You are seeing our new document Reader view. Click here to revert. Feel free to leave us feedback on this feature here.

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

10956

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 46/Tuesday, March 9, 2004/Proposed Rules

social services, or because of theirreligious character or affiliation.(f) A religious organization

’

sexemption from the Federal prohibitionon employment discrimination on the basis of religion, set forth in section702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. 2000e

–

1, is not forfeited whenthe religious organization receives director indirect financial assistance fromDepartment. Some Departmentprograms, however, containindependent statutory provisionsrequiring that all recipients agree not todiscriminate in employment on the basis of religion. Accordingly, granteesshould consult with the appropriateDepartment program office if they havequestions about the scope of anyapplicable requirement.(g) In general, the Department doesnot require that a recipient, including areligious organization, obtain tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code to be eligiblefor funding under Department programs.Many grant programs, however, dorequire an organization to be a

‘‘

nonprofit organization

’’

in order to beeligible for funding. Individualsolicitations that require organizationsto have nonprofit status will specificallyso indicate in the eligibility section of a solicitation. In addition, anysolicitation that requires an organizationto maintain tax-exempt status willexpressly state the statutory authorityfor requiring such status. Granteesshould consult with the appropriateDepartment program office to determinethe scope of any applicablerequirements. In Department programsin which an applicant must show thatit is a nonprofit organization, theapplicant may do so by any of thefollowing means:(1) Proof that the Internal RevenueService currently recognizes theapplicant as an organization to whichcontributions are tax deductible undersection 501(c)(3) of the Internal RevenueCode;(2) A statement from a state or othergovernmental taxing body or the statesecretary of state certifying that:(i) The organization is a nonprofitorganization operating within the state;and(ii) No part of its net earnings may benefit any private shareholder orindividual;(3) A certified copy of the applicant

’

scertificate of incorporation or similardocument that clearly establishes thenonprofit status of the applicant; or(4) Any item described in paragraphs(g)(1) through (3) of this section if thatitem applies to a state or national parentorganization, together with a statement by the state or parent organization thatthe applicant is a local nonprofitaffiliate.(h) If a state or local governmentcontributes its own funds, including butnot limited to matching funds, tosupplement activities carried out underthe applicable programs, the state orlocal government has the option toseparate out the Federal funds orcommingle them. If the funds arecommingled, the provisions of thissection shall apply to all of thecommingled funds in the same manner,and to the same extent, as the provisionsapply to the Federal funds.(i) To the extent otherwise permitted by Federal law, the restrictions oninherently religious activities set forthin this section do not apply whereDepartment funds are provided toreligious organizations as a result of agenuine and independent private choiceof a beneficiary or through otherindirect funding mechanisms, providedthe religious organizations otherwisesatisfy the requirements of the program.A religious organization may receivesuch funds as the result of a beneficiary

’

s genuine and independentchoice if, for example, a beneficiaryredeems a voucher, coupon, orcertificate, allowing the beneficiary todirect where funds are to be paid, orthrough a similar funding mechanismprovided to that beneficiary anddesigned to give that beneficiary achoice among providers.

Dated: March 1, 2004.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04

–

5110 Filed 3

–

04; 8:58 am]

BILLING CODE 4154

–

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018

–

AT61

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Regulations forNonessential ExperimentalPopulations of the Western DistinctPopulation Segment of the Gray Wolf

AGENCY

Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

We, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Service) proposeregulations for the nonessentialexperimental populations of the westerndistinct population segment (DPS) of thegray wolf (

Canis lupus

). In addition, wepropose regulations so that States withwolf management plans approved by theService can apply for additionalauthorities to manage wolves consistentwith those approved plans. Theseproposed regulations would only haveeffect in States that have an approvedState management plan for gray wolves.Within the western DPS of the graywolf, only the States of Idaho andMontana have approved Statemanagement plans for gray wolves; theState of Wyoming has prepared a wolf management plan which was notapproved by the Service; therefore, if finalized, these regulatory changeswould not affect existing wolf management in Wyoming. As wediscussed in our advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding delistingthe western DPS of the gray wolf, onceall the States have approved wolf management plans, we intend topropose removing the western DPS fromthe List of Endangered and ThreatenedVertebrates. This proposed rule wouldalso not affect the eastern DPS or thesouthwestern DPS of the gray wolf.

DATES

Comments on this proposed rulemust be received by May 10, 2004.Public hearings will be scheduled forBoise, ID, and Helena, MT, during thecomment period (see

‘‘

Public Hearings

’’

in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section). Requests for additional publichearings must be received by April 8,2004.

ADDRESSES

U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Western Gray Wolf RecoveryCoordinator, 100 N. Park, #320, Helena,MT 59601. Comments on this proposedrule may be sent to this address, or byelectronic mail to

WesternGrayWolf@fws.gov

. If yousubmit comments by e-mail, pleasesubmit them as an ASCII file and avoidthe use of special characters and anyform of encryption. Please also include

‘‘

Attn: RIN 1018

–

AT61

’’

and your nameand return address in your e-mailmessage. If you do not receive aconfirmation from the system that wehave received your e-mail message,contact us directly by calling our Helenaoffice at telephone number 406

–

449

–

5225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

EdBangs, Western Gray Wolf RecoveryCoordinator, at telephone number 406

–

449

–

5225, ext. 204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Background

On April 1, 2003, we published in the

Federal Register

(69 FR 15879) anadvance notice of proposed rulemakingthat announced our intention to proposerulemaking under the Endangered

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:11 Mar 08, 2004Jkt 200001PO 00000Frm 00018Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM09MRP1

10957

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 46/Tuesday, March 9, 2004/Proposed Rules

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),to remove the western distinctpopulation segment (DPS) of the graywolf (

Canis lupus

) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife inthe near future. At the time, weindicated that the numbers of wolves inthe western DPS had exceeded ourrecovery goals; we reported that, at theend of 2001, 563 wolves could be foundin 34 packs in the northern U.S.Rockies. We also emphasized theimportance of State and tribal wolf management plans to our delistingdecision; we believe these plans will bethe major determinants of wolf protection and prey availability, andwill set and enforce limits on humanutilization and other forms of taking,once the wolf is delisted. In short, theseState and tribal management plans willdetermine the overall regulatoryframework for the future conservation of gray wolves after delisting. For reasonswe discuss in more detail below, we arenot yet prepared to propose delisting thewestern DPS of gray wolves; here, wepropose new regulations for thenonessential experimental populationsof the western DPS of gray wolves thatare found in States with Service-approved State wolf management plans.Gray wolf (

Canis lupus

) populationswere eliminated from Montana, Idaho,and Wyoming, as well as adjacentsouthwestern Canada, by the 1930s(Young and Goldman 1944). Afterhuman-caused mortality of wolves insouthwestern Canada was regulated inthe 1960s, populations expandedsouthward (Carbyn 1983). Dispersingindividuals occasionally reached thenorthern Rocky Mountains of the UnitedStates (Ream and Mattson 1982, Nowak1983), but lacked legal protection thereuntil 1974 when they were listed asendangered.Section 10(j) of the Act gives theSecretary of the Interior the authority todesignate populations of listed speciesthat are reintroduced outside theircurrent range, but within their probablehistorical range, as

‘‘

experimentalpopulations

’’

for the purposes of promoting the recovery of those species by establishing additional wildpopulations. Such a designationincreases our flexibility in managingreintroduced populations, becauseexperimental populations are generallytreated as threatened species under theAct. Threatened status, in comparison toendangered status, allows thepromulgation of special regulations tofurther promote the conservation of thespecies.Furthermore, the Secretary isauthorized to designate experimentalpopulations as

‘‘

nonessential

’’

if theyare determined to be not essential to thecontinued existence of the species. Forthe purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act(Interagency Cooperation), nonessentialexperimental populations, except wherethey occur within areas of the NationalWildlife Refuge System or the NationalPark System, are treated as speciesproposed to be listed as threatened orendangered species, rather than as alisted species.In 1994, we promulgated specialregulations under Section 10(j) of theAct for the purposes of wolf reintroduction. Those regulations,codified at 50 CFR 17.84(i), establishedtwo non-essential experimentalpopulations, the central Idaho non-essential experimental population areaand the Yellowstone non-essentialexperimental population area, and weremeant to address the potential negativeimpacts or concerns regarding wolf reintroduction.Since reintroduction began in 1994,wolf populations in both experimentalareas have exceeded expectations. Thissuccess has prompted the Service toupgrade the current status of graywolves, outside of the experimentalpopulations, to threatened; we alsopublished an advance notice of proposed rule making indicating ourintention to delist the western DPS of gray wolves in the near future (68 FR15879). However, this reclassificationhad no effect on the status of theexperimental populations in Idaho orYellowstone, which were alreadytreated as threatened.In the preamble to the 1994regulations where we established thenonessential experimental populations,we also identified protective measuresand management practices necessary forthe populations

’

conservation andrecovery. As wolves in the nonessentialexperimental populations are treated asa threatened species, these regulationsprovided additional flexibility inmanaging wolf populations within theexperimental population areascompared to outside, where wolveswere listed as endangered. In 2003,however, when we reclassified wolvesin the western DPS as threatened, wealso published special regulations(found in 50 CFR 17.40(n)) thatprovided more flexible management forthe species outside the experimentalpopulation areas.The rule we adopted in 2003,however, did not apply within theexperimental population areas; as aresult, State wolf management iscurrently more flexible outside theexperimental population areas. We nowpropose, under this rule, regulations at50 CFR 17.84, for States with Service-approved State wolf management plansonly, that would adopt similarprovisions which expand allowablemanagement for the experimentalpopulation areas, providing moreconsistent management rules bothinside and outside experimentalpopulation areas. In addition, theseproposed regulations also provide forthe transition from the provisions of thisrule to those provisions of Service-approved State wolf management plansconsistent with federal regulations fornonessential experimental wolveswithin the boundaries of the State, withthe exception of lands managed by theNational Park Service and the Fish andWildlife Service. This change wouldprovide States with much of theflexibility in wolf management nowlimited to the Service, but only wherethe Secretary has already determinedthat the State

’

s wolf management would be consistent with the protectionsalready provided to wolves under theAct. For States without approvedmanagement plans the existingregulations are retained.

Previous Federal Actions

The northern Rocky Mountain wolf (

Canis lupus irremotus

) was listed asendangered in Montana and Wyomingin the first list of species that wereprotected under the 1973 Act, publishedin May 1974 (USDI 1974). To eliminateproblems with listing separatesubspecies of the gray wolf andidentifying relatively narrow geographicareas in which those subspecies areprotected, on March 9, 1978, wepublished a rule (43 FR 9607) relistingthe gray wolf at the species level (

Canuslupus

) as endangered throughout theconterminous 48 States and Mexico,except Minnesota, where the gray wolf was reclassified to threatened. Inaddition, critical habitat was designatedin that rulemaking.On November 22, 1994, we designatedareas in Idaho, Montana, and Wyomingas nonessential experimentalpopulations in order to initiate graywolf reintroduction projects in centralIdaho and the Greater Yellowstone area(59 FR 60252, 59 FR 60266). Theseexperimental population designationsalso contain special regulations thatgovern the take of wolves within thegeographical areas (codified at 50 CFR17.84(i)). The rules governing theseexperimental populations allowed forincremental increases in the authority of States to manage the wolves under aState management plan approved by theService. Specifically, the rules allowedStates to define livestock for purposes of managing conflicts between wolves andlivestock, and the rule also allowed

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:11 Mar 08, 2004Jkt 200001PO 00000Frm 00019Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM09MRP1

10958

Federal Register

/Vol. 69, No. 46/Tuesday, March 9, 2004/Proposed Rules

States to document adverse effects of wolves on ungulates for the purposes of managing conflicts in this regard.In January 1995, fifteen young adultwolves captured in Alberta, Canada,were released in central Idaho. During January 1996, an additional twentywolves from British Columbia werereleased into the central Idahoexperimental population area. In March1995, fourteen wolves from Alberta,representing three family groups werereleased in Yellowstone National Park.In April 1996, this procedure wasrepeated with seventeen wolves fromBritish Columbia.On January 12, 1998, we establisheda third nonessential experimentalpopulation area to reintroduce theMexican gray wolf into its historicalhabitat in the southwestern States (63FR 1752).We received several petitions duringthe past decade requestingconsideration to delist the gray wolf inall or part of the 48 conterminous States.We subsequently published findingsthat these petitions did not presentsubstantial information that delistinggray wolves in all or part of theconterminous 48 States may bewarranted (54 FR 16380, April 24, 1989;55 CFR 48656, November 30, 1990; 63FR 55839, October 19, 1998).On July 13, 2000, we published aproposal (65 FR 43450) to revise thecurrent listing of the gray wolf acrossmost of the conterminous United States.On April 1, 2003, we published a finalrule establishing three DPSs (Western,Eastern, and Southwestern) andreclassifying the gray wolf fromendangered to threatened in the Westernand Eastern DPSs except wherenonessential experimental populationsexisted (68 FR 15804). We alsoestablished special regulations undersection 4(d) of the Act for thereclassified DPSs. Also on April 1, 2003,we published two Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking announcing ourintent to delist the gray wolf in theEastern (68 FR 15876) and Western (68FR 15879) DPSs at some point in thefuture.

Recovery Goals

Current population figures from theService indicate that the experimentalpopulations within central Idaho andYellowstone have exceeded currentrecovery goals (30 packs well-distributed in recovery areas). In 2002,the Service published populationfigures for the gray wolf, which indicatethere were between 650 to 700 wolvesin about 41 breeding pairs equitablydistributed throughout Montana (about120 wolves in 13 breeding packs), Idaho(about 285 wolves in 10 breedingpacks), and Greater Yellowstone (270wolves in 18 breeding packs). 2002 wasthe third year that the wolf populationin the northern Rocky Mountains hashad thirty or more breeding pairs.

Currently Designated NonessentialExperimental Populations of GrayWolves

The Secretary has designated threenonessential experimental populationareas for the gray wolf, and wolves havesubsequently been reintroduced intothese areas. These nonessentialexperimental population areas are theYellowstone Nonessential ExperimentalPopulation Area, the Central IdahoNonessential Experimental PopulationArea, and the Mexican Wolf Nonessential Experimental PopulationArea. The first two of these are intendedto further the recovery of gray wolves inthe northern U.S. Rocky Mountains, andthe third is part of our Mexican wolf recovery program, as described in theirrespective recovery plans (Service 1982,1987).The Yellowstone ExperimentalPopulation Area consists of that portionof Idaho east of Interstate Highway 15;that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of theMissouri River from Great Falls,Montana, to the eastern Montana border;and all of Wyoming (59 FR 60252;November 22, 1994). However, asexplained below, the new regulationsproposed here will not apply inWyoming.The Central Idaho ExperimentalPopulation Area consists of that portionof Idaho that is south of InterstateHighway 90 and west of Interstate 15;and that portion of Montana south of Interstate 90, west of Interstate 15, andsouth of Highway 12 west of Missoula(59 FR 60266; November 22, 1994).A third similar nonessentialexperimental population area wasestablished to reintroduce the Mexicangray wolf into its historical habitat inthe southwestern States. The MexicanGray Wolf Nonessential ExperimentalPopulation Area consists of that portionof Arizona lying south of InterstateHighway 40 and north of InterstateHighway 10; that portion of NewMexico lying south of InterstateHighway 40 and north of InterstateHighway 10 in the west and north of theTexas-New Mexico border in the east;and that part of Texas lying north of U.S. Highway 62/180 (63 FR 1752; January 12, 1998).This proposed rule will not affect theMexican Gray Wolf NonessentialExperimental Population, nor will itaffect the existing special regulationsthat apply to it.

Current Special Regulations for theWestern DPS

Two different special regulationscurrently apply to the Western DPS.In 1994, the Service establishedspecial regulations found at 17.48(i) forthese two experimental populationsallow flexible management of wolves,including authorization for privatecitizens to take wolves in the act of attacking livestock on private land.These rules also provide a permitprocess that similarly allows the taking,under certain circumstances, of wolvesin the act of attacking livestock grazingon public land. In addition, they allowopportunistic noninjurious harassmentof wolves by livestock producers onprivate and public grazing lands, anddesignated government employees mayperform lethal and nonlethal controlefforts to remove problem wolves underspecified circumstances.As mentioned above, we promulgateda special rule under 4(d) for the WesternDPS outside of the nonessentialexperimental population areas (theCentral Idaho and Yellowstonenonessential experimental populationareas) found at 17.40(n) (Western DPS4(d) rule). The Western DPS 4(d) ruleallows landowners and permittees onFederal grazing allotments to harasswolves in a noninjurious manner at anytime. As discussed in the rule, this typeof harassment will not affect the wolf population other than by making someindividual wolves more wary of people.Wolves are adept social learners.Harassing wolves that have begun to becomfortable around people will causethose wolves to become more wary.Wolves that are wary of people andplaces that are frequented by peoplemay be less likely to be involved inlivestock and pet depredations. Wolvesthat are not wary of people are morevulnerable to being illegally killed or being hit by cars and, in rare and themost extreme circumstances, wolves can become habituated to human foods andcan become a potential threat to humansafety.In some situations the Western DPS4(d) rule also allows the injuriousharassment (for example, by rubber bullets) of wolves under a permit fromus. This type of harassment will permitmanagement of situations (for example,loitering around vulnerable livestock,approaching humans, trying to attackpets) before they have escalated into asituation that calls for more drasticmeasures such as lethal control. Toprevent abuse, this type of activitywould be limited by case-by-case

VerDate jul<14>2003 17:11 Mar 08, 2004Jkt 200001PO 00000Frm 00020Fmt 4702Sfmt 4702E:\FR\FM\09MRP1.SGM09MRP1

of 00

Environmental Protection Agency: getdoc

Download or Print

92 Reads

Info and Rating

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/25/2008
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	Government environment us usa green conservation unitedstates executive epa (more tags) Government environment us usa green conservation unitedstates executive epa environmentalprotectionagency environmentalprotection (fewer)