36942 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

week to before the hearing date, to allow 

sufficient time to process requests. 

Information regarding the proposal is 

available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: June 28, 2007. 

Kevin Adams, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–3273 Filed 7–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AV39 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Revision of 

Special Regulation for the Central 

Idaho and Yellowstone Area 

Nonessential Experimental 

Populations of Gray Wolves in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose 

revisions to the 2005 special rule for the 

central Idaho and Yellowstone area 

nonessential experimental population of 

the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the 

northern Rocky Mountains (NRM). 

Specifically, this rule proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘unacceptable 

impacts’’ to wild ungulate populations 

so that States and Tribes with Serviceapproved post-delisting wolf 

management plans can better address 

the impacts of a biologically recovered 

wolf population on ungulate 

populations and herds while wolves 

remain listed. We also propose to 

modify the 2005 special rule to allow 

private citizens in States or on Tribal 

lands with approved post-delisting wolf 

management plans to take wolves that 

are in the act of attacking their stock 

animals or dogs. All other provisions of 

the 2005 special rule, including the 

process to obtain Service approval and 

the conditions for reporting all wolf 

take, would remain unchanged. As 

under the existing terms of the 2005 

special rule, these proposed 

modifications would not apply with 

respect to States or Tribes without 

approved post-delisting wolf 

management plans and would not 

impact wolves outside the Yellowstone 

or central Idaho nonessential 

experimental population areas. A draft 

environmental assessment will be 

prepared on this proposed action. 

DATES: Comments from all parties on 

both the proposal and the draft 

environmental assessment must be 

received by August 6, 2007. We will 

hold three public hearings on this 

proposed rule in July. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the 

dates, times, and locations. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit comments and 

materials concerning this proposal, 

identified by ‘‘RIN 1018–AV39,’’ by any 

of the following methods: 

1. You may mail or hand deliver 

written comments to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator, 585 Shepard 

Way, Helena, Montana 59601; 

2. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) directly to the 

Service at WolfRuleChange@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘RIN number 1018–Av39’’ in 

the subject line of the message. See the 

Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format for electronic 

filing; or 

3. You may submit your comments 

through the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal—http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of this proposed action, 

will be available for inspection 

following the close of the comment 

period, by appointment, during normal 

business hours, at our Helena office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward E. Bangs, Western Gray Wolf 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at our Helena office 

(see ADDRESSES) or telephone (406) 449–

5225, extension 204. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, data, comments, new 

information, or suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this proposed rule are 

hereby solicited. We particularly seek 

comments concerning (1) our proposed 

modifications to the 2005 experimental 

population rule to allow private citizens 

to take wolves in the act of attacking 

their stock animals or dogs; and (2) our 

establishing a reasonable process for 

States and Tribes with approved postdelisting wolf management plans to 

allow removal of wolves that are 

scientifically demonstrated to be 

impacting ungulate populations to the 

degree that they are not meeting 

respective State and Tribal management 

goals. We specifically ask for comments 

regarding whether the proposed 

modifications would reasonably address 

conflicts between wolves and domestic 

animals or wild ungulate populations; 

would provide sufficient safeguards to 

prevent misuse of the modified rule; 

would provide an appropriate and 

transparent public process that ensures 

decisions are science-based; and would 

provide adequate guarantees that wolf 

recovery will not be compromised. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

submit your comments and materials 

concerning this proposed rule by any 

one of several methods, as listed above 

in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit 

comments by e-mail, please submit 

them in ASCII file format and avoid the 

use of special characters and 

encryption. Please note that the e-mail 

address will be closed at the termination 

of the public comment period. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. Comments and materials received 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours (see ADDRESSES section). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review, dated 

December 16, 2004, we will seek 

independent review of the science in 

this rule. The purpose of such review is 

to ensure that our final rule is based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analyses. We will send peer 

reviewers copies of this proposed rule 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. We will invite 

these peer reviewers to comment, 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36943 

during the public comment period, on 

the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

rule. 

We will take into consideration all 

comments, including peer review 

comments, and any additional 

information received during the 

comment period on this proposed rule 

during the preparation of a final 

rulemaking. Accordingly, the final 

decision may differ from this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

Three open houses will be held on: 

July 17, 2007, Tuesday at Cody 

Auditorium Facility, 1240 Beck 

Avenue, Cody, Wyoming; open house 

12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. and public 

hearing 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.; 

July 18, 2007, Wednesday at Jorgenson’s 

Inn & Suites, 1714 11th Avenue, 

Helena, Montana; open house 6 p.m. 

to 7 p.m. and public hearing 7 p.m. 

to 9 p.m.; and 

July 19, 2007, Thursday at Boise 

Convention Center on the Grove, 850 

Front Street, Boise, Idaho; open house 

6 p.m. to 7 p.m. and public hearing 

7 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

Anyone wishing to make an oral 

statement for the record is encouraged 

to provide a written copy of their 

statement and present it to us at the 

hearing. In the event there is a large 

attendance, the time allotted for oral 

statements may be limited. Those that 

wish to speak must sign up at the open 

houses and hearing. Oral and written 

statements receive equal consideration. 

There are no limits on the length of 

written comments submitted to us. If 

you have any questions concerning the 

public hearings, please contact Sharon 

Rose (303) 236–4580. Persons needing 

reasonable accommodations in order to 

attend and participate in the public 

hearing in Idaho should contact Joan 

Jewett (503) 231–6211, and for hearings 

in Montana or Wyoming, please contact 

Sharon Rose at (303) 236–4580, as soon 

as possible in order to allow sufficient 

time to process requests. Please call no 

later than 1 week before the hearing 

date. Information regarding the proposal 

is available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf 

were listed as endangered including the 

northern Rocky Mountains gray wolf 

(Canis lupus irremotus), the eastern 

timber wolf (C. l. lycaon) in the northern 

Great Lakes region, the Mexican wolf (C. 

l. baileyi) in Mexico and the 

southwestern United States, and the 

Texas gray wolf (C. l. monstrabilis) of 

Texas and Mexico (39 FR 1171, January 

4, 1974). In 1978, we published a rule 

(43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978) relisting 

the gray wolf as endangered at the 

species level (C. lupus) throughout the 

conterminous 48 States and Mexico, 

except for Minnesota, where it was 

reclassified as threatened. In 2007, we 

published a rule (72 FR 6052) which 

delisted the Western Great Lakes 

population of wolves that included all 

of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

parts of North and South Dakota, Iowa, 

Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The 

northern Rocky Mountain Wolf 

Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 

(Service 1980, p. i) and revised in 1987 

(Service 1987, p. i). 

On November 22, 1994, we designated 

unoccupied portions of Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming as two nonessential 

experimental population areas for the 

gray wolf under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (59 FR 60252, November 

22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 

1994). One area was the Yellowstone 

National Park experimental population 

area which included all of Wyoming, 

and parts of southern Montana and 

eastern Idaho (59 FR 60252, November 

22, 1994). The other was the central 

Idaho experimental population area that 

included most of Idaho and parts of 

southwestern Montana (59 FR 60266, 

November 22, 1994). In 1995 and 1996, 

we reintroduced wolves from 

southwestern Canada into these areas 

(Bangs and Fritts 1996, pp. 407–409; 

Fritts et al. 1997, p. 7; Bangs et al. 1998, 

pp. 785–786). This reintroduction and 

accompanying management programs 

greatly expanded the numbers and 

distribution of wolves in the northern 

Rocky Mountains. At the end of 2000, 

the northern Rocky Mountain 

population first met its numerical and 

distributional recovery goal of a 

minimum of 30 breeding pairs and over 

300 wolves well-distributed among 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming (68 FR 

15804, April 1, 2003; Service et al. 2001, 

Table 4). This minimum recovery goal 

was again exceeded in 2001, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2005, and 2006 (Service et al. 

2002–2006, Table 4). 

On January 6, 2005, we published a 

revised nonessential experimental 

population special rule increasing 

management flexibility for these 

recovered populations (70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005). For additional detailed 

information on previous Federal actions 

see the 1994 and 2005 special rules (59 

FR 60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005), the 2003 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 

1, 2003), the Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to designate the 

NRM gray wolf population as a Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS) and remove 

the Act’s protections for this population 

(71 FR 6634, February 8, 2006) and the 

2007 proposal to designate the NRM 

gray wolf population as a DPS and 

remove the Act’s protections for this 

population (i.e., delist) (72 FR 6106, 

February 8, 2007). 

Background 

Given the recovered status of the wolf 

population and the practical limitations 

on implementing the current 

nonessential experimental rules, we 

propose to slightly modify the 2005 rule 

(70 FR 1286, January 6, 2005). 

Additional background on nonessential 

experimental rules implemented under 

section 10(j) of the Act can be found in 

the 1994 rules (59 FR 60252, November 

22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, November 22, 

1994) and the 2005 rule (70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005). 

Addressing Unacceptable Impacts on 

Wild Ungulate Populations—States and 

Tribes have the expertise to make 

determinations of unacceptable impacts 

to ungulate populations. Both the 1994 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

wolf reintroduction (Service 1994, pp. 6, 

8) and the 1994 nonessential 

experimental special rules addressed 

the potential impact of wolf restoration 

on State and Tribal objectives for wild 

ungulate management. Specifically, the 

1994 rules stated, ‘‘Potentially affected 

States and Tribes may capture and 

translocate wolves to other areas within 

an experimental population area as 

described in paragraph (i)(7), Provided, 

the level of wolf predation is negatively 

impacting localized ungulate 

populations at an unacceptable level. 

Such translocations cannot inhibit wolf 

population recovery. The States and 

Tribes will define such unacceptable 

impacts, how they would be measured, 

and identify other possible mitigation in 

their State or Tribal wolf management 

plans. These plans must be approved by 

the Service before such movement of 

wolves may be conducted’’ (59 FR 

60264, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60279, November 22, 1994). The 

‘‘plans’’ referenced in the 1994 rules 

related to the management of the listed 

nonessential experimental wolves. 

Two examples of conflicts that might 

warrant relocation outlined in the 

preamble of the 1994 rules were ‘‘(1) 

when wolf predation is dramatically 

affecting prey availability because of 

unusual habitat or weather conditions; 

and (2) when wolves cause prey to move 

onto private property and mix with 

livestock, increasing potential conflicts’’


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
36944 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(59 FR 60257, November 22, 1994; 59 

FR 60272, November 22, 1994). 

No such State plans for managing 

listed wolves were adopted; therefore, 

no wolves were ever moved for ungulate 

conflicts under the 1994 regulations. 

Only Wyoming had requested that 

wolves be moved by the Service. In that 

situation, Wyoming reported that 

wolves were occasionally chasing elk 

with high rates of brucellosis infection 

off winter elk feed grounds causing 

them to temporarily mix more 

frequently with nearby domestic cattle. 

The Service suggested that the State 

identify the sites in Wyoming where 

they would prefer the wolves to be 

moved, but no sites were ever identified 

and no wolves were ever moved. 

On January 6, 2005, we finalized a 

new special rule that allowed greater 

management flexibility for managing a 

recovered wolf population in the 

experimental population area of States 

and Tribal reservations for States and 

Tribes which had Service approved, 

post-delisting wolf management plans 

(70 FR 1286). It also allowed additional 

opportunities for the public to take 

wolves in order to protect their private 

property. 

The 2005 rule’s provision for ‘‘take in 

response to wild ungulate impacts’’

states at 70 FR 1308 that: 

‘‘If wolf predation is having an 

unacceptable impact on wild ungulate 

populations (deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, 

mountain goats, antelope, or bison) as 

determined by the respective State or Tribe, 

a State or Tribe may lethally remove the 

wolves in question. 

(A) In order for this provision to apply, the 

States or Tribes must prepare a science-based 

document that: 

(1) Describes what data indicate that 

ungulate herd is below management 

objectives, what data indicate the impact of 

wolf predation on the ungulate population, 

why wolf removal is a warranted solution to 

help restore the ungulate herd to State or 

Tribal management objectives, the level and 

duration of wolf removal being proposed, 

and how ungulate population response to 

wolf removal will be measured; 

(2) Identifies possible remedies or 

conservation measures in addition to wolf 

removal; and 

(3) Provides an opportunity for peer review 

and public comment on their proposal prior 

to submitting it to the Service for written 

concurrence. 

(B) We must determine that such actions 

are scientifically based and will not reduce 

the wolf population below recovery levels 

before we authorize lethal wolf removal.’’

The 2005 rule authorized lethal take 

because we recognized that the wolf 

population had exceeded its recovery 

goals, that extra management flexibility 

was required to address conflicts given 

the recovered status of the population, 

that most of the suitable wolf habitat in 

Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming was 

occupied by resident wolf packs 

(Oakleaf et al. 2006), and that absent 

high-quality unoccupied suitable 

habitat, wolf translocations were likely 

to fail (70 FR 1294, January 6, 2005; 

Bradley et al. 2005, p. 1506). 

The 2005 rule’s definition of 

‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ is a ‘‘State or 

Tribally-determined decline in a wild 

ungulate population or herd, primarily 

caused by wolf predation, so that the 

population or herd is not meeting 

established State or Tribal management 

goals. The State or Tribal determination 

must be peer-reviewed and reviewed 

and commented on by the public, prior 

to a final determination by the Service 

that an unacceptable impact has 

occurred, and that wolf removal is not 

likely to impede wolf recovery’’ (70 FR 

1307, January 6, 2005). 

In our definition of ‘‘Unacceptable 

impact’’ in the 2005 rule, we set a 

threshold that has not provided the 

intended flexibility to allow States and 

Tribes to resolve conflicts between 

wolves and ungulate populations. 

Current information does not indicate 

that wolf predation alone is likely to be 

the primary cause of a reduction of any 

ungulate population in Montana, Idaho, 

or Wyoming (Bangs et al. 2004, pp. 89–

100). There are no populations of wild 

ungulates in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming where wolves are the sole 

predator. Wolf predation is unlikely to 

impact ungulate population trends 

substantially unless other contributing 

factors are in operation, such as habitat 

quality and quantity (National Research 

Council 1997, pp. 185–186; Mech and 

Peterson 2003, p. 159), other predators 

(bear predation on neonates) (Barber et 

al. 2005, p. 42–43; Smith et al. 2006, p. 

vii), high harvest by hunters (Vucetich 

et al. 2005, p. 259; White and Garrott 

2005, p. 942; Evans et al. 2006, p. 1372; 

Hamlin 2006, p. 27–32), weather (Mech 

and Peterson 2003, pp. 138–139), and 

other factors (Pletscher et al. 1991, pp. 

545–548; Garrott et al. 2005, p. 1245; 

Smith et al. 2006, pp. 246–250). 

However, in combination with any of 

these factors, wolf predation can have a 

substantial impact to some wild 

ungulate herds (National Research 

Council 1997, p. 183; Mech and 

Peterson 2003, pp. 155–157; Evans et al. 

2006, p. 1377) with the potential of 

reducing them below State and Tribal 

herd management objectives. 

The unattainable nature of the 

threshold set in the 2005 rule became 

apparent soon after its completion. In 

2005, the State of Idaho submitted a 

proposal to the Service that indicated 

wolf predation was impacting the 

survival of adult cow elk in the 

Clearwater area of central Idaho and that 

the elk population was below State 

management objectives (Idaho Fish and 

Game 2006). In the Clearwater proposal, 

the State of Idaho and the peer 

reviewers clearly concluded that wolf 

predation was not ‘‘primarily’’ the cause 

of the elk population’s decline, but was 

one of the major factors maintaining the 

elk herd’s status below State 

management objectives. Declining 

habitat quality due to forest maturation 

was the primary factor affecting the 

herd’s status, but black bear predation 

on young elk calves, mountain lion 

predation on adults, and the harsh 

winter in 1996 to 97 also were major 

factors. Data also clearly indicated that 

wolf predation was one of the major 

causes of mortality of adult female elk, 

which contributed to the elk herd 

remaining below State management 

objectives. After discussions with the 

Service, Idaho put their proposal on 

hold because the proposal did not meet 

the regulatory standard for an 

‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ set by the 2005 

special rule. 

We are now proposing to redefine the 

term ‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ to achieve 

the originally intended management 

flexibility. Specifically, we propose to 

define ‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ as ‘‘State 

or Tribally determined impact to a wild 

ungulate population or herd, with 

wolves as one of the major causes of the 

population or herd not meeting 

established State or Tribal population or 

herd management goals. The State or 

Tribal determination must be peerreviewed and reviewed and commented 

on by the public prior to a final 

determination by the Service that an 

unacceptable impact has occurred and 

that wolf removal is not likely to 

impede wolf recovery.’’ This definition 

expands the potential impacts for which 

wolf removal might be warranted 

beyond direct predation or those 

causing immediate population declines. 

It would, in certain circumstances, 

allow wolf pack removal when wolves 

are a major cause of the population or 

herd not meeting established State or 

Tribal population or herd management 

goals. Management goals might include 

cow/calf ratios, movements, use of key 

feeding areas, survival rates, behavior, 

nutrition, and other factors. 

Under this proposal, as in the 2005 

rule, science-based proposals from a 

State or Tribe with an approved postdelisting wolf management plan would 

have to undergo both public and peer 

review. Based on that peer review and 

public comment, the State or Tribe 

would finalize the plan and then submit 

it to the Service for a final 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36945 

determination. The Service expects the 

following to be addressed in the State or 

Tribal proposal: (1) What data indicate 

that the ungulate herd is below 

management objectives; (2) what data 

indicate impact by wolf predation on 

the ungulate population; (3) why wolf 

removal is a warranted solution to help 

restore the ungulate herd to State or 

Tribal management objectives; (4) the 

level and duration of wolf removal 

being proposed; (5) how ungulate 

population response to wolf removal 

will be measured; and (6) possible 

remedies or conservation measures in 

addition to wolf removal. Before wolf 

removals can be authorized, the Service 

must determine if the State or Tribe 

followed the rule’s procedures for 

developing a proposal to remove wolves 

in response to unacceptable impacts; if 

the proposal meets the definition of 

unacceptable impact; if the science 

presented supports the recommended 

action; and if the proposal is sciencebased. 

The recovery goal for the NRM wolf 

population requires that it be comprised 

of at least 30 breeding pairs and 300 

wolves that are equitably distributed in 

potentially suitable habitat in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming. To ensure this 

goal is achieved, each of the three States 

(Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho) 

committed to manage for an equitable 

distribution of the overall population 

and assume a management target of 15 

breeding pairs in mid-winter within 

each State. The 15 breeding pair 

management target was not intended to 

be the minimum goal for each State. It 

was an objective so that each State’s 

management would provide a 

reasonable cushion to ensure each 

State’s share of the wolf population did 

not fall below the 10 breeding pairs 

requirement and that the 30 breeding 

pairs minimum would always be met or 

exceeded. 

While this change will likely result in 

more wolf control than is currently 

occurring, we propose to establish 

controls to ensure that wolf control for 

ungulate management purposes would 

not undermine recovery goals. 

Specifically, before any lethal control of 

wolf populations can be authorized, we 

must determine that such actions will 

not reduce the wolf population in the 

State below 20 breeding pairs and 200 

wolves. This assures that the wolf 

population is large enough to easily 

rebound from such removal, that a large 

safety margin is provided against 

unseen mortality events that might 

occur after such removal, and that a 

substantial margin of safety is provided 

to ensure that recovery objectives would 

never be compromised. This limit is a 

necessary and advisable precaution 

while wolves remain listed to ensure the 

conservation of the species given the 

additional take that might be authorized 

pursuant to this proposed rule. Once 

delisted, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

will manage for no less than 15 breeding 

pairs. 

By the end of 2006, the northern 

Rocky Mountain wolf population was 

estimated to contain 1,300 wolves in 86 

breeding pairs (nearly three times the 

minimum numeric recovery goal for 

breeding pairs and more than four times 

the minimum population goal), and for 

the 7th consecutive year it exceeded 

minimum recovery levels. Montana had 

an estimated 316 wolves in 21 breeding 

pairs, Idaho had 673 wolves in 40 

breeding pairs, and Wyoming had 311 

wolves in 25 breeding pairs. Wolf 

biology allows for rapid recovery from 

severe disruptions. After severe 

declines, wolf populations can more 

than double in just 2 years if mortality 

is reduced; and increases of nearly 100 

percent per year have been documented 

in low-density suitable habitat (Fuller et 

al. 2003, pp. 181–183; Service et al. 

2007, Table 4). The literature suggests 

that wolf populations can maintain 

themselves despite a sustained humancaused mortality rate of 30 percent or 

more per year (Keith 1983, p. 66; Fuller 

et al. 2003, pp. 182–184). 

Our data indicate that the humancaused mortality rate in the adult-sized 

segment of the northern Rocky 

Mountain wolf population was nearly 

26 percent per year from 1994 to 2004 

(Smith 2005), and that the wolf 

population still continued to expand at 

about 26 percent annually (Service et al. 

2007, Table 4). This data indicates that 

the current annual mortality rate of 

about 26 percent in the adult portion of 

the wolf population could be nearly 

doubled and the wolf population could 

still maintain itself at current levels. 

Collectively, these factors mean that 

wolf populations are quite resilient to 

human-caused mortality if it is 

regulated. 

The wolf population now occupies 

most of the suitable wolf habitat in the 

northern Rocky Mountains (72 FR 6106–

6139, February 8, 2007; Oakleaf et al. 

2006, p. 559). The population is 

unlikely to significantly expand its 

overall distribution beyond the outer 

boundaries of the current population 

because little unoccupied suitable 

habitat is available. Given current 

population density and these habitat 

limitations, we believe the overall 

numbers of wolf breeding pairs and 

numbers of wolves cannot continue to 

sustain a growth rate of 26 percent per 

year. Thus, we do not believe any 

increased take as a result of this rule, if 

finalized, would have an impact on the 

recovered status of the northern Rocky 

Mountain wolf population in Montana, 

Idaho, or Wyoming, as long as it 

remains managed under a science-based 

plan. 

Addressing Take To Protect Stock 

Animals and Dogs—The 1994 

experimental population rules stated 

that ‘‘any livestock producers on their 

private land may take (including to kill 

or injure) a wolf in the act of killing, 

wounding, or biting livestock’’ (defined 

as cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) (59 

FR 60264, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60279, November 22, 1994). Similar 

provisions applied to producers on 

public land if they obtained a permit 

from the Service (59 FR 60264, 

November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60279, 

November 22, 1994). 

The 2005 special rule expanded this 

provision in States with approved postdelisting wolf management plans to 

allow private citizens to also lethally 

take wolves that were ‘‘in the act of 

attacking’’ their livestock and dogs on 

private land and any livestock or 

herding and guarding dogs on active 

public grazing allotments or special use 

areas. ‘‘In the act of attacking’’ is 

defined in 50 CFR 17.84(n)(3) as ‘‘the 

actual biting, wounding, grasping, or 

killing of livestock or dogs, or chasing, 

molesting, or harassing by wolves that 

would indicate to a reasonable person 

that such biting, wounding, grasping, or 

killing of livestock or dogs is likely to 

occur at any moment.’’ Such incidents 

had to be reported to the Service or our 

designated agent(s) within 24 hours and 

physical evidence of such an attack had 

to be present. 

This rule proposes to add a new 

provision for lethal take of wolves in 

States with approved post-delisting wolf 

management plans when in defense of 

‘‘stock animals’’ (defined as ‘‘a horse, 

mule, donkey, or llama used to transport 

people or their possessions’’) or dogs. 

Specifically, the proposed modification 

states that ‘‘any legally present private 

citizen on private or public land may 

immediately take a wolf that is in the 

act of attacking the individuals’ legally 

present stock animal or dog, provided 

there is no evidence of intentional 

baiting, feeding, or deliberate attractants 

of wolves. The citizen must be able to 

provide evidence of stock animals or 

dogs recently (less than 24 hours) 

wounded, harassed, molested, or killed 

by wolves, and we or our designated 

agents must be able to confirm that the 

stock animals or dogs were wounded, 

harassed, molested, or killed by wolves. 

To preserve evidence that the take of a 

wolf was conducted according to this 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
36946 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

rule, the carcass of the wolf and the area 

surrounding should not be disturbed. 

The take of any wolf without such 

evidence of a direct and immediate 

threat may be referred to the appropriate 

authorities for prosecution.’’

Since 1995, only 43 wolves (about 8 

percent of the 538 wolves legally 

removed in agency-authorized control 

actions) have been legally killed by 

private citizens in defense of their 

private property or by shoot-on-sight 

permits as authorized by either the 1994 

or 2005 experimental population special 

rules. There has been no documentation 

of wolf depredations on stock animals 

that were accompanied by their owners 

in the past 12 years, but a few instances 

of stock animals being spooked by 

wolves have been reported. While this 

proposed revision will provide 

additional opportunity for private 

citizens to protect their private property, 

we expect minor impacts on the wolf 

population. 

Ninety-one dogs have been confirmed 

to be killed by wolves from 1987 to 2007 

(Service et al. 2007, Table 5). No pet 

dogs have been confirmed to be killed 

by wolves while they were accompanied 

by their owners, and no wolves have 

been killed solely to protect dogs. 

However, 35 hunting hounds have been 

killed by wolves, primarily on public 

land. In only a few of those instances, 

the hounds’ owners were close enough 

that they might have been able to better 

protect their dogs by shooting at the 

wolves involved. We expect that take of 

wolves involved in conflicts with pet 

dogs or hunting hounds would be rare. 

This proposed modification would 

allow for private citizens to protect their 

dogs from wolf attack while not 

meaningfully increasing the rate of wolf 

removal. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review—In 

accordance with the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this rule is a 

significant regulatory action and subject 

to OMB review. An economic analysis 

is not required because this rule will 

result in only minor and positive 

economic effects on a small percentage 

of private citizens in Idaho and 

Montana, and possibly Wyoming if it 

develops an approved post-delisting 

wolf management plan. 

(a) This regulation does not have an 

annual economic effect of $100 million 

or adversely affect an economic sector, 

productivity, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. A brief 

assessment to clarify the costs and 

benefits associated with this rule 

follows. 

Costs Incurred—Under the 2005 

special rule, which this rule proposes to 

modify, management of wolves by 

States or Tribes with Service-approved 

post-delisting wolf management plans is 

voluntary. Therefore, associated costs 

would be discretionary. While we do 

not quantify these expected 

expenditures, these costs may consist of 

staff time and salary as well as 

transportation and equipment necessary 

to control wolves unacceptably 

impacting ungulate populations or 

herds. 

We have funded State and Tribal wolf 

monitoring, research, and management 

efforts for gray wolves in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming, and intend to 

continue to do so as long as wolves are 

listed. For the past several years 

Congress has targeted funding for wolf 

management to Montana, Idaho, and 

Wyoming, and the Nez Perce. In 

addition, Federal grant programs are 

available that fund wildlife management 

programs by the States and Tribes. 

Benefits Accrued—The objectives of 

the proposed rule change are (1) to 

allow States and Tribes with Serviceapproved post-delisting wolf 

management plans to address the 

unacceptable impacts of a biologically 

recovered wolf population to ungulate 

populations and herds, and (2) to allow 

private citizens in States or on Tribal 

lands with approved post-delisting wolf 

management plans to take wolves that 

are in the act of attacking their stock 

animals or dogs. Allowing wolf removal 

in response to unacceptable impacts 

will help maintain ungulate populations 

or herds at or above State or Tribal 

objectives. Balancing the needs of 

wolves and elk provides substantial and 

sustainable economic benefits. Allowing 

take of wolves in the act of attacking 

stock animals or dogs would have a 

beneficial economic impact by allowing 

citizens to protect such private property. 

This proposed amendment could 

prevent the need for these citizens to 

replace and retrain these animals. An 

additional potential benefit may be a 

lower level of illegal take of wolves due 

to higher local public tolerance of 

wolves resulting from reduced conflicts 

between wolves and humans. 

(b) This regulation does not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. It is exactly the same as the 

nonessential experimental population 

rules currently in effect regarding 

agency responsibilities under section 7 

of the Act. This rule reflects continuing 

success in recovering the gray wolf 

through long-standing cooperative and 

complementary programs by a number 

of Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. 

Implementation of Service-approved 

State or Tribal post-delisting wolf 

management plans supports these 

existing partnerships. 

(c) This rule will not alter the 

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights 

and obligations of their recipients 

because we do not foresee any new 

impacts or restrictions to existing 

human uses of lands in Idaho or 

Montana as a result of this rule, nor in 

Wyoming or any Tribal reservations that 

remain under the 1994 10(j) rules. 

(d) This rule does not raise novel legal 

or policy issues. Instead it proposes to 

reduce the restrictions on take of 

wolves. Similar take provisions are 

already in place through the 1994 and 

2005 special rules (59 FR 60252, 

November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60266, 

November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, January 

6, 2005). No new novel legal or policy 

issues are raised by the amendments 

offered in this proposed rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effects of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA also amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require a 

certification statement. Based on the 

information that is available to us at this 

time, we certify that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The following discussion 

explains our rationale. 

The majority of wolves in the West 

are currently protected under the 

nonessential experimental population 

designations that cover Wyoming, most 

of Idaho, and southern Montana that 

treat wolves as a threatened species. 

Special regulations exist for these 

experimental populations that currently 

allow government employees and 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36947 

designated agents, as well as livestock 

producers and private citizens, to take 

problem wolves. This proposed 

regulation modification does not change 

the nonessential experimental 

designation, but does contain additional 

special regulations that allow States and 

Tribes with approved post-delisting 

wolf management plans more flexibility 

in managing nonessential experimental 

wolves. 

These changes are applicable only 

where States or Tribes (on Tribal 

reservations) that have an approved 

post-delisting management plan for gray 

wolves. Within the northern Rocky 

Mountain gray wolf population’s range, 

only the States of Idaho and Montana 

have approved plans. Therefore, the 

regulation is expected to result in a 

small reduction of economic losses to 

some private citizens in States with 

approved post-delisting wolf 

management plans (i.e., Idaho and 

Montana) within the boundary of the 

nonessential experimental populations 

of the northern Rocky Mountain gray 

wolf population (Central Idaho 

nonessential experimental population 

area and Yellowstone nonessential 

experimental population area) (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994). 

In anticipation of the possible 

delisting the northern Rocky Mountain 

gray wolf population, we have worked 

closely with States to ensure that their 

plans provide the protection and 

flexibility necessary to manage wolves 

at or above recovery levels after 

delisting. Approved plans are those 

plans that have passed peer review and 

Service scrutiny aimed at ensuring that 

the requirements under the Act are met 

and that recovery levels are maintained. 

It is appropriate for States that have met 

this approval standard to manage 

wolves prior to delisting for several 

reasons. States with approved postdelisting wolf management plans 

(Montana and Idaho) worked with their 

elected officials and public to develop 

biologically and socially accepted State 

regulatory frameworks to conduct wolf 

management. They have already 

assumed an important role in the 

management of this species and have 

developed extensive field experience 

and expertise, garnered considerable 

public trust, and exceeded the goals for 

recovery. A gradual transfer of 

responsibilities while the wolves are 

protected under the Act provides an 

adjustment period for the State wildlife 

agencies, Federal agencies, and Tribes to 

work out any unforeseen issues that 

may arise. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This regulation is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the SBREFA. 

(a) This regulation will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more and is fully expected to 

have no significant economic impacts. 

The proposed regulation further reduces 

the effect that wolves will have on a few 

private citizens by increasing the 

opportunity for them to protect their 

stock animals and dogs. Since there are 

so few small businesses impacted by 

this regulation, the combined economic 

effects are minimal. 

(b) This regulation will not cause a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions and will 

impose no additional regulatory 

restraints in addition to those already in 

operation. 

(c) This regulation will not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Based on the analysis of identified 

factors, we have determined that no 

individual industries within the United 

States will be significantly affected and 

that no changes in the demography of 

populations are anticipated. The intent 

of this special rule is to facilitate and 

continue existing commercial activities 

while providing for the conservation of 

species by better addressing the 

concerns of affected landowners and the 

impacts of a biologically recovered wolf 

population. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The 2005 special rule, which this 

proposed rule suggests amending, 

defines a process for voluntary and 

cooperative transfer of management 

responsibilities for a listed species back 

to the States. Therefore, in accordance 

with the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.): 

(a) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. As stated above, this 

regulation will result in only minor 

positive economic effects for a very 

small percentage of livestock producers. 

(b) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year; that is, it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

This rule is not expected to have any 

significant economic impacts nor will it 

impose any unfunded mandates on 

other Federal, State, or local government 

agencies to carry out specific activities. 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this rule will not have significant 

implications concerning taking of 

private property by the Federal 

Government. This rule will substantially 

advance a legitimate government 

interest (conservation and recovery of 

listed species) and will not present a bar 

to all reasonable and expected beneficial 

use of private property. Because this 

proposed rule change pertains only to 

the relaxation of restrictions on lethal 

removal of wolves, it would not result 

in any takings of private property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

This proposed rule maintains the 

existing relationship between the States 

and the Federal Government. The State 

wildlife agencies in Montana, Idaho, 

and Wyoming requested that we 

undertake this rulemaking in order to 

assist the States in reducing conflicts 

with local landowners and returning 

wolf management to the States or 

Tribes. We have cooperated with the 

States in preparation of this rule. 

Maintaining the recovery goals for these 

wolves will contribute to their eventual 

delisting and their return to State 

management. Utilizing the 2005 special 

rule, which this rule proposes to 

modify, is voluntary. This rule will not 

have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

States and the Federal Government, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. No intrusion on 

State policy or administration is 

expected; roles or responsibilities of 

Federal or State governments will not 

change; and fiscal capacity will not be 

substantially directly affected. 

Therefore, this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects or 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment pursuant to 

the provisions of Executive Order 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Department of the Interior 

has determined that this rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the applicable standards provided 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, 

which implement provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) require that Federal 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
36948 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

agencies obtain approval from OMB 

before collecting information from the 

public. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information, 

unless it displays a currently valid 

control number. This rule does not 

contain any new collections of 

information other than those permit 

application forms already approved 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned OMB 

clearance number 1018–0095. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with all provisions of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), we are analyzing the impact of 

this rule modification and will 

determine if there are any new 

significant impacts or effects caused by 

this rule. A draft environmental 

assessment will be prepared on this 

proposed action and will be available 

for public inspection and comments 

when completed. All appropriate NEPA 

documents will be finalized before this 

rule is finalized. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes (Executive 

Order 13175) 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

been coordinating with affected Tribes 

within the experimental population 

areas of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming 

on this rule. We will fully consider all 

of the comments on the proposed 

special regulations that are submitted by 

Tribes and Tribal members during the 

public comment period and will attempt 

to address those concerns, new data, 

and new information where appropriate. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 requiring 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions that significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution, and use. This rule 

is not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Clarity of the Rule 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite comments 

on how to make this proposal easier to 

understand, including answers to 

questions such as the following: Are the 

requirements in the document clearly 

stated? Does the rule contain technical 

language or jargon that interferes with 

the clarity? Does the format of the rule 

(grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 

reduce its clarity? And is the 

description of the proposed rule in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

the preamble helpful in understanding 

the proposed rule? What else could we 

do to make the rule easier to 

understand? We requested that any 

comments about how we could make 

this rule easier to understand be sent 

to—Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 

1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20240. People also could e-mail 

comments to Exsec@ios.doi.gov. We will 

review all public comments and 

incorporate them in the final rule to 

make it easier to understand. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from our Helena office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 17.84 by amending 

paragraph (n) as follows: 

a. In paragraph (n)(3), revise the term 

‘‘unacceptable impact’’ and, in 

alphabetical order, add the terms ‘‘stock 

animal’’ and ‘‘ungulate population or 

herd’’, to read as set forth below; and 

b. In paragraph (n)(4), revise the first 

sentence following the heading and 

paragraph (n)(4)(v)(B), and add 

paragraph (n)(4)(xiii), to read as set forth 

below. 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(3) * * * 

* * * * * 

Stock animal—A horse, mule, 

donkey, or llama used to transport 

people or their possessions. 

Unacceptable impact—State or 

Tribally determined impact to a wild 

ungulate population or herd, with 

wolves as one of the major causes of the 

population or herd not meeting 

established State or Tribal population or 

herd management goals. The State or 

Tribal determination must be peerreviewed and reviewed and commented 

on by the public, prior to a final 

determination by the Service that an 

unacceptable impact has occurred, and 

that wolf removal is not likely to 

impede wolf recovery. 

Ungulate population or herd—An 

assemblage of wild ungulates living in 

a given area. 

* * * * * 

(4) Allowable forms of take of gray 

wolves. The following activities, only in 

the specific circumstances described 

under this paragraph (n)(4), are allowed: 

Opportunistic harassment; intentional 

harassment; take on private land; take 

on public land; take in response to 

impacts on wild ungulate populations; 

take in defense of human life; take to 

protect human safety; take by 

designated agents to remove problem 

wolves; incidental take; take under 

permits; take per authorizations for 

employees of designated agents; take for 

research purposes; and take to protect 

stock animals and dogs. * * * 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

(B) We must determine that such 

actions are science-based and will not 

reduce the wolf population in the State 

below 20 breeding pairs and 200 wolves 

before we authorize lethal wolf removal. 

* * * * * 

(xiii) Take to protect stock animals 

and dogs. Any legally present private 

citizen on private or public land may 

immediately take a wolf that is in the 

act of attacking the individual’s legally 

present stock animal or dog, provided 

that there is no evidence of intentional 

baiting, feeding, or deliberate attractants 

of wolves. The citizen must be able to 

provide evidence of stock animals or 

dogs recently (less than 24 hours) 

wounded, harassed, molested, or killed 

by wolves, and we or our designated 

agents must be able to confirm that the 

stock animals or dogs were wounded, 

harassed, molested, or killed by wolves. 

To preserve evidence that the take of a 

wolf was conducted according to this 

rule, the citizen must not disturb the 

carcass and the area surrounding it. The 

take of any wolf without such evidence 

of a direct and immediate threat may be 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 129 / Friday, July 6, 2007 / Proposed Rules 36949 

referred to the appropriate authorities 

for prosecution. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 28, 2007. 

Kevin Adams, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–3268 Filed 7–2–07; 11:20 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS