77014 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

1676; sec. 408, Pub. L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803, 

958; sec. 350, Pub. L. 107–87, 115 Stat. 833, 

864; sec. 5205, Pub. L. 114–94, 129 Stat. 

1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Amend § 385.4 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 385.4 Matter incorporated by reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) ‘‘North American Standard Out-ofService Criteria and Level VI Inspection 

Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria 

for Commercial Highway Vehicles 

Transporting Transuranics and Highway 

Route Controlled Quantities of 

Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 

CFR part 173.403,’’ April 1, 2023; 

incorporation by reference approved for 

§ 385.415(b). 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Robin Hutcheson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24448 Filed 11–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100; 

FXES11130600000–223–FF06E00000] 

RIN 1018–BG79 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Establishment of a 

Nonessential Experimental Population 

of the Gray Wolf in Colorado 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), establish a 

nonessential experimental population 

(NEP) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in 

the State of Colorado, under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The State of Colorado 

(Colorado Parks and Wildlife or CPW) 

requested that the Service establish an 

NEP in conjunction with their State-led 

gray wolf reintroduction effort. 

Establishment of this NEP provides for 

allowable, legal, purposeful, and 

incidental taking of the gray wolf within 

a defined NEP area while concurrently 

providing for the conservation of the 

species. The geographic boundary of the 

NEP is the entire State of Colorado. The 

best available data indicate that 

reintroduction of the gray wolf into 

Colorado is biologically feasible and 

will promote the conservation of the 

species. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 8, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule, public 

comments on our February 17, 2023, 

proposed rule, a final environmental 

impact statement, and the record of 

decision, are available on the internet at 

https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

Written comments and suggestions on 

the information collection requirements 

may be submitted at any time to the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803 (mail); or Info_Coll@fws.gov 

(email). Please reference ‘‘OMB Control 

Number 1018–BG79’’ in the subject line 

of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Liisa Niva, Acting Field Supervisor, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado 

Ecological Services Field Office, 134 

Union Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, 

CO 80228; telephone 303–236–4773. 

Individuals in the United States who are 

deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 

a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Service is establishing a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) of the 

gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the State of 

Colorado, under section 10(j) of the Act. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed section 

10(j) rule for the gray wolf in Colorado 

published on February 17, 2023 (88 FR 

10258), for a detailed description of 

previous Federal actions concerning this 

species. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review, we solicited independent 

scientific review of the proposed rule. 

We invited seven independent peer 

reviewers and received four responses. 

The peer reviews can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov and https:// 

fws.gov/library/categories/peer-reviewplans. In preparing this final rule, we 

incorporated the results of these 

reviews, as appropriate, into this final 

rule. A summary of the peer review 

comments, and our responses can be 

found in the Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations below. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

As a result of comments, additional 

data received during the comment 

period, and additional analysis, several 

changes were made to the rule we 

proposed on February 17, 2023 (88 FR 

10258). In this final rule, we: 

• Improved consistency with the 

State of Colorado’s Wolf Restoration and 

Management Plan (State Plan) (CPW 

2023b, entire) by clarifying that take of 

gray wolves attacking pets is not 

excepted but take of gray wolves that are 

attacking ‘‘working dogs,’’ or dogs that 

guard or herd livestock, is excepted. 

• Recognized the sovereignty of 

Tribal nations by adding a provision to 

allow take of gray wolves that are 

significantly impacting ungulate 

populations on Tribal reservation lands 

of the Ute Mountain Ute and Southern 

Ute Tribes in the State of Colorado. 

• Changed several terms: In regard to 

justification for written take 

authorization, ‘‘shoot-on-sight’’ is now 

‘‘depredation’’; we have changed 

references in the proposed rule from 

‘‘problem wolves’’ to ‘‘depredating’’ 

wolves; and ‘‘sport hunting’’ is now 

‘‘recreational harvest.’’ 

• Clarified that a ‘‘designated agent’’ 

is an employee of a Federal, State, or 

Tribal agency who is authorized or 

directed by the Service to conduct 

management activities for the gray wolf. 

• Removed the term ‘‘relocate’’ from 

the definition of ‘‘remove.’’ 

• Removed the term ‘‘substantial 

income’’ from the definition of 

‘‘livestock producer.’’ 

• Clarified that take would not be 

excepted if there is any evidence of 

baiting of gray wolves, including the use 

of unusual attractants, artificial feeding, 

or intentional feeding. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the proposed rule published on 

February 17, 2023 (88 FR 10258), we 

requested that all interested parties 

submit written comments on the 

proposal by April 18, 2023. We also 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. We held public 

information meetings to present 

information and obtain feedback on 

March 14, 15, 16, 22, and 28, 2023. We 

issued news releases and posted them 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77015 

on our website announcing the proposal 

and the dates of the public meetings. 

During the 60-day comment period, we 

received over 20,000 separate comments 

associated with 4,290 pieces of 

correspondence, including form letters 

with multiple signatures, such as 1 

correspondence having 16,233 

signatures. 

Below, we summarize the substantive 

comments pertinent to the rulemaking 

and our responses to those comments. 

We considered substantive comments to 

be those that provided information 

relevant to our requested action, such as 

data, pertinent anecdotal information, or 

opinions backed by relevant experience 

or information, and literature citations. 

Due to the similarity of many 

comments, we combined multiple 

comments into a single, synthesized 

comment for many issues. We 

considered nonsubstantive those 

comments that expressed a statement or 

opinion without providing supporting 

information or relevance, restated data 

or information that we already have but 

without an alternate perspective to 

consider, or were beyond the scope of 

our proposed action. Comments from 

peer reviewers, Federal agencies, State 

agencies, and Tribes are grouped 

separately. All substantive information 

provided during the comment periods 

has either been incorporated directly 

into this final determination or is 

addressed below. Appendix D of our 

final environmental impact statement 

provides a full summary report of our 

response to comments that we received 

on the proposed rule. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review above, 

we received comments on our proposed 

rule from four peer reviewers. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the contents of the proposed rule. We 

summarize substantive peer reviewer 

comments below. 

The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions and provided additional 

literature, information, clarifications, 

and suggestions to improve the final 

rule. For example, all four peer 

reviewers agreed that our description 

and analysis of the biology, habitat, 

population trends, conservation status, 

and distribution of the species is 

accurate and that our conclusions are 

accurate and supported by the provided 

evidence. Three peer reviewers shared 

that our proposed rule did not have any 

significant oversights, omissions, or 

inconsistencies, while one peer 

reviewer recommended that we more 

fully consider the dispersal and 

expansion capabilities of the species in 

terms of the geographic separation of the 

NEP. Three peer reviewers also 

recommended that we more fully 

explore the potential for individuals in 

the NEP to interact with the Mexican 

wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), and one peer 

reviewer commented that we should 

clarify whether the NEP would include 

Mexican wolves. In Comments from 

States, below, we have provided 

additional information regarding the 

Mexican wolf and clarified that this 

NEP applies only to the gray wolf. 

Finally, the peer reviewers provided 

additional literature for our 

consideration, such as an additional 

citation regarding the dispersal of the 

gray wolf into Colorado, and we 

incorporated the recommended 

literature, as needed. We address 

specific comments from the peer 

reviewers below. 

Comment: A peer reviewer suggested 

that we may have overestimated the 

ability for small, newly established 

populations of the gray wolf to 

withstand high rates of human-caused 

mortality due to life-history traits such 

as high reproductive potential and 

dispersal capabilities. 

Our response: In the past, 

reintroduced populations of the gray 

wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains 

(NRM) population area demonstrated 

steady population growth despite low 

levels of human-caused mortality. 

However, in the final rule we have 

clarified that high levels of natural and 

human-caused mortality during the 

early establishment period may limit 

population growth and make the State 

of Colorado’s gray wolf population goals 

more challenging (see Actions and 

Activities in Colorado That May Affect 

Introduced Gray Wolves, below). 

Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed rule 

provides take provisions for gray wolves 

without addressing the possibility that 

unusual attractants, artificial feeding, or 

intentional feeding may have been 

involved. 

Our response: In the final rule, we 

have clarified that take would not be 

excepted if there is any evidence of 

baiting of gray wolves, including the use 

of unusual attractants, artificial feeding, 

or intentional feeding. 

Comment: A peer reviewer 

recommended that we more thoroughly 

discuss or define the State of Colorado’s 

definition of success for their 

reintroduction efforts. 

Our response: In the final rule, we 

have summarized the State of 

Colorado’s reintroduction objectives, as 

outlined in their management plan 

(CPW 2023b, entire), and clarified that 

our success objectives for the NEP are 

similar. 

Federal Agency Comments 

One Federal agency, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service, provided comments on 

the proposed rule: 

Comment: The USDA Forest Service 

indicated general support for the action 

but provided comments regarding the 

potential for gray wolves to disperse 

south out of the NEP. 

Response: We provide additional 

information regarding this issue in 

Comments From States, below. To 

summarize, any wolf originating from 

the Colorado NEP area and dispersing 

beyond its borders may be managed by 

the wolf management regulations 

established for that area or may be 

returned to the Colorado NEP area at 

least until the State of Colorado 

achieves its recovery goals for the gray 

wolf. 

Comments From States 

We received comments from five State 

wildlife agencies and one State 

agriculture agency. The States that 

commented were generally supportive 

of the proposed rule. Three of the States 

expressed concern over reintroduced 

wolves dispersing out of the NEP and 

potentially interacting with the Mexican 

wolf and specifically requested research 

and scientific collection permits under 

section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to be able 

to return wolves to Colorado. The State 

of Colorado has agreed to accept the 

return of gray wolves to the State, until 

their recovery goals are achieved, at 

which time they will revisit this 

commitment (CPW 2023a). The State of 

Colorado’s acceptance of returned gray 

wolves is to ensure that their restoration 

plan is successful. To help minimize 

potential interactions and to help 

protect Mexican wolf genetic integrity, 

we have simultaneously issued a section 

10(a)1(A) permit to be held by the 

Service, which will authorize our 

designated agents to assist in the 

capture and return of wolves originating 

from the Colorado NEP. 

Comment: Commenters stated that the 

Mexican wolf was listed as a separate 

subspecies of gray wolf in 2015, and 

that this listing recognized the unique 

physical, ecological, and genetic 

differences of the Mexican wolves from 

all other gray wolves. The commenters 

stated that these unique differences 

occurred and evolved over time due to 

separation of Mexican wolves from the 

larger gray wolves to the north, so were 

concerned that the proposed release and 

establishment of an experimental 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77016 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

population of larger northern wolves in 

Colorado closer to the wild Mexican 

wolf population will dramatically 

increase the risk of strong and 

irreversible genetic swamping of the 

Mexican wolf. 

Our response: We recognize the 

unique characteristics of the Mexican 

wolf and the recovery efforts of our 

agency and the States of Arizona and 

New Mexico. We have simultaneously 

issued a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit to 

allow our designated agents to capture 

gray wolves that venture out of the NEP 

so that they may be returned to 

Colorado. Additionally, we do not 

intend to initiate or allow adaptive 

introgression between gray wolves and 

Mexican wolves as part of the genetic 

management of Mexican wolves (87 FR 

39357, July 1, 2022). 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that we include information in the final 

rule about the State of Wyoming’s 

predator management area, where 

licensing for lethal take is not needed. 

Our response: This rule applies only 

to management activities for the gray 

wolf that take place within the NEP’s 

boundary in the State of Colorado, so we 

have not included additional 

information regarding activities in the 

State of Wyoming. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the final rule provide 

assurances that the NEP wolves in 

Colorado will not be considered 

‘‘sensitive species’’ by other Federal 

agencies, such as the Bureau of Land 

Management or the USDA Forest 

Service. 

Our response: We do not have the 

authority to dictate which species 

receive sensitive species status under 

other Federal agencies’ conservation 

frameworks. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the final rule 

consider all gray wolves that may 

disperse into the State of Utah as part 

of the NEP, which could allow for their 

immediate capture and return to the 

State of Colorado. 

Our response: The exceptions 

provided in the rule are limited to the 

NEP area identified in the regulation 

(i.e. the State of Colorado). We use this 

boundary as a means to identify the NEP 

as required by our regulations. Any gray 

wolf that enters Utah will take on 

endangered status under the Act. 

Relocation of gray wolves to Colorado 

will be conducted under other 

authorities under the Act. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

we inconsistently define ‘‘occupied 

range’’ and that the State of Colorado’s 

proposed reintroduction zones are 

within the species’ current range. 

Our response: We have verified that 

we use the term ‘‘occupied range’’ 

consistently throughout the rule. 

Additionally, although two male gray 

wolves are known to occur within the 

State of Colorado, they do not meet the 

definition of a population or a pack, as 

explained in this preamble to the final 

rule, so the NEP is wholly 

geographically separate from other 

populations of the species. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

the rule’s requirement to report lethal or 

injurious take within 24 hours may be 

impractical due to the remoteness of 

some areas. 

Our response: In response to this 

comment, we added language to the 

reporting requirement to give additional 

time when necessary. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

the rule should be consistent with 

CPW’s State Plan (CPW 2023b, entire), 

which does not allow killing of a wolf 

that is attacking pets. 

Our response: We have updated the 

final rule accordingly, so that it does not 

provide an exception for take of gray 

wolves that are attacking pets. This 

change improves consistency with the 

State of Colorado’s plan. Additionally, 

we have added a definition for ‘‘working 

dogs’’ and a take exception for gray 

wolves that are attacking working dogs 

that are guarding or herding livestock. 

Pets are typically under the immediate 

control of their owner, so the owner 

may opportunistically harass wolves if 

they are encountered. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

annual reporting should be required for 

only 5 years post-reintroduction but did 

not provide any rationale or information 

to support this suggestion. 

Our response: The regulatory 

requirements under section 10(j) of the 

Act for designation of a nonessential 

experimental population require a 

process for periodic review and 

evaluation of success or failure of the 

release and the effect on recovery of the 

species. While annual reporting is not 

specifically required, we must continue 

to periodically assess the effects of the 

NEP on recovery for as long as the 

species is federally listed. We have 

determined that annual reporting is 

appropriate, because this frequency of 

reporting allows for more quickly 

adjusting management and responding 

to changing conditions. 

Comment: In the exception for take by 

landowners on their private land, the 

word ‘‘their’’ should be removed, 

because it would exclude the exception 

for individuals who lease private lands 

for livestock production but do not own 

the property. 

Our response: We have removed the 

term ‘‘their’’ from the exception, such 

that a lessee would also be able to 

protect their livestock under the 

exception. 

Comments From Tribes 

We received one comment letter from 

a Tribe, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. 

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe generally 

supports the action and provided 

comments that we summarize below 

along with our responses. 

Comment: The Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe requested that the final rule 

include a provision to take gray wolves 

if they are unacceptably reducing 

ungulate populations. The Tribe 

requested that we add this provision to 

recognize the sovereignty of Tribal 

nations and to be consistent with the 

State of Colorado’s management plan 

(CPW 2023b, entire) that also recognizes 

Tribal sovereignty. 

Our response: In response to this 

comment, we added a provision to the 

rule to allow Tribes in the State of 

Colorado to take wolves that are having 

an unacceptable impact on wild 

ungulate herds or populations. 

However, the exception is limited to 

Tribal lands, does not include areas 

outside of Tribal reservation lands, and 

requires a science-based, peer-reviewed 

determination that the impacts to the 

ungulate populations are significant 

before take of gray wolves can be 

authorized. 

Comment: The Southern Ute Indian 

Tribe requested that wolf management 

options in the rule include the removal 

of problem wolves (which we are now 

referring to as ‘‘depredating wolves’’) 

from Tribal land upon request. 

Our response: The rule allows the 

Tribes to become designated agents, 

which will allow them to address wolf 

management issues. Additionally, we 

will be available to assist through 

education and training, and will 

continue to coordinate and assist the 

State and the Tribes to help resolve 

conflicts, as time and resources allow. 

Public Comments 

Comment: Commenters both 

supported and opposed the provisions 

of the rule that would allow for the 

lethal control of gray wolves. Some 

commenters asked that we prohibit most 

forms of lethal take of gray wolves in the 

NEP, with some supporting lethal take 

only in defense of human life. Some 

commenters requested that the 

allowable take be more liberal, while 

others felt that lethal control can lead to 

less public respect and tolerance of 

wolves and may encourage more 

poaching. Some commenters 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77017 

recommended several nonlethal 

measures to manage depredating 

wolves. 

Our response: The final rule 

recognizes that lethal take is a 

management tool for the gray wolf that 

may be necessary in specific situations, 

such as when nonlethal management 

actions are ineffective and may not 

resolve conflict. Nonlethal tools may be 

appropriate and effective in some 

situations, but their effectiveness 

depends on various characteristics of 

the area and individual livestock 

operations. For instance, many tools 

such as fladry (strips of fabric mounted 

along fencelines to deter wolves), 

radioactivated guard boxes, and electric 

fencing, are effective only in small, 

localized areas, and innovative tools, 

such as diversionary feeding, range 

riding, and hazing, have reduced wolf 

depredations in certain situations. We 

anticipate that lethal removal will be 

used as a last resort to balance 

conserving the species and preventing 

depredations. 

Comment: Commenters noted that the 

regulations for depredation (formerly 

called ‘‘shoot-on-sight’’ in the proposed 

rule) and opportunistic and intentional 

harassment are too vague and that key 

terms like ‘‘harassing’’ and ‘‘molesting’’ 

are not clearly defined. 

Our response: In the final rule, we 

have clarified the definition of ‘‘in the 

act of attacking’’ and provided examples 

of harassment activities. Our definition 

is consistent with section 3 of the Act 

and other section 10(j) rules. 

Additionally, the final rule now 

specifies the requirements to qualify for 

a ‘‘depredation’’ (called ‘‘shoot-onsight’’ in the proposed rule) 

authorization. The terms ‘‘take,’’ 

‘‘harm,’’ and ‘‘harass’’ are defined in 

section 3 of the Act, so we have not 

defined them in this rule. 

Final Rule Issued Under Section 10(j) of 

the Act 

Background 

We provide detailed background 

information on gray wolves in the lower 

48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf 

Biological Report (Service 2020, entire) 

and the 2020 final rule to delist the two 

currently listed C. lupus entities under 

the Act (85 FR 69778, November 3, 

2020). Information in these documents 

is relevant to reintroduction efforts for 

gray wolves that may be undertaken in 

Colorado, and the report can be found 

along with this rule at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2022–0100 (see 

Supplemental Documents). We 

summarize relevant information from 

these documents below. 

Species Description 

Gray wolves are the largest wild 

members of the canid (dog) family, with 

adults ranging in weight from 18 to 80 

kilograms (40 to 175 pounds), 

depending on sex and geographic locale. 

Gray wolves are highly territorial, social 

animals that live and hunt in packs. 

They are well adapted to traveling fast 

and far in search of food, and to 

catching and eating large mammals. In 

North America, they are primarily 

predators of medium to large mammals, 

including deer, elk, and other species, 

and are efficient at shifting their diet to 

take advantage of available food 

resources (Service 2020, p. 6). 

Historical and Current Range 

Gray wolves have a broad circumpolar 

range. In the lower 48 United States, the 

range and number of gray wolves 

declined significantly during the 19th 

and 20th centuries primarily due to 

humans killing wolves through 

poisoning, unregulated trapping and 

shooting, and government-funded wolf 

extermination efforts (Service 2020, pp. 

9–14). When we first listed two 

subspecies of the gray wolf under the 

Act in 1974, gray wolves had been 

eliminated from most of their historical 

range within the lower 48 United States. 

Outside of Alaska, wolves occurred in 

only 2 places within the lower 48 

United States: An estimated 1,000 

wolves persisted in northeastern 

Minnesota, and a small, isolated group 

of about 40 wolves occurred on Isle 

Royale, Michigan (Service 2020, pp. 12– 

14). 

During the years since the species was 

reclassified in 1978, gray wolves within 

the lower 48 United States expanded in 

distribution and increased in number 

(Service 2020, pp. 10, 14). Gray wolves 

within the lower 48 United States now 

exist primarily in two large, stable or 

growing metapopulations in two 

separate geographic areas in the lower 

48 United States—one in the western 

Great Lakes area of the Eastern United 

States and one in the Western United 

States (figure 1) (Service 2020, p. 27). 

Subpopulations of gray wolves within 

each of these metapopulations are wellconnected as evidenced by documented 

movements between States and high 

levels of genetic diversity (Service 2020, 

p. 27). The western Great Lakes 

metapopulation consists of more than 

4,200 individuals broadly distributed 

across the northern portions of 

Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin 

(Service 2020, p. 27). This 

metapopulation is also connected, via 

documented dispersals, to the large and 

expansive population of about 12,000– 

14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a 

result, gray wolves in the Great Lakes 

area do not function as an isolated 

metapopulation of 4,200 individuals in 

3 States, but rather as part of a much 

larger ‘‘Great Lakes and Eastern Canada’’ 

metapopulation (Service 2020, pp. 27– 

28). 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77018 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

Gray wolves in the Western United 

States are distributed across the NRM 

and into western Oregon, western 

Washington, northern California, and 

most recently in north-central Colorado 

(figure 1, above; Service 2020, p. 28). 

Based on the most current abundance 

estimates of gray wolves, Idaho 

estimated 1,337 gray wolves inhabited 

the State as of August 2022 (Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 

2023, unpaginated), and Montana had 

an estimated 1,087 gray wolves at the 

end of 2022 (Parks et al. 2023, pp. 9–11). 

In addition, the most recent year-end 

minimum counts for 2022 indicated at 

least 338 gray wolves in Wyoming, 216 

wolves in Washington, 178 wolves in 

Oregon, and 18 in California (California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(CDFW) 2022, unpaginated; Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) 2023, p. 2; Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) et al. 2023, pp. 2–3; Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD) et 

al. 2023, p. 3). 

Until recently, only lone wolves had 

been confirmed in Colorado, beginning 

with a dispersing individual that died in 

2004 from a vehicle collision (CPW 

2023b, p. 4). A disperser from Wyoming 

was first documented in north-central 

Colorado during the summer of 2019 

and paired up with another wolf during 

the winter of 2020–2021 (CPW 2023b, 

p. 4). This pair produced offspring in 

spring 2021, becoming the first 

documented reproductively active pack 

in Colorado in recent history. However, 

as of June 2023, only two males from 

this pack remain in Colorado (Eric 

Odell, pers. comm., CPW, June 26, 

2023). The two individual wolves do 

not meet the definition of a population 

of gray wolves used by the Service for 

previous NEP designations in the NRM 

(i.e., two breeding pairs successfully 

raising at least two pups for 2 

consecutive years; Service 1994, 

appendix 8). In January of 2020, CPW 

personnel also confirmed at least six 

wolves traveling together in Moffatt 

County in northwestern Colorado 

(Service 2020, p. 9). Later that year, 

CPW personnel documented only one 

wolf in that area, and, at present, there 

is no indication that any wolf or wolves 

remain in that part of Colorado. As 

such, we do not consider any gray 

wolves currently found in Colorado to 

constitute a population. 

Life Cycle 

Gray wolves are highly territorial 

social animals and group hunters, 

normally living in packs of 7 or fewer 

but sometimes attaining pack sizes of 20 

or more (Service 2020, p. 6). Wolves 

reach sexual maturity at 1–4 years for 

males and 1–5 years for females (Mech 

et al. 2016, entire; Wikenros et al. 2021, 

entire) and, once paired with a mate, 

may produce young annually until they 

are over 10 years old. Litters are born 

from early April into May and can range 

from 1 to 11 pups but generally include 

5 to 6 pups (Service 2020, p. 6). 

Normally a pack has a single litter 

annually, however, multiple litters have 

been documented in approximately 25 

percent of packs annually in 

Yellowstone National Park (Stahler et al. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER08NO23.023</GPH>

Figure 1. Historical range (Nowak 1995) and current range of gray wolves ( Canis lupus) ( as of December 

2021), and Mexican wolves (as of2022) in the lower 48 United States. NRM = The recovered Northern 

Rocky Mountains distinct population segment (DPS). 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77019 

2020, p. 52). Offspring usually remain 

with their parents for 10–54 months 

before dispersing (reviewed by Mech 

and Boitani 2003, p. 7; Jimenez et al. 

2017, p. 1). 

Habitat Use 

The gray wolf is highly adaptable and 

can successfully occupy a wide range of 

habitats provided adequate prey 

(primarily ungulates) exists and humancaused mortality is sufficiently 

regulated (Mech 2017, pp. 312–315). 

Wolf packs typically occupy and defend 

a territory of 33 to more than 2,600 

square kilometers (km2) (13 to more 

than 1,004 square miles (mi2)), with 

territories tending to be smaller at lower 

latitudes (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

p. 163; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 187–188). 

The large variability in territory size is 

likely due to differences in pack size; 

prey size, distribution, and availability; 

lag time in population responses to 

changes in prey abundance; and 

variation in prey vulnerability (e.g., 

seasonal age structure in ungulates) 

(Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163). 

To identify areas of suitable wolf 

habitat in the conterminous United 

States, researchers have used models 

that relate the distribution of wolves to 

characteristics of the landscape. These 

models have shown the presence of 

wolves is correlated with prey 

availability and density, livestock 

density, road density, human density, 

land ownership, habitat patch size, and 

forest cover (Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 

284–292; Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41– 

43; Carroll et al. 2003, entire; Carroll et 

al. 2006, p. 542; Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 

558–559; Hanley et al. 2018, pp. 6–8). 

In the Western United States, habitat 

models have identified suitable wolf 

habitat in the northern Rocky 

Mountains, southern Rocky Mountains 

(including Colorado and Utah), the 

Cascade Mountains of Washington and 

Oregon, and a small portion of the 

northern Sierra Nevada (Bennett 1994, 

entire; Switalski et al. 2002, entire; 

Carroll et al. 2003, entire; Carroll et al. 

2006, entire; Larsen and Ripple 2006, 

entire; Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 558–559; 

Maletzke et al. 2015, entire; ODFW 

2015, entire; Ditmer et al. 2022, entire). 

Large blocks of suitable habitat have 

been identified in the central and 

southern Rocky Mountains but are 

currently unoccupied, with the 

exception of occasional dispersing 

wolves and two male wolves in northcentral Colorado. 

Movement Ecology 

Gray wolves rarely disperse before 10 

months of age, and most commonly 

disperse between 1–3 years of age (Gese 

and Mech 1991, p. 2949; Treves et al. 

2009, entire; Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 589). 

Generally, by the age of 3 years, most 

wolves will have dispersed from their 

natal pack to locate social openings in 

existing packs or find a mate and form 

a new pack (Service 2020, p. 7). 

Dispersers may become nomadic and 

cover large areas as lone animals, or 

they may locate unoccupied habitats 

and members of the opposite sex to 

establish their own territorial pack 

(Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 589). Dispersal 

distances in North America typically 

range from 65 to 154 kilometers (km) (40 

to 96 miles) (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 585), 

although dispersal distances of several 

hundred kilometers are occasionally 

reported (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 588). 

The ability to disperse long distances 

allows populations of gray wolves to 

quickly expand and recolonize vacant 

habitats provided rates of human-caused 

mortality are not excessive (e.g., Mech 

1995, pp. 272–273; Boyd and Pletcher 

1999, entire; Treves et al. 2009, entire; 

Jimenez et al. 2017, entire; Mech 2017, 

entire). However, the rate of 

recolonization can be affected by the 

extent of intervening unoccupied 

habitat between the source population 

and newly colonized area, as Allee 

effects (reduced probability of finding a 

mate at low densities) are stronger at 

greater distances from source 

populations (Hurford et al. 2006, p. 250; 

Stenglein and Van Deelen 2016, entire). 

Causes of Decline and Threats 

Targeted extirpation programs and 

unregulated, human-caused mortality 

was the primary factor that caused 

population declines of gray wolves 

across the lower 48 States during the 

late 1800s and early 1900s. Although 

there are some places wolves are not 

likely to persist long term due to high 

human or livestock densities, the 

regulation of human-caused mortality 

has been a primary factor contributing 

to increased wolf abundance and 

distribution in the lower 48 States. 

Regulation of human-caused mortality 

has significantly reduced the number of 

wolf mortalities caused by humans, and, 

although illegal and accidental killing of 

wolves is likely to continue with or 

without the protections of the Act, at 

current levels those mortalities have had 

minimal impact on the abundance or 

distribution of gray wolves. The high 

reproductive potential of wolves, and 

their innate behavior to disperse and 

locate social openings or vacant suitable 

habitats, allows populations of gray 

wolves to withstand relatively high rates 

of human-caused mortality (Service 

2020, pp. 8–9). See Historical and 

Current Range and Habitat Use sections, 

above, for additional information. 

Recovery Efforts to Date 

Following our 1978 reclassification of 

the species under the Act, our national 

wolf strategy focused on conservation of 

gray wolves in three regions: the 

western Great Lakes; the NRM; and 

Mexican wolves in the Southwest and 

Mexico. We drafted recovery plans and 

implemented recovery programs for gray 

wolves in these three regions (Service 

1987, entire; Service 1992, entire; 

Service 2017, entire). The revised NRM 

Wolf Recovery Plan established 

recovery criteria for wolves in three 

recovery areas across Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming (Service 1987, entire), 

while the Recovery Plan for the Eastern 

Timber Wolf (Service 1992, entire) 

addressed populations of gray wolves in 

the upper Midwest. Mexican wolves 

have been listed separately as an 

endangered subspecies of gray wolf 

since 2015 and are not addressed in this 

rule. 

The currently listed entity of gray 

wolf, to which the Colorado NEP 

belongs, includes all or parts of 44 

States; this listed entity encompasses 

populations of gray wolves in the Great 

Lakes States of Minnesota, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin as well as wolves 

outside the delisted NRM in the 

Western United States. We have not 

included gray wolves outside the NRM 

and western Great Lakes in any recovery 

plan. However, as noted above, the 

presence of gray wolves in California, 

western Oregon, and western 

Washington, as well as the two 

remaining wolves in Colorado, is a 

result of dispersal and recolonization 

from core populations in the NRM in 

addition to reproduction and dispersal 

from resident packs in these States and 

neighboring Canadian provinces. 

There are no Federal recovery plans 

addressing wolf recovery in western 

States outside of Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming. However, the States of 

California, Colorado, Oregon, 

Washington, and Utah have 

demonstrated a commitment to wolf 

conservation by developing 

management plans or codifying laws 

and regulations that provide 

mechanisms to regulate wolf mortality, 

similar to most other species of wildlife 

managed under State authority. This 

includes the passage of a voter-led 

initiative in Colorado calling 

specifically for the reintroduction of 

gray wolves to the western portion of 

the State (Colorado Revised Statute 33– 

2–105.8). At the end of 2022, 10 packs 

of gray wolves (totaling at least 52 

wolves and 6 breeding pairs) were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77020 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

documented in western Washington 

where wolves are federally listed 

(WDFW et al. 2023, p. 17). In the 

western two-thirds of Oregon, where 

gray wolves are federally listed, there 

were a minimum of 38 wolves in 10 

groups (ODFW defines a group as 2 or 

more wolves traveling together (ODFW 

2023, p. 4)); 4 of these groups were 

considered breeding pairs at the end of 

2022 (ODFW 2023, pp. 5–6). Wolves 

originating from Oregon have also 

expanded their range into California, 

where a minimum of 18 wolves in 3 

packs were documented at the end of 

2022 (CDFW 2022, entire). 

In addition to gray wolves found in 

the western States outside of the 

delisted NRM population, the Great 

Lakes metapopulation, consisting of 

more than 4,200 wolves, is broadly 

distributed across Minnesota, Michigan, 

and Wisconsin (Erb and Humpal 2022, 

entire; Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WI DNR) 2022, entire; 

Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources (MI DNR) 2023, entire). 

Recently, both Michigan and Minnesota 

updated their State wolf management 

plans (MI DNR 2022, entire; Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources 2023, 

entire). The WI DNR recently revised 

their draft wolf management plan and 

will present it to their Natural Resource 

Board in October 2023 to determine 

next steps to finalize the plan (WI DNR 

2023, entire). 

The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was 

approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. i) 

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

The recovery goal for the NRM was 

reevaluated and, when necessary, 

modified as new scientific information 

warranted (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 

1994, appendices 8 and 9; Fritts and 

Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 

FR 10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 

15123, April 2, 2009). The Service’s 

resulting recovery goal for the NRM 

population of gray wolves was 30 or 

more breeding pairs, defined as an adult 

male and an adult female wolf that have 

produced at least 2 pups that survived 

until December 31 of the year of their 

birth during the previous breeding 

season (Service 1994), comprising at 

least 300 wolves equitably distributed 

among Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

for 3 consecutive years, with genetic 

exchange (either natural or, if necessary, 

agency managed) between 

subpopulations. To provide a buffer 

above these minimum recovery levels, 

each State was to manage for at least 15 

breeding pairs and 150 wolves in 

midwinter (77 FR 55530 at 55538– 

55539, September 10, 2012; 74 FR 15123 

at 15132, April 2, 2009). For additional 

information on NRM wolf recovery 

goals, see 74 FR 15123 (April 2, 2009) 

at pp. 15130–15135 and references 

therein. 

Wolves in the NRM distinct 

population segment (DPS) have 

recovered and were delisted. The NRM 

population achieved its numerical and 

distributional recovery goals at the end 

of 2000 (Service et al. 2008, table 4). The 

temporal portion of the recovery goal 

was achieved in 2002 when the 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goals were exceeded for the third 

successive year (Service et al. 2008, 

table 4). In 2009, we concluded that gray 

wolves in the NRM far exceeded 

recovery goals. We also concluded that 

the NRM population: (1) Had at least 45 

reproductively successful packs and 450 

individual wolves each winter (near the 

low point in the annual cycle of a wolf 

population); (2) was equitably 

distributed within the 250,000-km2

(100,000-mi2) area containing 3 areas of 

large core refugia (National Parks, 

wilderness areas, large blocks of remote 

secure public land) and at least 170,228 

km2 (65,725 mi2) of suitable wolf 

habitat; and (3) was genetically diverse 

and had demonstrated successful 

genetic exchange through natural 

dispersal and human-assisted migration 

management between all 3 core refugia 

(74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). Gray 

wolves in the NRM remain well above 

the recovery goals established for this 

region (see Historical and Current 

Range, above). 

Reintroduction 

To date, purposeful reintroduction of 

gray wolves to Colorado has not 

occurred; current wolf occupancy in 

Colorado is the result of natural wolf 

dispersal from the NRM population 

(Service 2020, pp. 15–19, 28; see 

Historical and Current Range, above). 

The reintroduction of gray wolves in 

Idaho and Wyoming in the 1990s 

contributed to achieving the recovery 

goals for the NRM population in 2002 

(Service et al. 2008). For additional 

details on NRM reintroduction efforts, 

please see our biological report (Service 

2020, entire) and Release Procedures in 

this document, below. 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the prohibitions 

afforded to threatened and endangered 

species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits 

take of endangered wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ is 

defined by the Act as harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Section 7 of the 

Act outlines the procedures for Federal 

interagency cooperation to conserve 

federally listed species and protect 

designated critical habitat. It mandates 

that all Federal agencies use their 

existing authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out 

programs for the conservation of listed 

species. It also requires that Federal 

agencies, in consultation with the 

Service, ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. Section 7 of 

the Act does not affect activities 

undertaken on private land unless they 

are authorized, funded, or carried out by 

a Federal agency. 

The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included the 

addition of section 10(j), which allows 

for populations of listed species 

planned to be reintroduced to be 

designated as ‘‘experimental 

populations.’’ The provisions of section 

10(j) were enacted to ameliorate 

concerns that reintroduced populations 

will negatively impact landowners and 

other private parties, by giving the 

Secretary of the Interior greater 

regulatory flexibility and discretion in 

managing the reintroduced species to 

encourage recovery in collaboration 

with partners, especially private 

landowners. Under section 10(j) of the 

Act, and our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may 

designate as an experimental population 

a population of an endangered or 

threatened species that will be released 

into habitat that is capable of supporting 

the experimental population outside the 

species’ current range. Under section 

10(j) of the Act, we determine whether 

or not an experimental population is 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species based on the best available 

science. Our regulations define an 

essential population as one whose loss 

would be likely to appreciably reduce 

the likelihood of the survival of the 

species in the wild. All other 

experimental populations are to be 

classified as ‘‘nonessential’’ (50 CFR 

17.80(b)). 

We treat any population determined 

by the Secretary to be an experimental 

population as if we had listed it as a 

threatened species for the purposes of 

establishing protective regulations with 

respect to that population (50 CFR 

17.82). The designation as an 

experimental population and treatment 

as a threatened species allows us to 

develop tailored ‘‘take’’ prohibitions 

that are necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. The protective regulations 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77021 

adopted for an experimental population 

will contain applicable prohibitions, as 

appropriate, and exceptions for that 

population, allowing us discretion in 

devising management programs to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

the Service, ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. For the purposes of 

section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as 

a threatened species when the 

population is located within a National 

Wildlife Refuge or unit of the National 

Park Service (50 CFR 17.83; see 16 

U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(i)). When NEPs are 

located outside of a National Wildlife 

Refuge or National Park Service unit, for 

the purposes of section 7, we treat the 

population as proposed for listing and 

only sections 7(a)(1) (50 CFR 17.83) and 

7(a)(4) (50 CFR 402.10) of the Act apply 

(50 CFR 17.83). In these instances, NEPs 

provide additional flexibility in 

managing the nonessential population 

because Federal agencies are not 

required to consult with us under 

section 7(a)(2). Section 7(a)(1) requires 

all Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to carry out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. Section 

7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to 

confer (rather than consult) with the 

Service on actions that are likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed to be listed. As a 

result, NEPs provide additional 

flexibility in managing the nonessential 

population. 

Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated for any experimental 

population that is determined to be 

nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot 

designate critical habitat in areas where 

we establish an NEP. 

Before authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Service must find by regulation that 

such release will further the 

conservation of the species. In making 

such a finding the Service uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

to consider: 

(1) Any possible adverse effects on 

extant populations of a species as a 

result of removal of individuals, eggs, or 

propagules for introduction elsewhere 

(see Effects on Wild Populations, 

below); 

(2) The likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future (see Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival, 

below); 

(3) The relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the species (see Effects of the NEP on 

Recovery Efforts, below); 

(4) The extent to which the 

introduced population may be affected 

by existing or anticipated Federal or 

State actions or private activities within 

or adjacent to the experimental 

population area (see Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival, 

below); and 

(5) When an experimental population 

is being established outside of its 

historical range, any possible adverse 

effects to the ecosystem that may result 

from the experimental population being 

established. 

Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 

17.81(c), all regulations designating 

experimental populations under section 

10(j) of the Act must provide: 

(1) Appropriate means to identify the 

experimental population, including, but 

not limited to, its actual or proposed 

location, actual or anticipated 

migration, number of specimens 

released or to be released, and other 

criteria appropriate to identify the 

experimental population (see 

Experimental Population and 

Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements, below); 

(2) A finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild (see Is the Experimental 

Population Essential or Nonessential?, 

below); 

(3) Management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns for that 

population, which may include, but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate, 

remove, and/or contain the 

experimental population designated in 

the regulations from nonexperimental 

populations (see Management 

Restrictions, Protective Measures, and 

Other Special Management, below); and 

(4) A process for periodic review and 

evaluation of the success or failure of 

the release and the effect of the release 

on the conservation and recovery of the 

species (see Review and Evaluation of 

the Success or Failure of the NEP, 

below). 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(e), the Service 

must consult with appropriate State fish 

and wildlife agencies, affected Tribal 

governments, local governmental 

entities, affected Federal agencies, and 

affected private landowners in 

developing and implementing 

experimental population rules. To the 

maximum extent practicable, section 

10(j) rules represent an agreement 

between the Service, the affected State 

and Federal agencies, Tribal 

governments, local governments, and 

persons holding any interest in land or 

water that may be affected by the 

establishment of an experimental 

population. 

Experimental Population 

We are designating this NEP at the 

request of CPW, to facilitate their 

planned reintroduction of gray wolves 

to the State per the requirements of 

Proposition 114 (now codified as 

Colorado Revised Statute 33–2–105.8), 

which directs the CPW Commission to 

take the steps necessary to reintroduce 

gray wolves to lands west of the 

Continental Divide by December 31, 

2023. 

Reintroduction Areas and Release Sites 

The NEP area is the entire State of 

Colorado. This scale is appropriate, 

given that CPW has proposed a discrete 

release area (figure 2), and gray wolves 

have high dispersal ability (Jimenez et 

al. 2017, p. 582). Furthermore, gray 

wolves released on the west side of the 

Continental Divide may move to 

locations beyond the western portion of 

the State, including east of the 

Continental Divide. Within the 

statewide NEP designation, CPW 

proposes to release gray wolves 

obtained from the delisted NRM 

population (Idaho, Montana, eastern 

Oregon, eastern Washington, Wyoming) 

at multiple sites west of the Continental 

Divide. Individual release sites will be 

located on private or State lands with 

high habitat suitability and low wolf– 

livestock conflict risk based on models 

developed by Ditmer et al. (2022, 

entire). All release sites will be located 

west of the Continental Divide 

(Colorado Revised Statute 33–2–105.8) 

(figure 2). CPW proposes to release a 

total of 10 to 15 wolves at a 50:50 sex 

ratio each year during winter for 3 to 5 

years (CPW 2023b, p. 20), although 

exact numbers and sex ratios may vary 

due to factors associated with capture 

from source populations (CPW 2023b, 

Appendix B, p. B–34). After initial 

releases are completed, CPW will 

monitor the success of reintroduction 

efforts and document wolf abundance 

and distribution annually to evaluate 

progress toward meeting State wolf 

recovery objectives (CPW 2023b, p. 22). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77022 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Release Procedures 

CPW officials plan to capture wild 

gray wolves in cooperating States in the 

Western United States where wolves are 

federally delisted (Montana, Idaho, 

Wyoming, the eastern third of 

Washington and Oregon, and northcentral Utah) using a combination of net 

gunning, helicopter darting, or trapping. 

Wolf captures will be conducted in 

accordance with approved protocols 

specific to each jurisdiction from which 

donor wolves are to come. Animals will 

be a mix of sex and age classes, with a 

sex ratio of 50:50 preferred, and ideally 

donor animals will be unrelated and of 

dispersing age (2 years and older). Each 

wolf selected for transport will be 

photographed, examined to evaluate 

condition and to obtain biological 

measurements and samples, tested for 

diseases, vaccinated for a wide variety 

of diseases, and treated for internal and 

external parasites. Additionally, wolves 

will be fitted with either a global 

positioning system (GPS) or a very high 

frequency (VHF) radio transmitter as 

well as other markers to assist with 

individual identification. Captured 

animals will be transported to Colorado 

in large, aluminum crates (similar to 

those used for wolf reintroduction in the 

NRM) by aircraft, ground transportation, 

or a mix of techniques, with a goal of 

releasing captured animals as quickly as 

possible to minimize time in captivity 

and capture-related stress. All animals 

will be ‘‘hard released’’ (released shortly 

after transport to reintroduction sites 

with no preconditioning; CPW 2021b, 

pp. 19–21) during winter (November 

through March), with no acclimation 

time between capture, transport, and 

release. The Final Report on Wolf 

Restoration Logistics Recommendations 

developed by the Colorado Wolf 

Restoration and Management Plan 

Technical Working Group (CPW 2021b, 

entire) provides additional details 

regarding the proposed release 

procedures. 

Reintroduction Site Management 

As noted in Reintroduction Areas and 

Release Sites and Release Procedures 

above, the CPW plans to ‘‘hard release’’ 

gray wolves on State or private lands 

within a discrete release area (figure 2, 

above). Given that gray wolves released 

in this manner are more likely to 

disperse immediately from the release 

site rather than remain together at the 

site (CPW 2021b, entire), CPW does not 

plan to implement any special 

management practices at individual 

release sites. For additional information, 

please see the State of Colorado’s Final 

Report on Wolf Restoration Logistics 

Recommendations (CPW 2021b, entire). 

How will the NEP further the 

conservation of the species? 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before 

authorizing the release as an 

experimental population, the Service 

must find by regulation that such 

release will further the conservation of 

the species. We explain our rationale for 

making our finding below. In making 

such a finding, we must consider effects 

on donor populations, the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of the 

experimental population, the effects that 

establishment of the experimental 

population will have on recovery of the 

species, and the extent to which the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1ER08NO23.024</GPH>

Figure 2. Map of the State of Colorado with county boundaries and the general area for CPW's proposed 

initial (1-3 years) release site area for a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of gray wolves. Used 

with permission from CPW. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77023 

experimental population will be 

affected by Federal, State, or private 

activities. 

Effects on Wild Populations 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 

require that we consider any possible 

adverse effects on extant populations of 

a species as a result of removal of 

individuals, eggs, or propagules for 

introduction elsewhere. The preferred 

donor population for the reintroduction 

of gray wolves to Colorado is the 

delisted NRM population. Gray wolves 

in these States are managed by State fish 

and wildlife agencies and Tribes. These 

wolves are an appropriate source for the 

Colorado reintroduction because they 

share similarities in habitat and 

preferred prey; one of the wolves in 

Colorado dispersed from the NRM 

population; and the NRM population 

reached numerical, spatial, and 

temporal recovery goals by the end of 

2002 (Service 2020, p. 15; see Recovery 

Efforts to Date, above). The NRM wolf 

population continues to demonstrate 

stable to slightly increasing 

demographic trends with an estimated 

1,337 wolves in Idaho as of August 2022 

and slightly more than 1,800 wolves in 

Montana, Oregon, Washington, and 

Wyoming at the end of 2022 (IDFG 

2023, unpaginated; ODFW 2023, p. 2; 

Parks et al. 2023, pp. 9–11; WDFW et al. 

2023, pp. 2–3; WGFD et al 2023, p. 3). 

Further, the NRM population is part of 

a larger metapopulation of wolves that 

encompasses all of Western Canada 

(Service 2020, p. 29). Given the 

demonstrated resilience and recovery 

trajectory of the NRM population and 

limited number of animals that will be 

captured for translocation, we expect 

negative impacts to the donor 

population to be negligible. 

Likelihood of Population Establishment 

and Survival 

In our findings for designation of an 

NEP, we must consider if the 

reintroduced population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future. In this portion of the 

preamble, we address the likelihood 

that populations introduced into the 

NEP will become established and 

survive. In defining the experimental 

population boundary, we attempted to 

encompass the area where the 

population is likely to become 

established in the foreseeable future. 

The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ appears 

in the Act in the statutory definition of 

‘‘threatened species.’’ However, the Act 

does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable 

future.’’ Similarly, our implementing 

regulations governing the establishment 

of an NEP under section 10(j) of the Act 

use the term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ (50 

CFR 17.81(b)(2)) but do not define the 

term. However, our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth 

a framework for evaluating the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis. 

The term foreseeable future extends 

only so far into the future as we can 

reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions. While we use the 

term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ here in a 

different context (to determine the 

likelihood of population establishment 

and to establish boundaries for 

identification of the experimental 

population), we apply a similar 

conceptual framework. Analysis of the 

foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and should consider the timeframes 

applicable to the relevant effects of 

release and management of the species 

and to the species’ likely responses in 

view of its life-history characteristics. 

Data that are typically relevant to 

assessing the species’ biological 

response include species-specific factors 

such as lifespan, reproductive rates or 

productivity, certain behaviors, and 

other demographic factors. 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

define the foreseeable future for our 

evaluation of the likelihood of survival 

and establishment as approximately 13 

years, which reflects 3 wolf generations 

of approximately 4–4.5 years per 

generation (vonHoldt et al. 2008, p. 257; 

Mech et al. 2016, pp. 1,6), and the time 

horizon within which we can 

reasonably forecast population 

expansion of gray wolves in Colorado 

given the results of previous 

reintroduction efforts of gray wolves in 

the NRM. This timeframe is also similar 

to the amount of time it took wolves to 

begin recolonizing areas outside of the 

core of the NRM (Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming) in Oregon and Washington 

(Service 2020, p. 28). 

In evaluating the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of this NEP 

in the foreseeable future, we considered 

the extent to which causes of extirpation 

in the NEP area have been addressed, 

habitat suitability and prey availability 

within the NEP area, and existing 

scientific and technical expertise and 

experience with reintroduction efforts. 

As discussed below, we expect that gray 

wolves will become established during 

this time span, given the species’ 

adaptability and dispersal ability. 

Addressing Causes of Extirpation 

Within the Experimental Population 

Area 

Investigating the causes for the 

extirpation of gray wolves is necessary 

to understand whether we are 

sufficiently addressing threats to the 

species in the NEP so that 

reintroduction efforts are likely to be 

successful. The International Union for 

the Conservation of Nature’s Guidelines 

for Reintroduction and Other 

Conservation Translocations (IUCN 

2013, p. 4) identifies several criteria to 

consider prior to undertaking a 

reintroduction, including ‘‘strong 

evidence that the threat(s) that caused 

any previous extinction have been 

correctly identified and removed or 

sufficiently reduced.’’ Wolves depend 

on abundant prey (primarily ungulates) 

and can successfully colonize and 

occupy a wide range of habitats as long 

as human-caused mortality is 

adequately managed (Mech 2017, pp. 

312–315). Historical wolf declines in 

Colorado resulted from purposeful 

efforts to eradicate the species by State 

and Federal authorities, primarily due 

to conflicts with domestic livestock 

production (Service 2020, pp. 9–14; see 

Habitat Use and Causes of Decline and 

Threats, above, for additional 

information). In 2004, CPW created a 

Wolf Management Working Group, 

largely in response to dispersal of 

wolves from the NRM population to 

Colorado and other western States. The 

working group developed a series of 

recommendations for wolf management 

in Colorado, including recognition of 

the ecological value of wolves and an 

intent to accept their presence in 

Colorado (Colorado Wolf Management 

Working Group 2004, p. 3). The 

recommendations of the Wolf 

Management Working Group were 

formally adopted by the Colorado 

Wildlife Commission in 2005 and were 

reaffirmed by the CPW Commission in 

2016 (85 FR 69778 at 69837, November 

3, 2020). 

The State of Colorado currently 

classifies the gray wolf as an endangered 

species; this classification regulates 

take. The State of Colorado expanded its 

conservation efforts for gray wolves 

through the passage of Proposition 114 

(now codified as Colorado Revised 

Statute 33–2–105.8), which directs the 

CPW Commission to take the steps 

necessary to reintroduce gray wolves to 

lands west of the Continental Divide by 

December 31, 2023. Colorado Revised 

Statute 33–2–105.8 calls for the 

development and implementation of a 

Colorado Wolf Restoration and 

Management Plan, which was finalized 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77024 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

and approved by the CPW Commission 

in May 2023 (CPW 2023b, entire). The 

plan follows a phased approach 

whereby the conservation status of gray 

wolves is linked with numerical and 

temporal population targets (CPW 

2023b, pp. 24–25). Although agencydirected lethal control may be used to 

mitigate conflicts with specific 

individual wolves and/or packs that 

repeatedly depredate livestock, 

purposeful eradication of wolves in 

Colorado is no longer a tool used for 

wolf management. Lethal control may 

consist of removing wolves that 

repeatedly depredate on livestock, 

whereas purposeful eradication likely 

involves removal of all wolves within 

the State. Based on the elimination of 

purposeful eradication, and the fact that 

gray wolves are protected under State 

and Federal laws, we do not anticipate 

the original cause of wolf extirpation 

from Colorado to be repeated. 

Habitat Suitability/Prey Availability 

Excluding occasional dispersing 

wolves and two known individual 

wolves presently in north-central 

Colorado, large blocks of gray wolf 

habitat in the central and southern 

Rocky Mountains are not currently 

occupied by gray wolves. Models 

developed to assess habitat suitability 

and the probability of wolf occupancy 

indicate that Colorado contains 

adequate habitat to support a population 

of gray wolves, although the number of 

wolves that the State could support 

varies among the models. One model 

estimated that the State could support 

between 407 and 814 wolves based on 

prey and habitat availability (Bennett 

1994, pp. 112, 275–280). 

Carroll et al. (2003, entire) examined 

multiple models to evaluate suitable 

wolf habitat, occupancy, and the 

probability of wolf persistence given 

various landscape changes and potential 

increases in human density in the 

southern Rocky Mountains, which 

includes portions of southeastern 

Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New 

Mexico. Using a resource selection 

function (RSF) model developed for 

wolves in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem and projecting it to Colorado, 

Carroll et al. (2003, pp. 541–542) 

identified potential wolf habitat across 

north-central and northwest Colorado 

and the southwestern part of the State. 

RSF model predictions indicate that 

Colorado could support an estimated 

1,305 wolves with nearly 87 percent of 

wolves occupying public lands in the 

State. Carroll et al. (2003, entire) also 

used a dynamic model that incorporated 

population viability analysis to evaluate 

occupancy of gray wolves and 

persistence based on current conditions 

as well as potential changes resulting 

from increased road and human 

densities in the future. The dynamic 

model based on current conditions 

predicted similar distribution and wolf 

population estimates as the RSF model; 

however, as predicted, as road and 

human densities increased in Colorado, 

the availability of suitable habitat and 

the estimated number of wolves that 

habitat could support declined (Carroll 

et al. 2003, pp. 541–543). 

An analysis similar to that of Carroll 

et al. (2003, entire) was conducted for 

the entirety of the Western United States 

and indicated that high-quality wolf 

habitat exists in Colorado and Utah, but 

that wolves recolonizing Colorado and 

Oregon would be most vulnerable to 

landscape changes because these areas 

lack, and are greater distances from, 

large core refugia (Carroll et al. 2006, 

pp. 33–36). The authors proposed that 

habitat improvements, primarily in the 

form of road removal or closures, could 

mitigate these effects (Carroll et al. 2006, 

p. 36). Switalski et al. (2002, pp. 12–13) 

and Carroll et al. (2003, p. 545) also 

cautioned that model predictions may 

be inaccurate because they did not 

account for the presence of livestock 

and the potential use of lethal removal 

to mitigate conflicts, which could affect 

the long-term persistence of wolves in 

some areas (Mech et al. 2019, entire). 

Recognizing the limitations of wolf 

habitat suitability models that do not 

account for the presence of livestock, 

Ditmer et al. (2022, entire) used voting 

records for proposition 114 in Colorado 

to quantify and map an index of 

tolerance for wolves and combined it 

with spatially explicit data on livestock 

distributions and land ownership to 

predict wolf conflict risk in Colorado 

(Ditmer et al. 2022, p. 1). Conflict risk 

was juxtaposed with estimates of wolf 

ecological suitability developed using 

seasonal prey densities along with 

environmental and anthropogenic 

features that influence wolf habitat use 

(Ditmer et al. 2022, p. 1) to predict areas 

of high habitat suitability and increased 

conflict risk in summer and winter for 

gray wolves across Colorado. The 

models predicted over 58 million acres 

(23 million hectares) of potential 

suitable gray wolf habitat occurs on the 

western slope of Colorado. 

Approximately 56 percent of this total, 

or 32.5 million acres (13.2 million 

hectares) was considered suitable 

seasonal wolf habitat that contained 

high ecological suitability and low 

conflict risk (Ditmer et al. 2022, p. 11). 

However, approximately 14 percent, or 

8.3 million acres (3.4 million hectares), 

the majority of which occurs in the 

northern part of the western slope of 

Colorado, were identified as being 

potential conflict hotspots where 

significant overlap between ecological 

suitability and conflict risk was 

predicted (Ditmer et al. 2022, pp. 9–11). 

Wolves can successfully occupy a 

wide range of habitats provided 

adequate prey exists (Mech 2017, pp. 

312–315). Wolves in the Western United 

States rely on habitats containing large 

prey such as mule deer, elk, and moose 

(Smith et al. 2010, entire). CPW 

manages wild ungulate populations, 

such as moose, elk, bighorn sheep, and 

mule deer, etc., using herd management 

plans, which establish population 

objective minimums and maximums for 

each ungulate herd in the State (CPW 

2020, entire). The herd management 

plans consider both biological and 

social factors when setting herd 

objective ranges (CPW 2020, entire). 

Like other Western States, mule deer in 

Colorado have declined due to a 

multitude of factors since the 1970s to 

a statewide post-hunt population 

estimate of 416,430 animals in 2021, 

which was well below the target 

statewide population objective of 

484,100. In 2021, of 54 mule deer herds 

in Colorado, 18 were below their 

population objective minimum with the 

western part of the State being the most 

affected. In contrast, elk populations in 

Colorado are stable with a 2021 posthunt population estimate of 308,920 elk. 

Although 34 of 42 elk herds are within 

or above the population objective range, 

the ratio of calves per 100 cows (a 

measure of overall herd fitness) has 

been on the decline in some 

southwestern herd units (CPW 2020, p. 

7). 

Moose are not native to Colorado so, 

to create hunting and wildlife viewing 

opportunities, CPW transplanted moose 

to the State beginning in 1978. Since 

then, they transplanted moose on four 

other occasions through 2010. The 2021 

post-hunt moose population was 

estimated at 3,510 animals and 

continues to increase as moose expand 

into new areas of Colorado. In summary, 

while deer and elk numbers are down 

from their peak populations in some 

parts of Colorado, they still number in 

the hundreds of thousands of 

individuals, and the State is actively 

managing populations to meet 

objectives (CPW 2020, entire). 

Introduced moose provide an additional 

potential food resource for wolves in 

some parts of the State. Therefore, wolf 

habitat and prey are suitable and 

abundant within the NEP area and 

would support population 

establishment and survival. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77025 

Reintroduction Expertise/Experience/ 

Track Record 

Conservation efforts to reintroduce 

gray wolves to the NRM began in 1995, 

with the reintroduction of wolves to 

portions of Idaho and Wyoming and the 

continued natural recolonization of 

wolves in northwestern Montana. 

Following their release, wolves rapidly 

increased in abundance and distribution 

in the region due to natural 

reproduction and the availability of 

high-quality, suitable wolf habitat in the 

NRM. Between 1995 and 2008, 

populations of gray wolves in the NRM 

increased an average of 24 percent 

annually, reaching 1,655 wolves by the 

end of 2008 (Service et al. 2016, table 

6b), while total mortality averaged 

approximately 16 percent annually 

between 1999 and 2008 (Service et al. 

2000–2009, entire). Wolf numbers and 

distribution in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming stabilized after 2008 as 

suitable habitat became increasingly 

saturated (74 FR 15123 at 15160, April 

2, 2009). 

Between 2009 and 2015, when gray 

wolves were managed primarily under 

State authority due to delisting (73 FR 

10514, February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, 

April 2, 2009; 76 FR 25590, May 5, 

2011; 77 FR 55530, September 10, 

2012), Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

began to manage wolves with the 

objective of reversing or stabilizing 

population growth while continuing to 

maintain populations well above 

Federal recovery targets for the NRM 

population. During this period, States 

began to use public harvest as a 

management tool to achieve Statespecific management objectives. As a 

result, during those years when legal 

harvest occurred, total wolf mortality in 

the NRM increased to an average of 29 

percent of the minimum known 

population (Service et al. 2010–2016, 

entire), while population growth 

declined to an average of approximately 

1 percent annually (Service et al. 2010– 

2016, entire). Although this mortality 

rate was significantly higher than 

mortality rates during the previous 

decade, the NRM population 

demonstrated an ability to sustain itself, 

consistent with scientific information 

demonstrating that the species’ 

reproductive and dispersal capacity can 

compensate for a range of mortality rates 

(Service 2020, pp. 8–9). 

As of 2015, the final year of a 

combined NRM wolf count at the end of 

federally required post-delisting 

monitoring in Idaho and Montana, 

wolves in the NRM remained well above 

minimum recovery levels with a 

minimum known population of 1,704 

wolves distributed across Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming. An additional 

177 wolves were documented in the 

NRM portions of Oregon and 

Washington at the end of 2015. Wolves 

in the NRM continue to remain above 

minimum recovery levels, 

demonstrating availability of technical 

expertise to successfully reintroduce 

gray wolf populations. For more 

information regarding the success of 

reintroduction efforts in the NRM, 

please see Recovery Efforts to Date, 

above. 

Based on the success of past gray wolf 

reintroduction efforts in the NRM where 

biological recovery was achieved within 

7 years, the availability of suitable wolf 

habitat and adequate wild ungulate prey 

in the NEP (see Habitat suitability/prey 

availability, above), the demonstrated 

resiliency of gray wolves in the United 

States, and the development of a 

comprehensive Gray Wolf Restoration 

and Management Plan in Colorado, the 

best available scientific data indicate 

that the reintroduction of gray wolves 

into suitable habitat in Colorado 

supports the likely success of 

establishment and survival of the 

reintroduced population, and the 

experimental population has a high 

likelihood of becoming established 

within the foreseeable future. 

Effects of the NEP on Recovery Efforts 

We are designating an experimental 

population of gray wolf in Colorado to 

support CPW’s planned effort to 

reintroduce gray wolves to the State of 

Colorado and to further the conservation 

of the currently listed 44-State entity. 

CPW developed a Gray Wolf Restoration 

and Management Plan for the 

reintroduction and management of gray 

wolves in the State, with the goal of 

restoring the species to Colorado in a 

phased approach to the point where it 

no longer needs protection under State 

statute (CPW 2023b, entire). This 

management plan focuses on the 

primary threat to gray wolf populations, 

which is human-caused mortality (e.g., 

Fuller et al. 2003, entire; Mech 2017, pp. 

311–312; Hill et al. 2022, entire). 

As noted in Recovery Efforts to Date, 

above, populations of gray wolves in the 

44-State listed entity number more than 

4,300 individuals and occupy portions 

of California, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin 

(CDFW 2022, unpaginated; Erb and 

Humpal 2022, unpaginated; WI DNR 

2022, p. 4; ODFW 2023, p. 2; WDFW et 

al. 2023, pp. 2–3). Two gray wolves are 

currently known to be present in 

Colorado, and they do not currently 

meet our definition of a gray wolf 

population, which is 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). As explained 

above in Recovery Efforts to Date, there 

is no recovery plan that addresses the 

entire currently listed entity. In the 

absence of a recovery plan, we evaluate 

how the experimental population will 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species by considering the conservation 

biology principles of redundancy, 

resiliency, and representation. 

Reintroduction efforts in Colorado 

will provide additional redundancy and 

representation for the 44-State listed 

entity. Redundancy is the ability for the 

species to withstand catastrophic 

events, for which adaptation is unlikely, 

and is associated with the number and 

distribution of populations. 

Representation is the ability of a species 

to adapt to changes in the environment 

and is associated with its ecological, 

genetic, behavioral, and morphological 

diversity. Once established, the 

reintroduction in the NEP will improve 

redundancy by increasing the number of 

populations at the southern extent of the 

currently occupied range and 

representation by increasing the 

ecological diversity of the habitats 

occupied by the listed entity. For these 

reasons, reintroduction efforts 

undertaken by CPW will increase the 

redundancy and representation, and 

hence viability, of the currently listed 

44-State entity (e.g., Smith et al. 2018). 

Previous NEP designations have 

conserved and recovered gray wolves in 

other regions of the United States, 

particularly in the NRM. Additional 

management flexibility, relative to the 

mandatory prohibitions covering 

nonessential experimental species 

under the Act, is expected to help 

address local, State, and Tribal concerns 

about wolf-related conflicts in Colorado, 

similar to those experienced in other 

NRM States. Addressing these concerns 

proactively may result in greater human 

acceptance of gray wolves and other 

species of concern. Based on past 

modeling efforts, it has been estimated 

that Colorado could biologically support 

approximately 400 to 1,200 wolves 

(Bennett 1994, pp. 112, 275–280; Carroll 

et al. 2006, p. 33), but due to social 

constraints that could limit the 

distribution of wolves in the State 

(Ditmer et al. 2022, p. 12), the total 

number of wolves that Colorado could 

support may be slightly lower. 

Nonetheless, this action will contribute 

to the conservation of the listed entity 

by increasing redundancy and 

representation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77026 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Actions and Activities in Colorado That 

May Affect Introduced Gray Wolves 

A large proportion of Colorado is 

composed of publicly owned Federal 

lands (approximately 36 percent; 

Congressional Research Service 2020). 

Public lands include National Forests, 

National Parks, National Monuments, 

and National Wildlife Refuges, which 

comprise approximately 63 percent of 

all public lands in Colorado. In 

addition, the Bureau of Land 

Management manages approximately 35 

percent of public land in Colorado, 

much of which is located in the western 

portion of the State where 

reintroduction efforts for gray wolves 

will take place (figure 2, above). 

Although much of this public land is 

largely unavailable and/or unsuitable 

for intensive development and contains 

an abundance of wild ungulates, 

livestock grazing does occur on public 

lands in Colorado, which may increase 

the potential for mortality of gray 

wolves from lethal control of 

chronically depredating packs. 

However, in both Minnesota and the 

northern Rocky Mountains, lethal 

control of depredating wolves has had 

little effect on wolf distribution and 

abundance (Service 2020, p. 22; 85 FR 

69778 at 69842, November 3, 2020). 

Humans sparsely inhabit most of the 

NEP area containing suitable habitat for 

gray wolves. However, the NEP area 

contains human infrastructure and 

activities that pose some risk to success 

of the NEP. Risks include wolves killed 

as a result of mistaken identity, 

accidental capture during animal 

damage control activities, and highspeed vehicular traffic. Human-caused 

mortality includes both controllable and 

uncontrollable sources of mortality. 

Controllable sources of mortality are 

discretionary, can be limited by the 

managing agency, and include 

permitted take, recreational harvest, and 

direct agency control. Sources of 

mortality that will be difficult to limit, 

or may be uncontrollable, occur 

regardless of population size and 

include things such as natural 

mortalities, illegal take, and accidental 

deaths (e.g., vehicle collisions, capturerelated mortalities) (85 FR 69778, 

November 3, 2020). Although the effects 

of uncontrollable sources of mortality 

may be greatest for wolf populations 

that are small in size, which is most 

likely to occur during the early phases 

of recovery in Colorado, based on 

experiences with wolf recovery in the 

NRM (where uncontrollable sources of 

mortality were also present) and the 

availability of suitable habitat in 

Colorado, we expect that these sources 

of mortality will have minimal effect on 

gray wolf population growth and 

persistence in the State. If population 

levels and controllable sources of 

mortality are adequately regulated, the 

life-history characteristics of wolf 

populations provide natural resiliency 

to relatively high levels of humancaused mortality (85 FR 69778, 

November 3, 2020). 

In conjunction with previous 

reintroduction efforts, implementation 

of this final rule reflects continuing 

success in recovering gray wolves 

through longstanding cooperative and 

complementary programs by several 

Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. In 

particular, the stakeholder engagement 

process developed by CPW in support of 

its Gray Wolf Restoration and 

Management Plan (CPW 2023b, entire) 

development is broadly based and 

includes a diverse array of stakeholders 

in the State, which has helped to 

address potential adverse effects to gray 

wolves through Federal, State, or private 

actions. Therefore, Federal, State, or 

private actions and activities in 

Colorado that are ongoing and expected 

to continue are not likely to have 

significant adverse effects on gray 

wolves within the NEP area. 

Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) 

include a list of what we should provide 

in regulations designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

Act. We explain what our regulations 

include and provide our rationale for 

those regulations, below. 

Means To Identify the Experimental 

Population 

Our regulations require that we 

provide appropriate means to identify 

the experimental population, which 

may include geographic locations, 

number of individuals to be released, 

anticipated movements, and other 

information or criteria. The Colorado 

NEP area encompasses the entire State. 

As discussed below, we conclude that 

after initial releases, any gray wolves 

found in Colorado will, with a high 

degree of likelihood, have originated 

from and be members of the NEP. 

However, we recognize that absent 

identifying tags or collars, it may be 

very difficult for members of the public 

to easily determine the origin of any 

individual gray wolf. Therefore, we will 

use geographic location to identify 

members of the NEP. As such, any gray 

wolf within the State of Colorado will 

be considered part of the NEP regardless 

of its origin. Similarly, any wolf outside 

of the State will take on the status of 

that location. For example, a wolf 

moving from Wyoming into Colorado 

will take on the NEP status, whereas a 

wolf moving from Colorado into 

Wyoming will take on a not-listed 

status, or endangered status if it moves 

into any other adjacent State. 

By the end of 2022, a minimum count 

of two wolves were known to occupy 

Colorado and do not constitute a 

population (see Historical and Current 

Range, above). While an adult female 

wolf dispersed from Wyoming to 

Colorado in 2019 to form half of the first 

reproductively active pack in the State 

in recent history, the origins of her mate 

are unknown. It is likely the male 

dispersed from the Greater Yellowstone 

area (approximately 480 km (300 miles) 

north and west of their current 

location), but his exact origin is 

uncertain (CPW 2021a, entire). The 

mean dispersal distance of male wolves 

in the NRM is 98.1 km (60 miles) 

(Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 585). The nearest 

known pack in Wyoming is more than 

200 km (124 miles) from the Colorado 

border, which is more than two times 

the average dispersal distance for gray 

wolves. In addition, Wyoming manages 

gray wolves in northwestern Wyoming 

via a trophy management area, which 

restricts the number of gray wolves that 

can be harvested in that area. The 

southern extent of the trophy 

management area generally coincides 

with the southern extent of the gray 

wolf current range in the NRM (figure 1, 

above). Outside of the trophy 

management area, wolves are managed 

as predators and can be harvested at any 

time without a license and with no 

harvest limit. Gray wolf packs are 

unlikely to persist long term in portions 

of Wyoming where they are designated 

as predatory animals (85 FR 69778, 

November 3, 2020), which further limits 

the ability for individuals to enter 

Colorado from Wyoming. 

Despite these challenges, it is possible 

that gray wolves dispersing from the 

NRM population could successfully 

enter the NEP. However, these 

movements would likely be infrequent 

given the NEP’s distance from existing 

populations, and the normal dispersal 

distances for gray wolves. Additionally, 

the small numbers of individuals likely 

to occupy the NEP following the release 

and the sizable distances between 

populations makes any potential 

interaction between individuals or a 

merging of populations highly unlikely. 

Further, even if gray wolves from the 

NRM or other populations were to 

disperse into the NEP, the presence of 

one or a few individual dispersing gray 

wolves would not constitute a 

population, as described above. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77027 

Therefore, gray wolves reintroduced 

into Colorado will be wholly 

geographically separate from the 

delisted portion of the NRM population 

as well as the remainder of the currently 

listed 44-State entity. Based on this 

geographic separation, we conclude that 

any gray wolves found in Colorado after 

the initial release will, with a high 

degree of likelihood, be members of the 

NEP; therefore, we conclude that 

geographic location is an appropriate 

means to identify members of the NEP. 

As noted in Release Procedures, 

above, CPW plans to fit individual 

animals reintroduced to the Colorado 

NEP with GPS collars or a mix of GPS 

and VHF collars, with GPS preferred in 

the early stages of the reintroduction 

effort. Reintroduced wolves fitted with 

radio telemetry collars and other 

identifiable marks prior to release will 

enable CPW to determine if animals 

within Colorado are members of the 

reintroduced NEP and not extant wolves 

from other populations (e.g., the 

delisted NRM population). However, as 

reintroduced wolves begin to reproduce 

and disperse from Colorado packs, wolf 

abundance and distribution will 

increase in Colorado and the ability to 

capture and mark a high proportion of 

the population will decline. Given the 

challenges associated with marking a 

high number of wolves as the 

population increases and the distance 

from known packs in Wyoming and 

other populations of gray wolves, we 

will consider all gray wolves found in 

the State of Colorado to be members of 

the NEP. 

Is the experimental population essential 

or nonessential? 

When we establish experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

Act, we must determine whether or not 

that population is essential to the 

continued existence of the species. This 

determination is based solely on the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Our regulations (50 CFR 

17.80(b)) state that an experimental 

population is considered essential if its 

loss would be likely to appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival of that 

species in the wild. We are designating 

the population of gray wolves in 

Colorado as nonessential for the 

following reason. 

Populations of gray wolves within the 

44-state listed entity include the Great 

Lakes metapopulation and growing 

populations in California, Oregon, and 

Washington. Multiple large, growing, or 

stable metapopulations of gray wolves 

inhabiting separate and ecologically 

diverse areas ensure that the survival of 

the listed species does not rely on any 

single population. Therefore, the loss of 

the Colorado NEP would not be likely 

to appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of the species in the wild, and 

we find that the Colorado NEP is not 

essential to the continued existence of 

the species. 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management 

We have included management 

measures to address potential conflicts 

between wolves and humans and 

wolves and livestock. Management of 

the nonessential experimental 

population would allow gray wolves in 

the NEP to be hazed, killed, or relocated 

by the Service or our designated agent(s) 

for livestock depredations. Under 

special conditions, the public may 

harass or kill wolves in the act of 

attacking livestock (defined below). We 

have also included an exception to 

allow nonlethal and lethal management 

of gray wolves that are having an 

unacceptable impact to ungulate herds 

or populations on Tribal lands (defined 

below). This exception requires a 

science-based proposal that must, at a 

minimum, include the following 

information: (1) the basis of ungulate 

population or herd management 

objectives; (2) data indicating that the 

ungulate herd is below management 

objectives; (3) what data indicate that 

wolves are a major cause of the ungulate 

population decline; (4) why wolf 

removal is a warranted solution to help 

restore the ungulate herd to 

management objectives; (5) the level and 

duration of wolf removal being 

proposed; (6) how ungulate population 

response to wolf removal will be 

measured and control actions adjusted 

for effectiveness; and (7) demonstration 

that attempts were and are being made 

to address other identified major causes 

of ungulate herd or population declines 

or of Tribal government commitment to 

implement possible remedies or 

conservation measures in addition to 

wolf removal. 

The proposal must be subjected to 

both public and peer review prior to it 

being finalized and submitted to the 

Service for review. At least three 

independent peer reviewers with 

relevant expertise in the subject matter 

that are not staff of the Tribe submitting 

the proposal must be used to review the 

proposal. Upon Service review, and 

before wolf removals can be authorized, 

the Service will evaluate the 

information provided by the requesting 

Tribe and provide a written 

determination to the requesting Tribal 

game and fish agency on whether such 

actions are scientifically based and 

warranted. 

As the lead agency for reintroduction 

efforts for gray wolves in Colorado, CPW 

will coordinate with the Service on 

releases, monitoring, and other tasks as 

needed to ensure successful 

reintroduction of the species to the 

State. Definitions pertaining to special 

management provisions are listed 

below: 

Depredating wolves—Gray wolves 

that have been confirmed by the Service 

or our designated agent as having 

depredated on livestock at least once 

within the last 30 days, and are 

routinely present and present a 

significant risk to the health and safety 

of livestock. 

Designated agent—An employee of a 

Federal, State, or Tribal agency that is 

authorized or directed by the Service to 

conduct gray wolf management 

consistent with this rule. 

The State of Colorado and Tribes 

within the State with wolf management 

plans also may become designated 

agents by submitting a request to the 

Service to establish a memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) under this rule. Once 

accepted by the Service, the MOA may 

allow the State of Colorado or Tribes 

within the State to assume lead 

authority for wolf conservation and 

management within their respective 

jurisdictions and to implement the 

portion of their State or Tribal wolf 

management plans that does not exceed 

the exceptions provided in this rule. 

The Service oversight (aside from 

Service law enforcement investigations) 

under an MOA is limited to monitoring 

compliance with this rule, issuing 

written authorizations for wolf take on 

reservations without wolf management 

plans, and an annual review of the State 

or Tribal program to ensure consistency 

with this rule. Under either a 

cooperative agreement or an MOA, no 

management outside the provisions of 

this rule is allowed unless we solicit 

additional public comment, and this 

rule is modified accordingly. 

Incidental take—Experimental 

population rules contain specific 

prohibitions and exceptions regarding 

the taking of individual animals under 

the Act. These rules are compatible with 

most routine human activities in the 

NEP area (e.g., resource monitoring, 

invasive species management, and 

research; see How Will the NEP Further 

the Conservation of the Species? above). 

Section 3(19) of the Act defines ‘‘take’’ 

as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct.’’ ‘‘Incidental take’’ is further 

defined as take that is incidental to, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77028 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

not the purpose of, the carrying out of 

an otherwise lawful activity. See table 1 

below for additional details on 

incidental take of gray wolves within 

the NEP area. 

Intentional harassment—The 

deliberate and pre-planned harassment 

of wolves, including by less-than-lethal 

munitions that are designed to cause 

physical discomfort and temporary 

physical injury but not death. The term 

does not apply if there is evidence of 

unusual attractants or artificial or 

intentional feeding. 

Interagency consultation—For 

purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act, 

section 10(j) of the Act and our 

regulations (at 50 CFR 17.83) provide 

that nonessential experimental 

populations are treated as species 

proposed for listing under the Act 

except on National Park Service and 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands, 

where they are treated as threatened 

species for the purposes of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act. Where actions may 

affect gray wolves within units of the 

National Wildlife Refuge system or 

National Park Service in Colorado the 

Service will coordinate with the 

National Park Service and National 

Wildlife Refuge system to address their 

section 7(a)(2) obligations. 

In the act of attacking—The actual 

biting, wounding, grasping, or killing of 

livestock or working 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. This definition 

does not apply if there is evidence of 

unusual attractants or artificial or 

intentional feeding. 

Landowner—An owner or lessee of 

private land, or their immediate family 

members, or the owner’s employees, 

contractors, or volunteers who are 

currently employed to actively work on 

that private land. In addition, the 

owners (or their employees or 

contractors) of livestock that are 

currently and legally grazed on that 

private land and other leaseholders on 

that private land (such as outfitters or 

guides who lease hunting rights from 

private landowners), are considered 

landowners on that private land for the 

purposes of this regulation. Private land, 

under this rule, also includes all nonFederal land and land within Tribal 

reservations. Individuals legally using 

Tribal lands are considered landowners 

for the purposes of this rule. 

Livestock—Cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, 

mules, goats, domestic bison, and 

herding and guarding animals (alpacas, 

llamas, donkeys, and certain breeds of 

dogs commonly used for herding or 

guarding livestock). Livestock excludes 

dogs that are not being used for 

livestock guarding or herding. 

Livestock producer—A person who is 

actively engaged in farming/ranching 

and receives income from the 

production of livestock. 

Non-injurious—Does not cause either 

temporary or permanent physical 

damage or death. 

Opportunistic harassment— 

Harassment without the conduct of 

prior purposeful actions to attract, track, 

wait for, or search out the wolf. 

Opportunistic harassment includes 

scaring wolves with noise (e.g., yelling 

or shooting firearms into the air), 

movement (e.g., running or driving 

toward the wolf), or objects (e.g., 

throwing a rock at a wolf or releasing 

bear pepper spray). 

Private land—All land other than that 

under Federal Government ownership 

and administration and including Tribal 

reservations. 

Public land—Federal land such as 

that administered by the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, USDA 

Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Department of Defense, or other 

agencies with the Federal Government. 

Public land permittee—A person or 

that person’s employee who has an 

active, valid Federal land-use permit to 

use specific Federal lands to graze 

livestock or operate as an outfitter or 

guiding business that uses livestock. 

This definition does not include private 

individuals or organizations who have 

Federal permits for other activities on 

public land such as collecting firewood, 

mushrooms, antlers, or Christmas trees, 

or logging, mining, oil or gas 

development, or other uses that do not 

require livestock. In recognition of the 

special and unique authorities of Tribes 

and their relationship with the U.S. 

Government, for the purposes of this 

rule, the definition includes Tribal 

members who legally graze their 

livestock on ceded public lands under 

recognized Tribal treaty rights. 

Relocation—Capture and movement 

to another location within the NEP. 

Remove—Place in captivity or kill. 

Research—Scientific studies resulting 

in data that will lend to enhancement of 

the survival of gray wolves. 

Rule—‘‘This rule’’ in the regulatory 

text refers to the NEP regulations. 

Tribal land—any lands where title is 

either held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or 

individual Indian or held by an Indian 

Tribe or individual Indian subject to 

restrictions by the United States against 

alienation (i.e., sale or transfer). 

Unacceptable impact—Tribally 

determined decline in a wild ungulate 

population or herd, where wolf 

predation is a major cause of the 

population or herd not meeting 

established Tribal management goals on 

Tribal land. The Tribal determination 

must be peer-reviewed and reviewed 

and commented on by the public prior 

to a final, written determination by the 

Service that an unacceptable impact has 

occurred and that wolf removal will 

benefit the affected ungulate herd or 

population. 

Working dogs—Guard or herding dogs 

used in livestock production. 

Wounded—Exhibiting scraped or torn 

hide or flesh, bleeding, or other 

evidence of physical damage caused by 

a wolf or wolves. 

TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE FORMS OF TAKE FOR GRAY WOLVES IN THE COLORADO NEP AREA

Take provision Description of provision in the experimental population rule 

Take in defense of human life ........ Any person may take a wolf in defense of the individual’s life or the life of another person. The unauthorized taking of a wolf without demonstration of an immediate and direct threat to human life may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. 

Agency take of wolves determined 

to be a threat to human life and 

safety.

The Service, or our designated agents, may promptly remove (that is, place in captivity or kill) any wolf determined by the Service or designated agent to be a threat to human life or safety. 

Opportunistic harassment ............... Anyone may conduct opportunistic harassment of any gray wolf in a non-injurious manner at any time. Opportunistic harassment must be reported to the Service or our designated agent within 7 days. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77029 

TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE FORMS OF TAKE FOR GRAY WOLVES IN THE COLORADO NEP AREA—Continued 

Take provision Description of provision in the experimental population rule 

Intentional harassment .................... After the Service, or our designated agent, has confirmed wolf activity on private land or on a public land 

grazing allotment, the Service or our designated agent may issue written take authorization valid for not 

longer than 1 year to any landowner or public land permittee to intentionally harass wolves in a nonlethal, injurious manner. The harassment must occur in the area and under the conditions as specifically 

identified in the written take authorization. Intentional harassment must be reported to the Service or a 

designated agent within 7 days. This exception does not apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants 

or artificial or intentional feeding. 

Taking wolves ‘‘in the act of attacking’’ livestock on PRIVATE land.Consistent with State or Tribal requirements, any landowner may take (injure or kill) a gray wolf in the act 

of attacking (wounding, harassing, molesting, or killing) livestock or working dogs on their private land. 

Any wolf taken in the act must be reported to the Service or our designated agent within 24 hours. We 

will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. The carcass of any wolf taken and 

surrounding area must not be disturbed in order to preserve physical evidence that the livestock or working dogs were recently attacked by a wolf or wolves. The Service or our designated agent must be able 

to confirm that the livestock or dog were wounded, harassed, molested, or killed by a wolf or wolves. 

The taking of any wolf without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. This exception to the prohibition on take does not apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants 

or artificial or intentional feeding. 

Taking wolves ‘‘in the act of attacking’’ livestock on PUBLIC land.Consistent with State or Tribal requirements, any livestock producer and public land permittee who is legally using public land under a valid Federal land-use permit may take a gray wolf in the act of attacking 

their livestock or working dogs on the person’s allotment or other area authorized for their use without 

prior written authorization from the Service. The Service or our designated agent must be able to confirm 

that the livestock or working dogs were wounded, harassed, molested, or killed by a wolf or wolves. The 

carcass of any wolf taken and the area surrounding it must not be disturbed to preserve physical evidence that the take was conducted according to this rule. Any person legally present on public land may 

immediately take a wolf that is in the act of attacking the individual’s stock animal or working dog, provided conditions noted in taking of wolves in the act on private land are met. Any take or method of take 

on public land must be consistent with the rules and regulations on those public lands. Any lethal or injurious take must be reported to the Service or a designated agent within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. This exception to the prohibition on take does not 

apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or intentional feeding. 

Additional taking by private citizens 

on their PRIVATE land.

At the Service’s or our designated agents’ direction, the Service or designated agent may issue a ‘‘depredation’’ written take authorization of limited duration (45 days or less) to a landowner or their employees 

to take up to a specified (by the Service or our designated agent) number of wolves on their private land 

if: (1) The landowner has had at least one depredation by wolves on livestock that has been confirmed 

by the Service or our designated agent within the last 30 days; and (2) the Service or our designated 

agent has determined that depredating wolves are routinely present on the private land and present a 

significant risk to the health and safety of livestock; and (3) the Service or our designated agent has authorized lethal removal of wolves from that same private land. These authorizations may be terminated 

at any time once threats have been resolved or minimized. Any lethal or injurious take must be reported 

to the Service or a designated agent within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access 

to the site is limited. This exception does not apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants or artificial 

or intentional feeding. 

Additional taking by grazing permittees on PUBLIC land.At the Service’s or our designated agents’ direction, the Service or designated agent may issue a ‘‘depredation’’ written take authorization of limited duration (45 days or less) to a public land grazing permittee 

to take up to a specified (by the Service or our designated agent) number of wolves on that permittee’s 

active livestock grazing allotment if: (1) The grazing allotment has had at least one depredation by 

wolves on livestock that has been confirmed by the Service or our designated agent within the last 30 

days; and (2) the Service or our designated agent has determined that depredating wolves are routinely 

present on that allotment and present a significant risk to the health and safety of livestock; and (3) the 

Service or our designated agent has authorized lethal removal of wolves from that same allotment. 

These authorizations may be terminated at any time once threats have been resolved or minimized. Any 

take or method of take on public land must be consistent with the rules and regulations on those public 

lands. Any lethal or injurious take must be reported to the Service or a designated agent within 24 

hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. This exception does not 

apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or intentional feeding. 

Agency take of wolves that depredate livestock.The Service or our designated agent may carry out harassment, nonlethal control measures, relocation, 

placement in captivity, or lethal control of depredating wolves. The Service or our designated agent will 

consider: (1) Evidence of wounded livestock or working dogs or remains of livestock or working dogs 

that show that the injury or death was caused by wolves, or evidence that wolves were in the act of attacking livestock or working dogs; (2) the likelihood that additional wolf-caused losses or attacks may 

occur if no control action is taken; (3) evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or intentional feeding of 

wolves; and (4) evidence that animal husbandry practices recommended in approved allotment plans 

and annual operating plans were followed. 

Incidental take ................................. Any person may take a gray wolf if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, if reasonable due 

care was practiced to avoid such taking, and such taking is reported within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking it for another species is not considered incidental take and may be referred to the appropriate authorities for 

prosecution. 

Permits for recovery actions that include take of gray wolves.Permits are available and required, except as otherwise allowed by this rule, for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, educational purposes, or other purposes consistent with the Act 

(50 CFR 17.32). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77030 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—ALLOWABLE FORMS OF TAKE FOR GRAY WOLVES IN THE COLORADO NEP AREA—Continued 

Take provision Description of provision in the experimental population rule 

Additional taking provisions for 

agency employees and our designated agents.

Any Service employee or our designated agent may take a gray wolf from the NEP: (1) For take related to 

the release, tracking, monitoring, recapture, and management for the NEP; (2) to aid or euthanize sick, 

injured, or orphaned wolves or transfer to a licensed veterinarian for care; (3) to dispose of a dead specimen; (4) to salvage a dead specimen that may be used for scientific study; (5) to aid in law enforcement 

investigations involving wolves (collection of specimens for necropsy, etc.); or (6) to remove wolves with 

abnormal physical or behavioral characteristics, as determined by the Service or our designated agent, 

to prevent these gray wolves from passing on or teaching those traits to other wolves. 

Take of gray wolves that are contributing to unacceptable impacts 

to wild ungulate populations or 

herds on Tribal land.

This would allow nonlethal and/or lethal management of gray wolves that are having an unacceptable impact to wild ungulate herds or populations on Tribal lands. This exception requires Tribes to develop a 

science-based proposal that must, at a minimum, include the following information: (1) the basis of 

ungulate population or herd management objectives; (2) data indicating that the ungulate herd is below 

management objectives; (3) data indicating that wolves are a major cause of the ungulate population decline; (4) why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate herd to management objectives; (5) the level and duration of wolf removal being proposed; (6) how ungulate population response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness; and (7) demonstration that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate 

herd or population declines or of Tribal government commitment to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal. The proposal must be subjected to both public and peer 

review prior to it being finalized and submitted to the Service for review. At least three independent peer 

reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter that are not staff of the Tribe submitting the proposal must be used to review the proposal. Upon Service review, and before wolf removals can be authorized, the Service will evaluate the information provided by the requesting Tribe and provide a written 

determination to the requesting Tribal game and fish agency on whether such actions are scientifically 

based and warranted. 

Review and Evaluation of the Success or 

Failure of the NEP 

CPW plans to use ground and aerial 

monitoring techniques to document 

wolf reproductive success, abundance, 

and distribution in Colorado postrelease. This information will be 

summarized in an annual report by 

CPW that describes wolf conservation 

and management activities that occurred 

in Colorado each calendar or biological 

year to evaluate progress toward 

achieving the State of Colorado’s 

downlisting and recovery criteria. A 

copy of the report will be submitted 

annually to the Service by June 30th and 

posted on CPW’s website. The annual 

report may include, but not be limited 

to, post-release wolf movements and 

behavior; wolf minimum counts or 

abundance estimates; reproductive 

success and recruitment; territory use 

and distribution; cause-specific wolf 

mortalities; and a summary of wolf 

conflicts and associated management 

activities to minimize wolf conflict risk. 

For additional details, please see CPW 

2021b (entire) and Release Procedures, 

above. 

The Service will evaluate Colorado’s 

wolf reintroduction and management 

program in an annual summary report. 

Additionally, 5 years after the last 

reintroductions are completed, the 

Service will evaluate whether the wolf 

population is meeting the State’s 

recovery goals and conservation of the 

species. During this evaluation, we will 

assess the reintroduction program and 

coordinate with CPW if it is determined 

that modifications to reintroduction 

protocols are necessary. We believe that 

5 years after the reintroductions is a 

reasonable timeline for this evaluation 

because that timeline would allow for 

evaluation of the success of the 

management program and of wolf 

population growth and abundance in 

order to assess progress toward 

achieving the State of Colorado’s 

recovery goals. If modifications to wolf 

monitoring and management activities 

are needed, the Service will coordinate 

closely with CPW to ensure progress 

toward achieving recovery goals while 

concurrently minimizing wolf-related 

conflicts in Colorado. 

Other Considerations 

Above, we considered potential 

effects of the release on wild 

populations of the delisted NRM 

potential donor populations. We also 

considered potential effects of the 

release on the Mexican wolf. The 

number of gray wolves in Colorado 

could continue to grow and expand, 

which could increase the likelihood that 

gray wolves in Colorado disperse far 

enough south to encounter Mexican 

wolves. The timing and extent of any 

potential future contact are uncertain 

and difficult to project, but if contact 

were to occur, interbreeding is a 

concern for the Mexican wolf. If gray 

wolves come to occupy Mexican wolf 

recovery areas, these physically larger 

wolves are likely to dominate smaller 

Mexican wolves and quickly occupy 

breeding positions, as will their hybrid 

offspring. Hybrid population(s) thus 

derived will not contribute towards 

recovery of Mexican wolves because 

they will significantly threaten integrity 

of the listed entity (Odell et al. 2018, 

entire). However, potential inbreeding 

would be unlikely to have significant 

effects on the gray wolf, given the 

narrow geographic range in which such 

contact would likely occur relative to 

the species’ overall range. Additionally, 

we do not intend to initiate or allow 

adaptive introgression between gray 

wolves and Mexican wolves as part of 

the genetic management of Mexican 

wolves (87 FR 39357, July 1, 2022). To 

help minimize interactions and protect 

Mexican wolf genetic integrity, we have 

simultaneously issued a section 

10(a)(1)(A) permit to be held by the 

Service, which would authorize our 

designated agents to assist in the 

capture and return of wolves originating 

from the Colorado NEP. 

Findings 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available (in 

accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find 

that releasing gray wolves into the State 

of Colorado with the regulatory 

provisions in this rulemaking will 

further the conservation of the species 

in the currently listed 44-State entity. 

The NEP status is appropriate for the 

introduced population; the potential 

loss of the experimental population 

would not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival of the species 

in the 44-State listed entity since more 

than 4,600 wolves are distributed across 

at least 6 different States in the Western 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77031 

United States and the western Great 

Lakes. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094) 

Executive Order (E.O.) 14094 

reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 

and E.O. 13563 and states that 

regulatory analysis should facilitate 

agency efforts to develop regulations 

that serve the public interest, advance 

statutory objectives, and are consistent 

with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and the 

Presidential Memorandum of January 

20, 2021 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). Regulatory analysis, as 

practicable and appropriate, shall 

recognize distributive impacts and 

equity, to the extent permitted by law. 

E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that 

regulations must be based on the best 

available science and that the 

rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this final rule in a manner consistent 

with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is not significant. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 

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 effect 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 an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

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. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include manufacturing and mining 

concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

considered the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

This rule is modeled after previous 

NEP designations in Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming that contributed to the 

recovery of gray wolves while allowing 

for the control and management of 

wolves that caused conflicts and 

economic impacts on livestock 

producers. The majority of gray wolves 

in the Western United States are part of 

the NRM population, which is no longer 

protected under the Act. Despite 

increased incidences of human-caused 

mortality in the NRM population after 

delisting, this population is stable to 

increasing.(Service 2020, pp. 14–19; 85 

FR 69778, November 3, 2020). 

The State of Colorado has recognized 

the utility of NEP designations in 

reintroducing gray wolves while 

addressing the concerns of local, State, 

and Tribal governments, as well as 

private entities, and engaged in an 

extensive stakeholder outreach process 

to develop a State management plan 

with broad-based support (CPW 2022). 

This process, which involved a 

Stakeholder Advisory Group comprising 

a diverse array of stakeholders such as 

agricultural producers, hunting guides, 

wolf conservation advocates, and other 

interests and a Technical Working 

Group comprising gray wolf experts, 

assisted in the formulation of an impactbased management matrix and the 

overall Colorado Gray Wolf 

Management and Restoration Plan. 

The reduced restrictions on taking 

depredating wolves (see definition 

above under Management Restrictions, 

Protective Measures, and Other Special 

Management) in this rule, relative to 

endangered species that receive the full 

protections of sections 7 and 9 of the 

Act, will make the management of 

wolves easier and more effective, thus 

reducing the economic losses that result 

from depredation of wolves on livestock 

and guard animals and working dogs. 

Furthermore, a State program to 

compensate livestock producers who 

experience livestock losses caused by 

wolves is being developed and will be 

implemented upon CPW Commission 

approval. As a point of reference, 

compensation for livestock losses in 

Montana in 2021 totaled $103,815.95 

(Parks et al. 2022, p. 19), and 

compensation in Wyoming for 2022 

totaled $187,382.00 (WGFD et al. 2023, 

pp. 24). The potential effect on livestock 

producers in western States is very 

small, but more flexible wolf 

management will provide benefits to 

stakeholders and livestock producers by 

providing options to protect assets. 

During the development of this final 

rule, we reviewed and evaluated all 

information submitted during the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

(88 FR 10258, February 17, 2023) that 

may pertain to our consideration of the 

probably incremental economic impacts 

of this NEP designation. Based on this 

information, we affirm our certification 

that this NEP designation under section 

10(j) of the Act will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare statements of energy effects 

‘‘to the extent permitted by law’’ when 

undertaking actions identified as 

significant energy actions (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001). E.O. 13211 defines a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as an action 

that (i) is a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 (or any successor 

order, including most recently E.O. 

14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023)); 

and (ii) is likely to have a significant 

adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. This rule 

is not a significant regulatory action 

under E.O. 12866 or 14094. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and there is no requirement to 

prepare a statement of energy effects for 

this action. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77032 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following finding: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year (i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

This NEP designation for gray wolves in 

Colorado would not impose any 

additional management or protection 

requirements on the States or other 

entities. In general, a Federal mandate is 

a provision in legislation, statute, or 

regulation that would impose an 

enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ 

includes a regulation that ‘‘would 

impose an enforceable duty upon State, 

local, or Tribal governments’’ with two 

exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a condition of 

Federal assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program,’’ unless the 

regulation ‘‘relates to a then-existing 

Federal program under which 

$500,000,000 or more is provided 

annually to State, local, and Tribal 

governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it would not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities and it 

would not place additional 

requirements on any city, county, or 

other local municipalities. Therefore, a 

small government agency plan is not 

required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have determined 

that 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 of a listed species) 

and will not present a bar to all 

reasonable and expected beneficial use 

of private property. Additionally, 

because of the regulatory flexibility 

provided by NEP designations under 

section 10(j) of the Act, the increased 

flexibility provided by this rule for State 

or Tribal-led gray wolf management will 

reduce regulatory restrictions on private 

lands and will result in minor positive 

economic effects for a small percentage 

of livestock producers. Therefore, we 

conclude that this rulemaking for the 

gray wolf does not pose significant 

taking implications. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, this rule does not have 

significant federalism effects. 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. CPW 

requested that we undertake this 

rulemaking to support the conservation 

of wolves in the 44-State entity and in 

Colorado and to provide increased take 

authority to resolve gray wolf conflicts, 

which will assist with conservation of 

the species. 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 

affected. This rule operates to maintain 

the existing relationship between the 

States and the Federal Government and 

is being undertaken at the request of 

CPW. We cooperated with CPW and 

other State agencies in the preparation 

of this rule. 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 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule would not unduly burden the 

judicial system and would meet the 

requirements of sections (3)(a) and 

(3)(b)(2) of the Order. We are 

designating the NEP in accordance with 

the provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the NEP, this 

rule presents the areas of the NEP on a 

map and the rule provides several 

options for the interested public to 

obtain more detailed location 

information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule contains existing and new 

collections of information that require 

approval by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 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 OMB 

control number. The OMB previously 

reviewed the new information 

collection requirements contained in 

this rulemaking related to the 

establishment of an NEP of the gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) in the State of Colorado, 

under section 10(j) of the ESA and 

assigned OMB Control Number 1018– 

0189. OMB has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

associated with permitting requirements 

associated with native endangered and 

threatened species, and experimental 

populations, and assigned OMB Control 

Number 1018–0094, ‘‘Federal Fish and 

Wildlife Permit Applications and 

Reports—Native Endangered and 

Threatened Species; 50 CFR parts 10, 

13, and 17’’ (expires January 31, 2024). 

Experimental populations established 

under section 10(j) of the Act, as 

amended, require information collection 

and reporting to the Service. We will 

collect information on the gray wolf 

NEP to help further the recovery of the 

species and to assess the success of the 

reintroduced populations. There are no 

forms associated with this information 

collection. The respondents notify us 

when an incident occurs, so there is no 

set frequency for collecting the 

information. Other Federal agencies 

provide us with the vast majority of the 

information on experimental 

populations under cooperative 

agreements for the conduct of the 

recovery programs. However, the public 

also provides some information to us. 

The new information collection 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77033 

requirements identified below require 

approval by OMB: 

1. Appointment of designated agent— 

A designated agent is an employee of a 

Federal, State, or Tribal agency that is 

authorized or directed by the Service to 

conduct gray wolf management. A 

prospective designated agent submits a 

letter to the Service requesting 

designated agent status. The letter 

includes a proposal for the work to be 

completed, a list of individuals that may 

perform the work, and a resume (or 

similar) demonstrating qualifications of 

each individual to competently perform 

the work. The Service will then respond 

to the requester with a letter authorizing 

them to complete the work. 

2. Request for written take 

authorization—After receiving 

confirmation of wolf activity on private 

land or on a public land grazing 

allotment, we or the designated agent 

may issue written take authorization 

valid for not longer than 1 year, with 

appropriate conditions, to any 

landowner or public land permittee to 

intentionally harass wolves. The 

harassment must occur in the area and 

under the conditions as specifically 

identified in the written take 

authorization. 

3. Request for ‘‘depredation’’ written 

take authorization—The Service or 

designated agent may issue a 

‘‘depredation’’ written take 

authorization of limited duration (45 

days or fewer) to a landowner or their 

employees, or to a public land grazing 

permittee, to take up to a specified (by 

the Service or our designated agent) 

number of wolves. 

4. Reporting requirements—Except as 

otherwise specified in this rule or in an 

authorization, any take of a gray wolf 

must be reported to the Service, or our 

designated agent as follows (additional 

reasonable time will be allowed if 

access to the site is limited): 

a. Lethal take must be reported within 

24 hours. We will allow additional 

reasonable time if access to the site is 

limited. 

b. Opportunistic or intentional 

harassment must be reported within 7 

days. 

c. Gray wolves taken into captivity for 

care or to be euthanized must be 

reported to the Service within 24 hours, 

or as soon as reasonably appropriate. 

5. Annual report—To evaluate 

progress toward achieving State 

downlisting and delisting criteria, CPW 

will summarize monitoring information 

in an annual report. The report, due by 

June 30 of each year, will describe wolf 

conservation and management activities 

that occurred in Colorado for as long as 

the gray wolf is federally listed during 

any portion of a calendar or biological 

year. The annual report will include, 

but not be limited to: 

• post-release wolf movements and 

behavior; 

• wolf minimum counts or 

abundance estimates; 

• reproductive success and 

recruitment; 

• territory use and distribution; 

• cause-specific wolf mortalities; and 

• a summary of wolf conflicts and 

associated management activities to 

minimize wolf conflict risk. 

6. Recovery or reporting of dead 

individuals and specimen collection 

from experimental populations—This 

type of information is for the purpose of 

documenting incidental or authorized 

scientific collection. Specimens are to 

be retained or disposed of only in 

accordance with directions from the 

Service. Most of the contacts with the 

public deal primarily with the reporting 

of sightings of experimental population 

animals, or the inadvertent discovery of 

an injured or dead individual. 

7. Proposal—Take of Gray Wolves on 

Tribal Lands (NEW in Final Rule)—The 

exception to allow take of gray wolves 

that are contributing to unacceptable 

impacts to wild ungulate population or 

herds on Tribal land requires Tribes to 

develop a science-based proposal that 

must, at a minimum, include the 

following information: 

• The basis of ungulate population or 

herd management objectives; 

• Data indicating that the ungulate 

herd is below management objectives; 

• Data indicating that wolves are a 

major cause of the ungulate population 

decline; 

• Why wolf removal is a warranted 

solution to help restore the ungulate 

herd to management objectives; 

• The level and duration of wolf 

removal being proposed; 

• How ungulate population response 

to wolf removal will be measured and 

control actions adjusted for 

effectiveness; and 

• Demonstration that attempts were 

and are being made to address other 

identified major causes of ungulate herd 

or population declines or of Tribal 

government commitment to implement 

possible remedies or conservation 

measures in addition to wolf removal. 

The proposal must be subjected to both 

public and peer review prior to it being 

finalized and submitted to the Service 

for review. At least three independent 

peer reviewers with relevant expertise 

in the subject matter that are not staff of 

the Tribe submitting the proposal must 

be used to review the proposal. Upon 

Service review, and before wolf 

removals can be authorized, the Service 

will evaluate the information provided 

by the requesting Tribe and provide a 

written determination to the requesting 

Tribal game and fish agency on whether 

such actions are scientifically based and 

warranted. 

We will use the information described 

above to assess the effectiveness of 

control activities and develop means to 

reduce problems with livestock where 

depredation is a problem. Service 

recovery specialists use the information 

to determine the success of 

reintroductions in relation to 

established recovery plan goals for the 

threatened and endangered species 

involved. 

Title of Collection: Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, Experimental 

Populations—Colorado Gray Wolf (50 

CFR 17.84). 

OMB Control Number: 1018–0189. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: New. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Individuals; private sector; and State/ 

local/Tribal governments. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: Annually for 

annual report and on occasion for other 

requirements. 

Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour 

Burden Cost: None. 

Requirement 

Number of 

annual 

respondents 

Number of 

annual 

responses 

each 

Total annual 

responses Average completion time 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Appointment of Designated Agent: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Request for Written Take Authorization: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77034 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Requirement 

Number of 

annual 

respondents 

Number of 

annual 

responses 

each 

Total annual 

responses Average completion time 

Total 

annual 

burden 

hours 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Request for ‘‘Depredation’’ Written Take 

Authorization: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Reporting Requirement—Lethal Take: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Reporting Requirement—Opportunistic or 

Intentional Harassment: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Reporting Requirement—Captivity for Care 

or to be Euthanized: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Annual Report: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Notification—Recovery or Reporting of 

Dead Specimen and Specimen Collection: 

Individuals ............................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Private Sector ....................................... 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Proposal—Take of Gray Wolves on Tribal 

Lands (NEW in Final Rule): 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ........................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping) 1 

Totals ............................................. 25 .................. 25 ...................................................................... 25 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, we invite the public and other 

Federal agencies to comment on any 

aspect of this information collection, 

including: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) How might the agency minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of response. 

We will accept and consider all 

public comments concerning the 

information collection requirements 

received in response to this final rule. 

Send your written comments and 

suggestions on this information 

collection to the Service Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, 

VA 22041–3803 (mail); or Info_Coll@

fws.gov (email). Please reference ‘‘OMB 

Control Number 1018–BG79’’ in the 

subject line of your comments. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have prepared a final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) in connection with this 

rule to designate the Colorado 

nonessential experimental population of 

gray wolves. The purpose of the FEIS is 

to identify and disclose the 

environmental consequences resulting 

from the designation of the gray wolf in 

Colorado. The FEIS is an outgrowth of 

the public scoping process we 

conducted from July 21, 2022, to August 

22, 2022, and the public and peer 

review comments we received on the 

draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) (see 88 FR 10318, February 17, 

2023), and our February 17, 2023, 

proposed rule (88 FR 10258). We used 

the FEIS, which we announced in the 

Federal Register on September 19, 2023 

(88 FR 64399), to inform our final 

decision for this rulemaking. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

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 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. We 

have considered possible effects of this 

rule on federally recognized Indian 

Tribes. In accordance with Secretaries’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77035 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with Tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that Tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to Tribes. In July 2022, we sent 

notification letters to the Native 

American Tribes within and adjacent to 

the NEP about this rule, and to 

determine their interest in participating 

in Tribal consultation under Secretaries’ 

Order 3206 for this action. We invited 

the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern 

Ute Indian Tribes to serve as 

cooperating agencies in the 

development of the environmental 

impact statement. In October 2022, we 

provided an informational webinar to 

the interested Tribes and in January 

2023, we participated in government-togovernment consultation with the 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe. In February 

2023, we participated in an 

informational meeting with the Ute 

Mountain Ute Indian Tribe. If future 

activities resulting from this rule may 

affect Tribal resources, the Service will 

communicate and consult on a 

government-to-government basis with 

any affected Native American Tribes in 

order to find a mutually agreeable 

solution. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Colorado 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the Colorado 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, as set 

forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11, in paragraph (h), by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Wolf, gray’’ 

under Mammals in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable 

rules 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Wolf, gray ..................... Canis lupus ................ U.S.A.: All of AL, AR, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, 

IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, 

MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, 

OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, 

WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, 

UT, and WA as follows: 

(1) Northern AZ (that portion north of the 

centerline of Interstate Highway 40); 

(2) Northern NM (that portion north of the 

centerline of Interstate Highway 40); 

E 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 41 FR 

24062, 6/14/1976; 43 FR 9607, 

3/9/1978; 73 FR 75356, 12/11/ 

2008; 74 FR 47483, 9/16/2009; 

80 FR 9218, 2/20/2015; 50 

CFR 17.95(a).CH

(3) Western OR (that portion of OR west of 

the centerline of Highway 395 and Highway 78 north of Burns Junction and that 

portion of OR west of the centerline of 

Highway 95 south of Burns Junction); 

(4) Most of UT (that portion of UT south and 

west of the centerline of Interstate Highway 

84 and that portion of UT south of Interstate Highway 80 from Echo to the UT/WY 

Stateline); and 

(5) Western WA (that portion of WA west of 

the centerline of Highway 97 and Highway 

17 north of Mesa and that portion of WA 

west of the centerline of Highway 395 

south of Mesa); Mexico. 

Wolf, gray [Colorado 

XN].

Canis lupus ................ U.S.A. (CO) ..................................................... XN 88 FR [Insert Federal Register 

page where the document begins], 11/8/2023; 50 CFR 

17.84(n).10j

Wolf, gray ..................... Canis lupus ................ U.S.A. (MN) ..................................................... T 43 FR 9607, 3/9/1978; 50 CFR 

17.40(d);4(d) 50 CFR 

17.95(a).CH

* * * * * * * 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77036 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by adding paragraph 

(n) to read as follows: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(n) Wolf, gray (Canis lupus). (1) 

Purpose. The regulations in this 

paragraph (n) set forth the provisions of 

a rule to establish an experimental 

population of gray wolves. The Service 

finds that establishment of an 

experimental population of gray wolves 

as described in this paragraph (n) will 

further the conservation of the species. 

(2) Determinations. The gray wolves 

identified in paragraph (n)(3) of this 

section constitute a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) under 

§ 17.81(c)(2). These wolves will be 

managed in accordance with the 

provisions of this rule in the boundaries 

of the NEP area within the State of 

Colorado or any Tribal reservation 

found in the State that has a wolf 

management plan, as further provided 

in this rule. Furthermore, the State of 

Colorado or any Tribe within the State 

that has a wolf management plan 

consistent with this rule can request to 

assume the lead authority for wolf 

management under this rule within the 

borders of the NEP area in the State or 

reservation as set forth in paragraph 

(n)(10) of this section. 

(3) Designated area. The Colorado 

NEP area encompasses the entire State 

of Colorado. All gray wolves found in 

the wild within the boundary of the 

Colorado NEP area are considered 

nonessential experimental animals. Any 

gray wolf that is outside the Colorado 

NEP area, with the exception of wolves 

in the States of Idaho, Minnesota, 

Montana, Wyoming, and portions of the 

States of Oregon, Washington, and Utah, 

is considered endangered. Any wolf 

originating from the Colorado NEP area 

and dispersing beyond its borders may 

be managed by the wolf management 

regulations established for that area or 

may be returned to the Colorado NEP 

area. 

(4) Definitions. Key terms used in this 

rule have the following meanings: 

Depredating wolves—Gray wolves 

that have been confirmed by the Service 

or our designated agent as having 

depredated on livestock at least once 

within the last 30 days, and are 

routinely present and present a 

significant risk to the health and safety 

of livestock. 

Designated agent—An employee of a 

Federal, State, or Tribal agency that is 

authorized or directed by the Service to 

conduct gray wolf management 

consistent with this rule. 

Intentional harassment—The 

deliberate and pre-planned harassment 

of wolves, including by less-than-lethal 

munitions that are designed to cause 

physical discomfort and temporary 

physical injury but not death. 

In the act of attacking—The actual 

biting, wounding, grasping, or killing of 

livestock or working 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 working dogs is 

likely to occur at any moment. 

Landowner—Any of the following 

entities: 

(A) An owner or lessee of private 

land, or their immediate family 

members, or the owner’s employees, 

contractors, or volunteers who are 

currently employed to actively work on 

that private land. 

(B) The owners, or their employees or 

contractors, of livestock that are 

currently and legally grazed on private 

land and herding and guarding animals 

(such as alpacas, llamas, or donkeys) 

and other leaseholders on private land, 

such as outfitters or guides who lease 

hunting rights from private landowners. 

(C) Individuals legally using Tribal 

lands in the State of Colorado. 

Livestock—Cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, 

mules, goats, domestic bison, and 

herding and guarding animals (alpacas, 

llamas, donkeys, and certain breeds of 

dogs commonly used for herding or 

guarding livestock). Livestock excludes 

dogs that are not being used for 

livestock guarding or herding. 

Livestock producer—A person who is 

actively engaged in farming/ranching 

and receives income from the 

production of livestock. 

Non-injurious—Does not cause either 

temporary or permanent physical 

damage or death. 

Opportunistic harassment— 

Harassment without the conduct of 

prior purposeful actions to attract, track, 

wait for, or search out the wolf. 

Opportunistic harassment includes 

scaring wolves with noise (e.g., yelling 

or shooting firearms into the air), 

movement (e.g., running or driving 

toward the wolf), or objects (e.g., 

throwing a rock at a wolf or releasing 

bear pepper spray). 

Private land—All land other than that 

under Federal Government ownership 

and administration and including Tribal 

reservations. 

Public land—Federal land such as 

that administered by the National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service, 

Department of Defense, or other 

agencies within the Federal 

Government. 

Public land permittee—A person or 

that person’s employee who has an 

active, valid Federal land-use permit to 

use specific Federal lands to graze 

livestock or operate an outfitter or 

guiding business that uses livestock and 

Tribal members who legally graze their 

livestock on ceded public lands under 

recognized Tribal treaty rights. This 

term does not include private 

individuals or organizations who have 

Federal permits for other activities on 

public land such as collecting firewood, 

mushrooms, antlers, or Christmas trees, 

logging, mining, oil or gas development, 

or other uses that do not require 

livestock. 

Relocation—Capture and movement 

to another location. 

Remove—Place in captivity or kill. 

Research—Scientific studies resulting 

in data that will lend to enhancement of 

the survival of the gray wolf. 

Rule—The regulations in this 

paragraph (n). 

Tribal land—Any lands where title is 

either held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of an Indian Tribe or 

individual Indian or held by an Indian 

Tribe or individual Indian subject to 

restrictions by the United States against 

alienation (i.e., sale or transfer). 

Unacceptable impact—Tribally 

determined decline in a wild ungulate 

population or herd where wolf 

predation is a major cause of the 

population or herd not meeting 

established Tribal management goals on 

Tribal land. The Tribal determination 

must be peer-reviewed and reviewed 

and commented on by the public prior 

to a final, written determination by the 

Service that an unacceptable impact has 

occurred and that wolf removal will 

benefit the affected ungulate herd or 

population. 

Working dogs—Guard or herding dogs 

typically used in livestock production. 

Wounded—Exhibiting scraped or torn 

hide or flesh, bleeding, or other 

evidence of physical damage caused by 

a wolf. 

(5) Allowable forms of take of gray 

wolves. Take of gray wolves in the 

experimental population is allowed 

without a permit only in these specific 

circumstances: opportunistic 

harassment; intentional harassment; 

take in defense of human life; take to 

protect human safety; take by 

designated agents to remove 

depredating wolves; incidental take; 

take under any previously authorized 

permits issued by the Service; take per 

authorizations for employees of 

designated agents; take for research 

purposes; and take to protect livestock 

animals and working dogs. Consistent 

with the requirements of the State or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77037 

Tribe, take is allowed on private land. 

Take on public land is allowed as 

specified in paragraph (n)(5)(iv)(A) of 

this section. Other than as expressly 

provided by the regulations in this rule, 

all other forms of take are considered a 

violation of section 9 of the Act. Any 

wolf or wolf part taken legally must be 

turned over to the Service unless 

otherwise specified in this rule. Any 

take of wolves must be reported as set 

forth in paragraph (n)(6) of this section. 

(i) Opportunistic harassment. Anyone 

may conduct opportunistic harassment 

of any gray wolf in a non-injurious 

manner at any time. Opportunistic 

harassment must be reported to the 

Service or a designated agent within 7 

days as set forth in paragraph (n)(6) of 

this section. 

(ii) Intentional harassment. After we 

or a designated agent have confirmed 

wolf activity on private land or a public 

land grazing allotment, we or the 

designated agent may issue written take 

authorization, with appropriate 

conditions, valid for not longer than 1 

year to any landowner or public land 

permittee to intentionally harass 

wolves. The harassment must occur in 

the area and under the conditions as 

specifically identified in the written 

take authorization. Intentional 

harassment must be reported to the 

Service or a designated agent(s) within 

7 days as set forth in paragraph (n)(6) of 

this section. The provisions in this 

paragraph (n)(5)(ii) do not apply if there 

is evidence of unusual attractants or 

artificial or intentional feeding. 

(iii) Take by landowners on their 

private land. Landowners may take 

wolves on their private land in the 

following two additional circumstances: 

(A) Consistent with State or Tribal 

requirements, any landowner may take 

a gray wolf in the act of attacking 

livestock or working dogs on private 

land (owned or leased), provided that 

there is no evidence of intentional 

baiting, feeding, or deliberate attractants 

of wolves. To preserve physical 

evidence that the livestock or working 

dogs were recently attacked by a wolf or 

wolves, the carcass of any wolf taken 

and surrounding area must not be 

disturbed. The Service or designated 

agent must be able to confirm that the 

livestock or dogs were wounded, 

harassed, molested, or killed by wolves. 

The take of any wolf without such 

evidence of a direct and immediate 

threat may be referred to the appropriate 

authorities for prosecution. 

(B) The Service or designated agent 

may issue a ‘‘depredation’’ written take 

authorization of limited duration (45 

days or fewer) to a landowner or their 

employees to take up to a specified (by 

the Service or our designated agent) 

number of wolves on their private land 

if: 

(1) The landowner has had at least 

one depredation by wolves on livestock 

that has been confirmed by the Service 

or our designated agent within the last 

30 days; and 

(2) The Service or our designated 

agent has determined that depredating 

wolves routinely occur on the private 

land and present a significant risk to the 

health and safety of livestock; and 

(3) The Service or our designated 

agent has authorized lethal removal of 

wolves from those same private lands. 

(4) The authorizations set forth by this 

paragraph (n)(5)(iii)(B) may be 

terminated at any time once threats have 

been resolved or minimized. 

(iv) Take on public land. Consistent 

with State or Tribal requirements, any 

livestock producer and public land 

permittee (see definitions in paragraph 

(n)(4) of this section) who is legally 

using public land under a valid Federal 

land-use permit may, without prior 

written authorization, take a gray wolf 

in the act of attacking livestock or 

working dogs on the person’s allotment 

or other area authorized for the person’s 

use. 

(A) The Service or designated agent 

must be able to confirm that the 

livestock or working dog was wounded, 

harassed, molested, or killed by a wolf 

or wolves. To preserve physical 

evidence that the take was conducted 

according to this rule, the carcass of any 

wolf taken and the area surrounding it 

should not be disturbed. Any person 

legally present on public land may 

immediately take a wolf that is in the 

act of attacking the individual’s 

livestock animal or working dog, 

provided conditions described in 

paragraph (n)(5)(iii)(A) of this section 

for private land (i.e., ‘‘in the act of 

attacking’’) are met. Any take or method 

of take on public land must be 

consistent with the laws and regulations 

on those public lands. 

(B) The Service or our designated 

agent may issue a ‘‘depredation’’ written 

take authorization of limited duration 

(45 days or fewer) to a public land 

grazing permittee to take up to a 

specified (by the Service or our 

designated agent) number of wolves on 

that permittee’s active livestock grazing 

allotment if all of the following 

situations occur: 

(1) The grazing allotment has had at 

least one depredation by wolves on 

livestock that has been confirmed by the 

Service or our designated agent within 

the last 30 days; and 

(2) The Service or our designated 

agent has determined that depredating 

wolves routinely occur on that 

allotment and present a significant risk 

to the health and safety of livestock; and 

(3) The Service or our designated 

agent has authorized lethal removal of 

wolves from that same allotment. 

(4) The authorizations set forth by this 

paragraph (n)(5)(iv)(B) may be 

terminated at any time once threats have 

been resolved or minimized. 

(5) Any take or method of take on 

public land must be consistent with the 

rules and regulations on those public 

lands. 

(v) Agency take of wolves that 

depredate livestock. The Service or our 

designated agent may carry out 

harassment, nonlethal control measures, 

relocation, placement in captivity, or 

lethal control of depredating wolves. 

The Service or our designated agent will 

consider: 

(A) Evidence of wounded livestock or 

working dogs or remains of livestock or 

working dogs that show that the injury 

or death was caused by wolves, or 

evidence that wolves were in the act of 

attacking livestock or working dogs; 

(B) The likelihood that additional 

wolf-caused losses or attacks may occur 

if no control action is taken; 

(C) Any evidence of unusual 

attractants or artificial or intentional 

feeding of wolves; and 

(D) Evidence that animal husbandry 

practices recommended in approved 

allotment plans and annual operating 

plans were followed. 

(vi) Take in defense of human life. 

Any person may take a gray wolf in 

defense of the individual’s life or the 

life of another person. The taking of a 

wolf without an immediate and direct 

threat to human life may be referred to 

the appropriate authorities for 

prosecution. 

(vii) Take to protect human safety. 

The Service or our designated agent may 

promptly remove any wolf that we or 

our designated agent determines to be a 

threat to human life or safety. 

(viii) Incidental take. Take of a gray 

wolf is allowed if the take is accidental 

and/or incidental to an otherwise lawful 

activity and if reasonable due care was 

practiced to avoid such take and such 

take is reported within 24 hours as set 

forth at paragraph (n)(6) of this section. 

We may refer incidental take that does 

not meet these provisions to the 

appropriate authorities for prosecution. 

Shooters have the responsibility to 

identify their target before shooting. 

Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking 

it for another species is not considered 

incidental take and may be referred to 

the appropriate authorities for 

prosecution. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
77038 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

(ix) Take under permits. Any person 

with a valid permit issued by the 

Service under 50 CFR 17.32, or our 

designated agent, may take wolves in 

the wild, pursuant to terms of the 

permit. 

(x) Additional take authorization for 

agency employees. When acting in the 

course of official duties, any employee 

of the Service or a designated agent may 

take a wolf, when necessary, in regard 

to the release, tracking, monitoring, 

recapture, and management of the NEP 

or to: 

(A) Aid or euthanize a sick, injured, 

or orphaned wolf and transfer it to a 

licensed veterinarian for care; 

(B) Dispose of a dead specimen; 

(C) Salvage a dead specimen that may 

be used for scientific study; 

(D) Aid in law enforcement 

investigations involving wolves 

(collection of specimens for necropsy, 

etc.); or 

(E) Remove wolves with abnormal 

physical or behavioral characteristics, as 

determined by the Service or our 

designated agent, from passing on or 

teaching those traits to other wolves. 

(F) Such take must be reported to the 

Service as set forth in paragraph (n)(6) 

of this section, and specimens are to be 

retained or disposed of only in 

accordance with directions from the 

Service. 

(xi) Take of gray wolves that are 

contributing to unacceptable impacts to 

wild ungulate populations or herds on 

Tribal land. This exception requires 

Tribes to develop a science-based 

proposal that must, at a minimum, 

include the following information: 

(A) The basis of ungulate population 

or herd management objectives; 

(B) Data indicating that the ungulate 

herd is below management objectives; 

(C) Data indicating that wolves are a 

major cause of the ungulate population 

decline; 

(D) Why wolf removal is a warranted 

solution to help restore the ungulate 

herd to management objectives; 

(E) The level and duration of wolf 

removal being proposed; 

(F) How ungulate population response 

to wolf removal will be measured and 

control actions adjusted for 

effectiveness; and 

(G) Demonstration that attempts were 

and are being made to address other 

identified major causes of ungulate herd 

or population declines or of Tribal 

government commitment to implement 

possible remedies or conservation 

measures in addition to wolf removal. 

(H) The proposal described in this 

paragraph (n)(5)(xi) must be subjected to 

both public and peer review prior to 

being finalized and submitted to the 

Service for review. Peer review must 

include at least three independent peer 

reviewers with relevant expertise in the 

subject matter who are not staff of the 

Tribe submitting the proposal. Before 

wolf removals can be authorized, the 

Service will evaluate the information in 

the proposal and provide a written 

determination to the requesting Tribal 

game and fish agency on whether such 

actions are scientifically based and 

warranted. 

(xii) Take for research purposes. 

Permits are available and required, 

except as otherwise allowed by this 

rule, for scientific purposes, 

enhancement of propagation or survival, 

educational purposes, or other purposes 

consistent with the Act (50 CFR 17.32). 

Scientific studies should be reasonably 

expected to result in data that will lead 

to development of sound management 

of the gray wolf and to enhancement of 

its survival as a species. 

(6) Reporting requirements. Except as 

otherwise specified in this rule or in an 

authorization, any take of a gray wolf 

must be reported to the Service or our 

designated agent as follows: Lethal take 

must be reported within 24 hours, and 

opportunistic or intentional harassment 

must be reported within 7 days. We will 

allow additional reasonable time if 

access to the site is limited. 

(i) Report any take of wolves, 

including opportunistic harassment or 

intentional harassment, to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological 

Services Field Office Supervisor (134 

Union Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, 

Colorado 80225; ColoradoES@fws.gov), 

or a Service-designated agent of another 

Federal, State, or Tribal agency. 

(ii) Unless otherwise specified in this 

paragraph (n), any wolf or wolf part 

taken legally must be turned over to the 

Service, which will determine the 

disposition of any live or dead wolves. 

(7) Prohibitions. Take of any gray wolf 

in the NEP is prohibited, except as 

provided in paragraphs (n)(5) and (8) of 

this section. Specifically, the following 

actions are prohibited by this rule: 

(i) No person shall possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export by any means whatsoever, any 

wolf or part thereof from the 

experimental population taken in 

violation of the regulations in this 

paragraph (n) or in violation of 

applicable State or Tribal fish and 

wildlife laws or regulations or the Act. 

(ii) It is unlawful for any person to 

attempt to commit, solicit another to 

commit, or cause to be committed any 

offense defined in this paragraph (n). 

(8) Monitoring. Gray wolves in the 

NEP area will be monitored by radio 

telemetry or other standard wolf 

population monitoring techniques as 

appropriate. Any animal that is sick, 

injured, or otherwise in need of special 

care may be captured by authorized 

personnel of the Service or our 

designated agent and given appropriate 

care. Such an animal will be released 

back into its respective area as soon as 

possible, unless physical or behavioral 

problems make it necessary to return the 

animal to captivity or euthanize it. If a 

gray wolf is taken into captivity for care 

or is euthanized, it must be reported to 

the Service within 24 hours or as soon 

as reasonably appropriate. 

(9) Review and evaluation of the 

success or failure of the NEP. Radio 

transmitters, remote cameras, surveys of 

roads and trails to document wolf sign, 

and other monitoring techniques will be 

used to document wolf reproductive 

success, abundance, and distribution in 

Colorado post-release. 

(i) To evaluate progress toward 

achieving State downlisting and 

delisting criteria, the State of Colorado 

will summarize monitoring information 

in an annual report. The report, due by 

June 30 of each year, will describe wolf 

conservation and management activities 

that occurred in Colorado for as long as 

the gray wolf is federally listed during 

any portion of a calendar or biological 

year. The annual report may include, 

but not be limited to: post-release wolf 

movements and behavior; wolf 

minimum counts or abundance 

estimates; reproductive success and 

recruitment; territory use and 

distribution; cause-specific wolf 

mortalities; and a summary of wolf 

conflicts and associated management 

activities to minimize wolf conflict risk. 

(ii) To assess the reintroduction 

program, the Service will evaluate 

Colorado’s wolf reintroduction and 

management program in a summary 

report each year that wolf 

reintroductions occur in the State and 

for a minimum of 5 years after 

reintroductions are complete. If the 

Service determines that modifications to 

reintroduction protocols and wolf 

monitoring and management activities 

are needed, the Service will coordinate 

closely with the State to ensure progress 

toward achieving their State recovery 

goals while concurrently minimizing 

wolf-related conflicts in Colorado. 

(10) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA). The State of Colorado or any 

Tribe within the State, subject to the 

terms of this rule, may request an MOA 

from the Service to take over lead 

management responsibility and 

authority to implement this rule by 

managing the nonessential experimental 

gray wolves in the State or on a Tribal 

reservation, and implement all parts of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 77039 

their State or Tribal plan that are 

consistent with this rule, provided that 

the State or Tribe has a wolf 

management plan approved by the 

Service. 

(i) The State or Tribal request for wolf 

management under an MOA must 

demonstrate: 

(A) That authority and management 

capability reside in the State or Tribe to 

conserve the gray wolf throughout the 

geographical range of the experimental 

population within the State of Colorado 

or within the Tribal reservation; 

(B) That the State or Tribe has an 

acceptable conservation program for the 

gray wolf, throughout the NEP area 

within the State or Tribal reservation, 

including the requisite authority and 

capacity to carry out that conservation 

program; 

(C) Exactly what parts of the State or 

Tribal plan the State or Tribe intends to 

implement within the framework of this 

rule; and 

(D) That the State or Tribal 

management progress will be reported 

to the Service on at least an annual basis 

so the Service can determine if State or 

Tribal management was conducted in 

full compliance with this rule. 

(ii) The Service will approve such a 

request upon a finding that the 

applicable criteria are met and that 

approval is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the gray wolf. 

(iii) If the Service approves the 

request, the Service will enter into an 

MOA with the State or Tribe. 

(iv) An MOA for State or Tribal 

management as provided in this rule 

may allow the State of Colorado or any 

Tribe within the State to become 

designated agents and lead management 

of the nonessential experimental gray 

wolf population within the borders of 

their jurisdictions in accordance with 

the State’s or Tribe’s wolf management 

plan, except that: 

(A) The MOA may not provide for any 

form of management inconsistent with 

the protection provided to the species 

under this rule, without further 

opportunity for appropriate public 

comment and review and amendment of 

this rule. 

(B) The MOA cannot vest the State of 

Colorado or any Tribe within the State 

with any authority over matters 

concerning section 4 of the Act 

(determining whether a species warrants 

listing). 

(C) In the absence of a Tribal wolf 

management plan or cooperative 

agreement, the MOA cannot vest the 

State of Colorado with the authority to 

issue written authorizations for wolf 

take on reservations. The Service will 

retain the authority to issue these 

written authorizations until a Tribal 

wolf management plan is developed. 

(D) The MOA for State or Tribal wolf 

management must provide for joint law 

enforcement responsibilities to ensure 

that the Service also has the authority to 

enforce the State or Tribal management 

program prohibitions on take. 

(E) The MOA may not authorize wolf 

take beyond that stated in the rule but 

may be more restrictive. 

(v) The authority for the MOA will be 

the Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–742j), and the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661–667e), and any applicable 

treaty. 

(vi) In order for the MOA to remain 

in effect, the Service must find, on an 

annual basis, that the management 

under the MOA is not jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the gray wolf in 

the NEP. The Service or State or Tribe 

may terminate the MOA upon 90 days’ 

notice if: 

(A) Management under the MOA is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the gray wolf in the NEP; 

(B) The State or Tribe has failed 

materially to comply with this rule, the 

MOA, or any relevant provision of the 

State or Tribal wolf management plan; 

(C) The Service determines that 

biological circumstances within the 

range of the gray wolf indicate that 

delisting the species is warranted; or 

(D) The States or Tribes determine 

that they no longer want the wolf 

management authority vested in them 

by the Service in the MOA. 

* * * * * 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–24514 Filed 11–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 231030–0254] 

RIN 0648–BM33 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

2024 Atlantic Shark Commercial 

Fishing Year 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts the 

quotas and retention limits and 

establishes the opening date for the 

2024 fishing year for the Atlantic shark 

commercial fisheries. NMFS also 

changes the management measures for 

the 2024 and future fishing years to 

automatically open the commercial 

fishing year on January 1 of each year 

under the base quotas and default 

retention limits, and increases the 

default commercial retention limit for 

the large coastal shark (LCS) fisheries. 

Quotas are adjusted as required or 

allowable based on any underharvests 

from the previous fishing years. The 

final measures could affect fishing 

opportunities for commercial shark 

fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic 

Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean 

Sea. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 1, 2024. The 2024 Atlantic 

shark commercial fishing year opens on 

January 1, 2024 for all species and 

regions. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this 

final rule and supporting documents 

(including the annual Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Stock 

Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

Report) are available from the Atlantic 

HMS Management Division website at 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/ 

atlantic-highly-migratory-species or by 

contacting Ann Williamson at 

ann.williamson@noaa.gov or 301–427– 

8503. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann 

Williamson (ann.williamson@noaa.gov), 

Guy DuBeck (guy.dubeck@noaa.gov), or 

Karyl Brewster-Geisz (karyl.brewstergeisz@noaa.gov) at 301–427–8503. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Atlantic shark fisheries are managed 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 

U.S.C. 971 et seq.). The 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery 

Management Plan (2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP) and its amendments are 

implemented by regulations at 50 CFR 

part 635. The shark commercial 

retention limits, quotas, and closure 

requirements can be found in 

§§ 635.24(a), 635.27(b), and 635.28(b), 

respectively. 

For the Atlantic shark commercial 

fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP and its amendments established 

default commercial shark retention 

limits, commercial quotas for species 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1