail are needed on how State and

tribal agencies will manage wolf predation and ungulate population

levels. The public needs to know exactly what will be done in regard to

this issue.

Service Response: The Service is confident in the States' and

tribes' ability to evaluate the impact wolf predation may have on

ungulate populations and, when appropriate, implement corrective

management actions. An evaluation of possible impacts and/or actions in

regard to a specific ungulate species and location is best accomplished

by biologists most familiar with the situation. The Service, States,

and tribes will coordinate wolf management plans to ensure that State

and tribal interests in native ungulate management are met while

meeting the Service's mandate for wolf recovery. Rulemaking language

was added to the section on how States and tribes will manage ungulate/

wolf conflicts. States and tribes are required to prepare acceptable

management plans for approval by the Service. It is expected that since

these management plans may affect State wildlife management programs,

the States will go through a public review process as part of their

development. Such plans will indicate the point at which wolf/ungulate

conflicts become so critical that corrective action must be taken. A

decision to translocate wolves to reduce such conflicts must serve to

enhance, or at a minimum not inhibit, wolf recovery.

Issue 12: The timeframe for submitting a report on the harassing

and/or taking of wolves by the public should be changed (both shortened

or lengthened were mentioned).

Service Response: The timeframes for a person to report the

harassing (7 days) and/or the unintentional taking (24 hours) of wolves

were not changed. The harassing or taking of a wolf is a critical and

potentially serious event. A person who harasses a wolf is best served

by reporting the incident as soon as possible so agency management

actions can be implemented, if necessary. Submission of a report on

wolf harassment provides a record which can document the continuation

of suspected or actual livestock depredations or rationale for taking a

wolf. The immediate reporting of livestock depredation by a wolf also

allows the immediate investigation of the incident and gathering of

fresh evidence. In Montana, agency professionals who investigate

livestock depredations are readily accessible during the night,

weekends, and holidays. During the past 9 years in Montana, the

reporting, documenting, and resolution of livestock depredations have

not been significant issues. Therefore, they are not anticipated to be

a problem for wolf reintroductions into the experimental population

areas. The United States legal system often takes into account unusual

mitigating circumstances, such as the remoteness of a livestock

allotment interfering with an individual being able to report an

incident as required by regulation. The Service could determine that an

incident would not be referred for prosecution, when a person failed to

meet the reporting requirements and could justify their action.

Issue 13: The delisting criteria should be clearly identified. The

delisting of one recovery area should be independent of the status of

other recovery areas.

Service Response: In accordance with the Act, delisting may occur

when analysis of the best available scientific and commercial

information shows that gray wolves are no longer threatened with

extinction due to: (1) Loss of habitat, (2) overutilization, (3)

disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,

and (5) other natural or manmade factors. In addition to the above, the

final EIS, states that the following criteria must be met: (1) For 3