4720 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 178.274 Specifications for UN portable 

tanks. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) The design temperature range for 

the shell must be ¥40 °C to 50 °C (¥40 

°F to 122 °F) for hazardous materials 

transported under normal conditions of 

transportation, except for portable tanks 

used for refrigerated liquefied gases 

where the minimum design temperature 

must not be higher than the lowest 

(coldest) temperature (for example, 

service temperature) of the contents 

during filling, discharge or 

transportation. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 40. In § 178.337–9, paragraph (b)(8) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 178.337–9 Pressure relief devices, 

piping, valves, hoses, and fittings. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Chlorine cargo tanks. Angle valves 

on cargo tanks intended for chlorine 

service must conform to the standards of 

the Chlorine Institute, Inc., Dwg. 104–8 

or ‘‘Section 3, Pamphlet 166, Angle 

Valve Guidelines for Chlorine Bulk 

Transportation.’’ (IBR, see § 171.7 of this 

subchapter). Before installation, each 

angle valve must be tested for leakage at 

not less than 225 psig using dry air or 

inert gas. 

* * * * * 

■ 41. In § 178.337–10, paragraph (d) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 178.337–10 Accident damage protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Chlorine tanks. A chlorine tank 

must be equipped with a protective 

housing and a manway cover to permit 

the use of standard emergency kits for 

controlling leaks in fittings on the dome 

cover plate. For tanks manufactured on 

or after October 1, 2009, the housing 

and manway cover must conform to the 

Chlorine Institute, Inc., Dwg. 137–5 

(IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). 

* * * * * 

PART 180—CONTINUING 

QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OF PACKAGINGS 

■ 42. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101–5128; 49 CFR 

1.53. 

■ 43. In § 180.205, a new paragraph 

(g)(6) added to read as follows: 

§ 180.205 General requirements for 

requalification of specification cylinders. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(6) Training materials (e.g., CGA 

publication C–1.1) may be used for 

training persons who requalify cylinders 

using the volumetric expansion test 

method. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 16, 

2008 under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1. 

Krista L. Edwards, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E8–1211 Filed 1–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R6–ES–2008–009; 92220–1113–0000; 

ABC Code: C3] 

RIN 1018–AV39 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision of Special 

Regulation for the Central Idaho and 

Yellowstone Area Nonessential 

Experimental Populations of Gray 

Wolves in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), have revised 

the 2005 special rule for the central 

Idaho and Yellowstone area 

nonessential experimental population 

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

the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Specifically, we have modified the 

definition of ‘‘unacceptable impact’’ to 

wild ungulate populations so that States 

and Tribes with Service-approved postdelisting wolf management plans 

(hereafter, referred to as wolf 

management plans) can better address 

the impacts of a recovered wolf 

population on ungulate herds and 

populations while wolves remain listed. 

We made other minor revisions to 

clarify the requirements and processes 

for submission of proposals to control 

wolves for unacceptable ungulate 

impacts. We also modified the 2005 

special rule to allow persons in States 

or on Tribal lands with wolf 

management plans to take wolves that 

are in the act of attacking their stock 

animals or dogs. All other provisions of 

the special rule remain unchanged. As 

under the existing terms of the 2005 

special rule, these modifications do not 

apply to States or Tribes without wolf 

management plans or to wolves outside 

the Yellowstone or central Idaho NEP 

areas. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Once the 

complete decision file for this rule is 

completed it will be available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of the Western 

Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator, 585 

Shepard Way, Helena, Montana 59601. 

Call 406–449–5225 to make 

arrangements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed 

Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery 

Coordinator, at the above address or 

telephone 406–449–5225, extension 

204, at ed_bangs@fws.gov, or on our 

Web site at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

In 1974, four subspecies of gray wolf 

were listed as endangered, including the 

NRM gray wolf (Canis lupus irremotus), 

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

the northern Great Lakes region, the 

Mexican wolf (C. l. baileyi) in Mexico 

and the southwestern United States, and 

the Texas gray wolf (C. l. monstrabilis) 

of Texas and Mexico (50 CFR 17.11(h)). 

In 1978, we relisted the gray wolf as 

endangered at the species level (C. 

lupus) throughout the conterminous 48 

States and Mexico, except for Minnesota 

where it was reclassified as threatened 

(50 CFR 17.11(h)). In 2007, we delisted 

the Western Great Lakes distinct 

population segment of wolves that 

includes all of Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Michigan, and parts of North and South 

Dakota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio 

(72 FR 6051, February 8, 2007). The 

Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf 

Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980, p. 

i) and revised in 1987 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1987, p. i). 

On November 22, 1994, we designated 

unoccupied portions of Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming as two nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) areas for 

the gray wolf under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (50 CFR 17.84(i)). One 

area is the Greater Yellowstone Area 

experimental population, which 

includes all of Wyoming and parts of 

southern Montana and eastern Idaho. 

The other is the central Idaho 

experimental population area, which 

includes most of Idaho and parts of 

southwestern Montana. In 1995 and 

1996, we reintroduced wolves from 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4721 

southwestern Canada into these areas 

(Bangs and Fritts 1996, pp. 407–409; 

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

1998, pp. 785–786). These 

reintroductions and accompanying 

management programs greatly expanded 

the numbers and distribution of wolves 

in the northern Rocky Mountains 

(NRM). At the end of 2000, the NRM 

population first met its numerical and 

distributional recovery goal of a 

minimum of 30 breeding pairs and more 

than 300 wolves well-distributed among 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (68 FR 

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

2001, Table 4). This minimum recovery 

goal has been exceeded annually 

through 2007 (Service, et al. 2002–2006, 

Table 4, Service, et al. 2007, p.1). 

On January 6, 2005, we published a 

revised NEP special rule increasing 

management flexibility of these 

recovered populations for those States 

and Tribes with Service-approved wolf 

management plans (50 CFR 17.84(n)). 

For additional detailed information on 

previous Federal actions, see the 1994 

and 2005 NEP special rules (59 FR 

60252, November 22, 1994; 59 FR 

60266, November 22, 1994; 70 FR 1286, 

January 6, 2005), the 2003 

reclassification rule (68 FR 15804, April 

1, 2003), the advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking to designate the 

NRM gray wolf population as a distinct 

population segment and remove the 

Act’s protections for this population (71 

FR 6634, February 8, 2006), and the 

2007 proposal to designate the NRM 

gray wolf population as a distinct 

population segment and remove the 

Act’s protections for this population 

(i.e., delist) (72 FR 6106, February 8, 

2007). 

Background 

Addressing Unacceptable Impacts on 

Wild Ungulate Populations—Both the 

1994 Environmental Impact Statement 

for wolf reintroduction (Service 1994, 

pp. 6, 8) and the 1994 NEP special rules 

addressed the potential impact of wolf 

restoration on State and Tribal 

objectives for wild ungulate 

management. The 1994 NEP special 

rules allowed, under certain conditions, 

States and Tribes to translocate wolves 

causing unacceptable impacts to 

ungulate populations (50 CFR 17.84(i)). 

On January 6, 2005, we published a 

new NEP special rule that allowed 

greater management flexibility for 

managing a recovered wolf population 

in the experimental population areas in 

the NRM for States and Tribes that had 

Service-approved wolf management 

plans (50 CFR 17.84(n)). The 2005 NEP 

special rule allowed those States and 

Tribes to lethally control wolves to 

address unacceptable impacts to 

ungulate populations, under certain 

conditions. The 2005 NEP special rule 

also required that a State or Tribal 

proposal to control wolves describe data 

indicating the ungulate herd is below 

management objectives, data indicating 

impact of wolf predation on the herd, 

why wolf removal is warranted, the 

level and duration of wolf removal, how 

the ungulate response would be 

measured, and other remedies and 

conservation measures. The State or 

Tribe also had to provide an 

opportunity for peer review and public 

comment before submitting the proposal 

for Service approval. Before we could 

approve such proposals, we had to 

determine that the proposed wolf 

control was scientifically based and 

would not reduce the wolf population 

below recovery levels. 

The 2005 NEP special rule authorized 

lethal take because we recognized that 

the wolf population had exceeded its 

recovery goals, extra management 

flexibility was required to address 

conflicts given the recovered status of 

the population, most of the suitable wolf 

habitat in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming was occupied by resident 

wolf packs, and wolf translocations 

were likely to fail because no 

unoccupied suitable habitat remained 

(70 FR 1294, January 6, 2005; Bradley, 

et al. 2005, p. 1506). 

The 2005 NEP special rule’s 

definition of ‘‘unacceptable impact’’ was 

a ‘‘State or Tribally-determined decline 

in a wild ungulate population or herd, 

primarily caused by wolf predation, so 

that the population or herd is not 

meeting established State or Tribal 

management goals. The State or Tribal 

determination must be peer-reviewed 

and made available for review and 

comment by the public, prior to a final 

determination by the Service that an 

unacceptable impact has occurred, and 

that wolf removal is not likely to 

impede wolf recovery’’ (50 CFR 

17.84(n)(3)). This definition set a 

threshold that we have found over time 

did not provide the intended flexibility 

to allow States and Tribes to resolve 

conflicts between wolves and ungulate 

populations. Current information 

indicates that wolf predation alone is 

unlikely to be the primary cause of a 

reduction of any ungulate herd or 

population in Idaho, Montana, or 

Wyoming (Bangs, et al. 2004, pp. 89–

100). No populations of wild ungulates 

occur in Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming 

where wolves are the sole predator. 

Wolf predation is unlikely to impact 

ungulate population trends substantially 

unless other factors contribute, such as 

declines in habitat quality and quantity 

(National Research Council 1997, pp. 

185–186; Mech and Peterson 2003, p. 

159), other predators (Barber, et al. 

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

vii), high harvest by hunters (Vucetich, 

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

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

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

and Peterson 2003, pp. 138–139), and 

other factors (Pletscher, et al. 1991, pp. 

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

Smith, et al. 2006, pp. 246–250). 

However, in combination with any of 

these factors, wolf predation can have a 

substantial impact to some wild 

ungulate herds (National Research 

Council 1997, p. 183; Mech and 

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

al. 2006, p. 1377) with the potential of 

reducing them below State and Tribal 

herd management objectives. 

The unattainable nature of the 

threshold set in the 2005 NEP special 

rule became apparent soon after its 

completion. In 2006, the State of Idaho 

submitted a proposal to the Service that 

indicated wolf predation was impacting 

the survival of adult cow elk in the 

Clearwater area of central Idaho and that 

some elk populations in the Lolo and 

Selway zones in this area were below 

State management objectives (Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game 2006 pp. 

11–12, Figures 1, 2, and 3). In the 

Clearwater proposal, the State of Idaho 

and the peer reviewers clearly 

concluded that wolf predation was not 

‘‘primarily’’ the cause of the elk 

populations’ decline, but was one of the 

major factors maintaining the elk 

populations’ status below State 

management objectives. Declining 

habitat quality due to forest maturation 

was the primary factor affecting the 

populations’ status, but black bear 

predation on elk calves, mountain lion 

predation on adults, and the harsh 

winter of 1996–1997 also were major 

factors. Data also clearly indicated that 

wolf predation was one of the major 

causes of mortality of adult female elk, 

which contributed to the elk 

populations remaining below State 

management objectives. After 

discussions with the Service, Idaho put 

their proposal on hold because the 

proposal did not meet the regulatory 

standard for unacceptable ungulate 

impacts set by the 2005 special rule. 

In this NEP special rule, we have 

modified the definition of 

‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ in order to 

achieve the management flexibility 

intended by the 2005 NEP special rule. 

Specifically, we now define 

‘‘Unacceptable impact’’ as ‘‘Impact to a 

wild ungulate population or herd where 

a State or Tribe has determined that 

wolves are one of the major causes of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4722 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

the population or herd not meeting 

established State or Tribal population or 

herd management goals.’’ This 

definition expands the potential impacts 

for which wolf removal might be 

warranted beyond direct predation or 

those causing immediate population 

declines. It would, in certain 

circumstances, allow removal of wolves 

when they are a major cause of the 

inability of ungulate populations or 

herds to meet established State or Tribal 

population or herd management goals. 

Management goals or their indicators 

might include population or herd 

numbers, calf/cow ratios, movements, 

use of key feeding areas, survival rates, 

behavior, nutrition, and other biological 

factors. 

Under this NEP special rule, as was 

the case in the 2005 NEP special rule, 

proposals for wolf control from a State 

or Tribe with a Service-approved wolf 

management plan will have to undergo 

both public and peer review. Based on 

that peer review and public comment, 

the State or Tribe will finalize the 

proposal and submit it to the Service for 

a final determination. This NEP special 

rule requires the following to be 

described in the proposal: (1) The basis 

of ungulate population or herd 

management objectives; (2) what data 

indicate that the ungulate herd is below 

management objectives; (3) what data 

indicate that wolves are a major cause 

of the unacceptable impact to the 

ungulate population; (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 State or Tribal government 

commitment to implement possible 

remedies or conservation measures in 

addition to wolf removal. Before wolf 

removals can be authorized, the Service 

must determine (1) if the State or Tribe 

followed the rule’s procedures for 

submitting a proposal to remove wolves 

in response to unacceptable impacts; (2) 

if an unacceptable impact has occurred; 

(3) if the data and other information 

presented in the proposal support the 

recommended action; and (4) that the 

proposed removal would not contribute 

to the wolf population in the State 

below 20 breeding pairs and 200 wolves 

or impede recovery of the NRM wolf 

population. 

The NRM wolf population is a 

metapopulation comprised of three 

primary population segments: central 

Idaho, northwest Montana, and the 

greater Yellowstone area (GYA). These 

population segments are spatially 

separated but are not completely 

isolated from each other. Each 

population segment is comprised of a 

varying number of packs and 

individuals that disperse within 

segments and to other segments. 

Exchange of individuals from these 

segments also occurs with nearby wolf 

packs in Canada. The population 

segments in central Idaho, GYA, and to 

a lesser extent northwestern Montana, 

include core refugia, which are areas of 

relatively high concentrations of wolves 

on protected public lands (National 

Parks or Wilderness areas) or habitats 

with very few human-caused impacts. 

These refugia are primary sources for a 

continual supply of dispersing wolves. 

In this document, the term ‘‘NRM wolf 

population’’ will mean this 

metapopulation, and the term ‘‘wolf 

population(s)’’ will mean the segments 

within the NRM wolf population. 

The minimum recovery goal for the 

NRM wolf population requires at least 

30 breeding pairs and at least 300 

wolves equally distributed in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming (62 FR 15804). 

To ensure this goal is achieved, each of 

these States has committed to manage 

for at least 15 breeding pairs in midwinter (ILWOC 2002, p. 18; MWMAC 

2003, App.1; WGFD 2007a, p. 4). This 

objective would provide a reasonable 

cushion to ensure each State’s share of 

the wolf population does not risk falling 

below the minimum recovery goal of 10 

breeding pairs and 100 wolves. 

Because this NEP special rule will 

likely result in more wolf control than 

is currently occurring, we have 

established safeguards to ensure that 

wolf control for ungulate management 

purposes would not undermine the 

objectives in the States’ wolf 

management plans. Specifically, before 

any lethal control of wolves is 

authorized under this NEP special rule, 

we must determine that such actions 

will not contribute to reducing the wolf 

population in the State below 20 

breeding pairs and 200 wolves. This 

safety margin provides a buffer against 

unforeseen mortality events that might 

occur after such removal, and ensures 

that each State’s ability to manage for 15 

breeding pairs would not be 

compromised. This limit is a necessary 

and advisable precaution while wolves 

remain listed to ensure the conservation 

of the species given the additional take 

that might be authorized pursuant to 

this rule. 

Providing this revision to the NEP 

special rule for additional management 

flexibility is appropriate because the 

NRM wolf population has met all its 

numerical, temporal, and distributional 

recovery goals (62 FR 15804). By middle 

of 2007, the NRM wolf population was 

estimated to contain 1,545 wolves in 

105 breeding pairs (over 3 times the 

minimum numeric recovery goal for 

breeding pairs and more than 5 times 

the minimum population goal), and will 

exceed the minimum recovery levels for 

the 7th consecutive year. Montana had 

an estimated 394 wolves in 37 breeding 

pairs, Idaho had 788 wolves in 41 

breeding pairs, and Wyoming had 362 

wolves in 27 breeding pairs. 

We do not expect this NEP special 

rule to adversely affect the species 

because wolf biology allows for rapid 

recovery from severe disruptions. After 

severe declines, wolf populations can 

more than double in just 2 years if 

mortality is reduced and adequate food 

is available (Fuller, et al. 2003, pp. 181–

183). Increases of nearly 100 percent per 

year have been documented in lowdensity suitable habitat (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, et al. 2007, Table 4). 

The literature suggests that in some 

situations wolf populations can remain 

stable despite annual human-caused 

mortality rates ranging from about 30 to 

50 percent (Keith 1983, p. 66; Fuller, et 

al. 2003, pp. 182–184). Given abundant 

prey availability, wolf populations can 

sustain such high levels of humancaused mortality due to their high 

reproductive potential and replacement 

of losses by dispersing wolves from 

nearby populations (Fuller, et al. 2003, 

pp. 183–185). 

Total mortality of adults in the NRM 

wolf population was nearly 26 percent 

per year from 1994 to 2006, and the 

human-caused mortality was about 20 

percent per year (Smith 2007). However, 

the NRM wolf population still 

continued to expand at about 24 percent 

annually (Service, et al. 2007, p. Table 

4). These data indicate that the current 

annual human-caused mortality rate of 

about 20 percent in the adult portion of 

the NRM wolf population could be 

increased to some extent without 

causing the NRM wolf population to 

decline. Wolf populations and packs 

within the NRM wolf population are 

expected to be quite resilient to 

regulated mortality because adequate 

food supplies are available and core 

refugia provide a constant source of 

dispersers to replenish breeding 

vacancies in packs. 

Wolf populations within the portion 

of the NRM where this rule applies are 

characterized by robust size, high 

productivity, closely neighboring packs, 

and many dispersers (Service, et al. 

2007, Figure 1; Jimenez, et al. in prep.). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4723 

Wolf populations now occupy most of 

the suitable wolf habitat in the NRM 

(Service, et al. 2007, Figure 1). These 

populations are unlikely to expand their 

current distributions because little 

unoccupied suitable habitat is available 

(Bradley, et al. 2005, p. 1506; Service, et 

al. 2007, Figure 1). Because suitable 

habitat is nearly saturated, core refugia 

within these populations will continue 

to produce a large number of ‘‘surplus’’

wolves which will either fill in social 

vacancies within the core refugia, die, or 

disperse out of the core refugia. 

Therefore, the core refugia would have 

an abundant supply of wolves ready to 

fill any vacancies caused by agency 

control for unacceptable ungulate 

impacts. Even when entire packs are 

removed, new packs are likely to form. 

During wolf control for livestock 

depredation in Wyoming, the Daniel, 

Green River, Carter Mountain, and Owl 

Creek packs all reformed after they were 

entirely or almost entirely removed 

(Jimenez, et al. in prep, pp. 198–200). 

Bradley, et al. (in press, pp. 8–13) found 

that, following the removal of wolves for 

livestock depredation in the NRM wolf 

population, the breeding status of packs 

was not greatly affected, regardless of 

breeding status of individuals or 

proportion of a pack removed. 

Furthermore, many ungulate herds 

and populations in Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming are at or above State 

management objectives and most of 

those below management objectives are 

most affected by factors other than 

wolves. Of the 78 elk game management 

units (GMU) in Idaho, 3 GMUs were 

identified to be below management 

objectives with wolves being one of the 

major causes of decline between 2003 

and 2006 (IDFG 2006, pp. 11–12, 

Figures 1, 2, and 3). Of the 35 elk herds 

in Wyoming, wolf packs were present in 

the area used by 7 herds. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission identified 3 

of those 7 herds as either below 

management objectives or having calf/ 

cow ratios indicating that the herd was 

likely to fall below management 

objectives soon (Wyoming Governor and 

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

2005, pp. 5–6). Because nearly all 

suitable wolf habitat is now occupied in 

the NRM (Bradley, et al. 2005, p. 1506; 

Service, et al. 2007, Figure 1), the 

current wolf distribution is unlikely to 

significantly expand and wolves are not 

likely to begin affecting elk in many 

new areas. On the other hand, 

increasing wolf density within already 

occupied wolf habitat in some areas 

may cause increased impacts to those 

elk herds or other wild ungulate herds. 

Therefore, we expect the need for wolf 

control to be relatively confined to 

existing areas of wolf-ungulate impacts, 

although the need for control in those 

areas may increase as wolf density 

increases. 

Given the resilience of wolf 

populations, the current status of the 

NRM wolf population, and the number 

and location of ungulate populations or 

herds identified as below management 

objectives with wolves as one of the 

major causes, we determined that any 

increased mortality from wolf control 

actions under this rule would not affect 

the recovered status of the NRM wolf 

population in Idaho, Montana, or 

Wyoming. 

Addressing Take To Protect Stock 

Animals and Dogs—The 1994 NEP 

special rules stated that any livestock 

producers on their private land may 

take (including to kill or injure) a wolf 

in the act of killing, wounding, or biting 

livestock (defined as cattle, sheep, 

horses, and mules) (50 CFR 17.84(i)). 

Similar provisions applied to livestock 

producers on public land if they 

obtained a permit from the Service (50 

CFR 17.84(i)). 

The 2005 NEP special rule expanded 

this provision to allow landowners in 

States with Service-approved wolf 

management plans to lethally take 

wolves that were ‘‘in the act of 

attacking’’ their livestock and any kind 

of dog on private land, where ‘‘in the act 

of attacking’’ was defined as ‘‘the actual 

biting, wounding, grasping, or killing of 

livestock or dogs, or chasing, molesting, 

or harassing by wolves that would 

indicate to a reasonable person that 

such biting, wounding, grasping, or 

killing of livestock or dogs is likely to 

occur at any moment.’’ (50 CFR 

17.84(n)(3)). The expanded definition in 

the 2005 NEP special rule also provided 

Federal land permittees the ability to 

take wolves in the act of attacking 

livestock on active public grazing 

allotments or special-use areas. The 

definition of ‘‘Livestock’’ was expanded 

in 50 CFR 17.84(n)(3) as ‘‘Cattle, sheep, 

horses, mules, goats, domestic bison, 

and herding and guarding animals 

(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.’’

The 1994 and 2005 NEP special rules 

did not cover some circumstances for 

potential damage of private property by 

wolves. For instance, landowners could 

lethally take wolves in the act of 

attacking dogs on their own private 

land, but could not do the same when 

on public lands unless the dogs were 

certain breeds of dogs being used for 

herding or guarding livestock and were 

being used for work on Federal lands 

under an active permit. Recreationists 

also could not lethally take wolves in 

the act of attacking stock animals used 

to transport people or their possessions. 

This NEP special rule adds a new 

provision for lethal take of wolves in 

States with Service-approved wolf 

management plans when in defense of 

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

mule, donkey, llama, or goat used to 

transport people or their possessions’’) 

or any kind of dog. Specifically, this 

modified NEP special rule states that 

‘‘any legally present person on private 

or public land except land administered 

by the National Park Service may 

immediately take a wolf that is in the 

act of attacking the individual’s stock 

animal or dog, provided there is no 

evidence of intentional baiting, feeding, 

or deliberate attractants of wolves. The 

person must be able to provide evidence 

that taken wolves were recently (less 

than 24 hours) in the act of attacking 

stock animals or dogs, and we or our 

designated agents must be able to 

confirm that the wolves were in the act 

of attacking stock animals or dogs. To 

preserve evidence that the take of a wolf 

was conducted according to this rule, 

the carcass of the wolf and the area 

surrounding should not be disturbed. 

The take of any wolf without such 

evidence of a direct and immediate 

threat may be referred to the appropriate 

authorities for prosecution.’’

Since 1995, only 60 wolves (about 9 

percent of the 672 wolves legally 

removed in agency-authorized control 

actions) have been legally killed by 

persons in defense of their private 

property in the NRM. Wolf depredations 

on stock animals accompanied by their 

owners have not been documented in 

the past 12 years, but a few instances of 

stock animals being spooked by wolves 

have been reported. Two wolves have 

been taken by Federal land permittees 

as wolves chased and harassed horses in 

corrals or on pickets. While this revision 

provides additional opportunity for 

persons to protect their private property, 

these instances are likely to be rare. 

Therefore, we expect no impacts on the 

recovered status of the NRM wolf 

population from this additional 

flexibility in the rule. 

Reports confirm that 101 dogs have 

been killed by wolves from 1987 to 2007 

(Service, et al. 2007, Table 5, Service 

2008, p. 1), but no wolves are known to 

have been killed solely to protect dogs. 

We know of one credible and one 

unconfirmed report of wolves killing pet 

dogs while humans have been nearby 

(USDA 2007, p. 1). Wolves have killed 

at least 35 hunting hounds, primarily on 

public land. In only a few of those 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4724 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

instances, the hounds’ owners were 

close enough that they might have been 

able to better protect their dogs by 

shooting at the wolves involved. 

Although we expect that take of wolves 

involved in conflicts with pet dogs or 

hunting hounds would be rare, these 

reports indicate that such instances 

could occur. This modification would 

allow persons in States with Serviceapproved wolf management plans to 

protect their dogs from wolf attacks. 

Dispersing wolves would quickly fill 

vacancies created by any take of wolves 

to protect stock animals and dogs. 

Because such take of wolves is expected 

to be extremely low, cumulative impacts 

of this take combined with agency 

control for ungulate impacts would be 

negligible. 

Summary of Peer Reviews 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 

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

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review, dated 

December 16, 2004, we solicited 

independent review of the science in 

the proposed NEP special rule from ten 

experts on wolves, ungulates, or 

predator-prey relationships. The 

purpose of such review was to ensure 

that our decisions on the proposed 

revisions to the 10(j) special regulations 

were based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, analyses, and conclusions. 

All ten peer reviewers submitted 

comments on the proposed rule. We 

considered their comments and 

recommendations as we made our final 

decision on the proposed revisions. 

Substantive peer reviewer comments are 

summarized in the remaining 

paragraphs of this section as well as 

discussed in greater detail in the 

appropriate Issue/Response sections 

that follow. 

All eight peer reviewers who 

specifically stated an opinion on the 

soundness of our proposed revisions 

regarding management of wolves for 

impacts to ungulates confirmed that our 

approach was reasonable. Seven of them 

provided additional considerations and 

recommendations. The remaining two 

peer reviewers raised some concerns 

and recommendations described below, 

but did not explicitly express 

opposition or support to the proposed 

revisions. 

In general, the peer reviewers agreed 

with our conclusion that wolf predation 

is never the primary cause of ungulate 

population impacts but can be among 

major contributing factors. They also 

generally confirmed that the proposed 

safeguards are appropriate for ensuring 

that wolf control under the revised 

special regulations would not 

compromise wolf recovery in the NEP 

areas of the NRM. While none of the 

peer reviewers expressed concern that 

such wolf control would adversely 

impact wolf recovery, four reviewers 

questioned a claim in the proposal 

regarding the level of mortality wolf 

populations could sustain while 

maintaining positive growth. Four peer 

reviewers believed the proposed safety 

margin of 20 breeding pairs and 200 

wolves and other safeguards were 

adequate to prevent impacts to wolf 

recovery, while two questioned the 

necessity of the additional safety margin 

given the resilience of wolf populations 

to relatively high mortality. 

Two peer reviewers expressly stated 

that the proposed criteria, required in 

the NEP special rule, for Service 

approval of State or Tribal wolf control 

proposals were adequate or ‘‘sufficiently 

rigorous.’’ Three others indicated that 

the standards should be made more 

specific. One reviewer thought the 

proposed NEP special rule did not 

clearly identify criteria for assessing 

whether a wolf control program will 

result in ungulate population recovery. 

Their suggestions for improving the 

standards included requiring 

effectiveness monitoring and that we 

suggest the kind of data to be used for 

determining wolf predation impacts and 

ungulate population vigor. 

Three reviewers raised a concern for 

a potential lack of biological validity of 

ungulate management objectives set by 

a State or Tribe. Their concerns 

included objectives that may be based 

on historical ungulate population levels 

in the absence of wolves, desired hunter 

harvest, or without consideration for the 

inverse relationship between density 

and productivity in ungulate 

populations. 

Two peer reviewers indicated that the 

NEP special rule should explicitly 

require States and Tribes to address 

other major factors affecting ungulate 

populations along with wolf control. 

Two peer reviewers recommended that 

we define ‘‘major’’ for the purpose of 

determining when wolves may be one of 

the major causes of unacceptable 

ungulate impacts. 

Two peer reviewers agreed that the 

proposed revised NEP special rule 

provided an appropriate, transparent 

review process to ensure science-based 

decisions, but another reviewer warned 

that, due to the complexities of 

predator-prey relationships and other 

influencing factors, trusting the peer 

review process to catch and identify all 

interactions that should be considered 

in a control program may be difficult. 

One peer reviewer expressed a 

preference that hunting and trapping be 

used as methods of wolf control over 

aerial gunning or poisoning for more 

public acceptance of control programs. 

He did not make a recommendation that 

the preferred methods be required. None 

of the other peer reviewers offered 

opinions on control methods. 

The six peer reviewers who 

specifically addressed the revisions 

addressing lethal take of wolves for the 

protection of stock animals and dogs 

stated that our approach was reasonable. 

There was general agreement that this 

additional protection was not likely to 

result in a level of take that would affect 

wolf populations. One reviewer agreed 

with our opinion that it might increase 

public tolerance of wolves. 

One peer reviewer asked what kind of 

evidence would support a claim of 

‘‘harassment’’ where physical evidence 

may be lacking. He acknowledged that 

such specifics need not be incorporated 

into the rule, but cautioned that the 

Service develop sound procedures 

addressing this issue to prevent abuse. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

A. Soliciting Public Comment 

In our July 6, 2007, proposed rule (72 

FR 36942), we requested that all 

interested parties submit comments or 

information that might aid in our 

decisions or otherwise contribute to the 

development of this final rule. We also 

contacted the appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies, Tribes, and scientific 

and other interested parties and 

organizations and invited them to 

comment on the proposed rule. We 

conducted numerous press interviews to 

promote wide coverage of our proposed 

rule in the media. We published legal 

notices in many newspapers 

announcing the proposal and hearings 

and invited comment. We posted the 

proposal and numerous background 

documents on our Web site, and we 

provided them upon request by mail or 

e-mail and at our hearings and 

informational meetings. We established 

several avenues for interested parties to 

provide comments and other 

information, including verbally or in 

writing at public hearings, by letter, 

e-mail, or facsimile transmission. 

The initial comment period was open 

from July 6, 2007, through August 6, 

2007. During that period, we publicized 

and conducted public hearings on the 

proposed revised special rule in Cody, 

Wyoming, on July 17, 2007; in Helena, 

Montana, on July 18, 2007; and in Boise, 

Idaho, on July 19, 2007. We also held 

general public meetings on the same day 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4725 

of each hearing to provide additional 

information and explain our proposal. 

At these meetings, we also offered the 

public opportunity to ask questions and 

provide input. 

A second comment period was 

opened from September 11, 2007, 

through October 11, 2007, to provide the 

public additional opportunity to review 

and comment on the proposal 

concurrent with a public comment 

period on the draft environmental 

assessment (EA) of the proposed 

revisions. 

At the three hearings, 54 people 

testified, and we received 19 written 

comments. During the first comment 

period, we received more than 176,000 

comments by e-mail. During the second 

comment period, we received about 

86,000 additional comments by e-mail. 

We received a total of approximately 

450 mailed and faxed comments. 

Comments were submitted by a wide 

array of parties, including the general 

public, environmental organizations, 

hunting and outfitter’s groups, Tribes, 

agricultural agencies and organizations, 

and Federal, State, and local 

government agencies. Comments 

originated from throughout the country 

and even from people in a few other 

nations. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department submitted a letter 

commenting on the proposed NEP 

special rule on August 3, 2007 (WGFD 

2007b). On October 22, 2007, the 

Wyoming Governor issued a letter 

(Wyoming Governor 2007) describing 

how several stipulations in Wyoming 

law related to delisting and management 

of the gray wolf are being resolved. One 

of these stipulations included 

modifications to the NEP special rule. 

The Wyoming Governor stated that in 

light of the resolution of this stipulation, 

the comments submitted on the 

proposed NEP special rule are now 

superseded and do not require our 

response. Therefore, we do not respond 

to the comments from the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department in this 

document. However, we have 

responded to similar comments if they 

were raised by other parties. 

Substantive comments and new 

information received from peer 

reviewers and the public during the 

comment period have either been 

addressed below or incorporated 

directly into this final rule. Related 

comments (referred to as ‘‘Issues’’) are 

grouped together below and are 

followed by our responses. In addition 

to the following discussion, refer to the 

‘‘Changes From the Proposed Rule’’

section for more details. We received 

thousands of messages supporting and 

protesting the proposed revisions that 

did not include substantive comments 

or new information. Although we 

reviewed these messages, the number of 

opinions was not part of the basis of our 

decisions on the final rule. 

B. Technical and Editorial Comments 

Issue 1—Peer reviewers and 

commenters provided editorial 

suggestions, information updates, and 

corrections to literature citations. Some 

peer reviewers thought we misstated 

conclusions from the Oakleaf, et al. 

(2006, pp. 554–559) study. One peer 

reviewer asked if we could provide any 

published citations besides the personal 

communication (Smith 2005) regarding 

a 26 percent mortality rate in the NRM 

wolf population. 

Response 1—We corrected and 

updated numbers and other data where 

appropriate. We edited the preamble to 

the rule to make its intent and purpose 

clearer. 

The reference year for the Oakleaf, et 

al. (2006, p. 556) wolf pack home range 

analysis was 2000. The study indicated 

that at that time relatively large tracts of 

suitable wolf habitat remain unoccupied 

in the Rocky Mountains (Oakleaf, et al. 

2006, p. 554). Since then, the wolf 

population continued to grow, as the 

study predicted, to 1,545 wolves in 

summer 2007 (Service 2008, p. 1), and 

most habitat predicted by Oakleaf, et al. 

(2006, Figure 2) as suitable is now 

occupied (Service, et al. 2007, Figure 1). 

We have corrected the citations and text 

in the rule’s preamble to reflect this 

information. 

The data on wolf survival and 

mortality in the NRM has not been 

published yet, but Smith (2007) is 

currently preparing it for publication. 

We have determined that the data, 

although not yet published, constitutes 

the best scientific data available on wolf 

survival and mortality in the NRM. This 

information was gathered and compiled 

by State, Tribal, and Federal members of 

the Interagency Wolf Recovery Team 

and entails data from over 900 radiocollared wolves in the NRM population 

since 1994. 

Issue 2—A few commenters expressed 

confusion over the difference between 

the 1994 and 2005 rules and the revised 

rule because we did not include the 

entire 50 CFR 17.84(n) regulations in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

rule. Some thought we would now have 

four different 10(j) rules in place. 

Response 2—In 1994 we promulgated 

special regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(i) for 

the reintroduction of two NEPs of the 

wolf in the NRM. In 2005, we modified 

the NEP special rule, 50 CFR 17.84(n), 

and we are doing so again in this rule. 

This approach does not result in 

multiple sets of these regulations. The 

regulations in 50 CFR 17.84(i), which 

apply to States and Tribes without wolf 

management plans, will remain the 

same, and the revised regulations in 50 

CFR 17.84(n), which apply to States and 

Tribes with wolf management plans, 

will supersede the 2005 edition. We 

have included additional explanation in 

this rule’s preamble to ensure clarity of 

the changes. 

Issue 3—Some peer reviewers 

questioned the claim in the proposed 

rule that the literature indicates that 

wolf populations could sustain an 

annual human-caused mortality of 30 

percent or more. One peer reviewer 

pointed out that this statement does not 

provide an upper bound on mortality 

rate and, therefore, could be misleading. 

Another did not recommend that such 

a high rate of mortality be allowed, but 

acknowledged that the rule’s safeguards 

would preclude this concern. 

Response 3—We corrected the rule’s 

preamble to indicate that the literature 

indicates that some wolf populations 

could remain stable at mortality rates of 

around 30 to 50 percent. 

Issue 4—Several commenters 

questioned the need for the proposed 

revisions because they believed that the 

2005 special regulation already allows 

for control of wolves because of 

ungulate impacts. Many expressed the 

concern that the biology and current 

ungulate herd and population numbers 

do not justify a need for increasing 

flexibility for wolf control. A few 

commenters did not think increasing 

flexibility to control wolves to protect 

stock animals was necessary because the 

current special regulations already 

allow wolf control to protect livestock 

or because there is no evidence that 

wolves attack stock animals. 

Response 4—As explained in the 

proposed rule and the preamble of this 

final rule, the 2005 NEP special 

regulations did not provide States and 

Tribes the intended flexibility to control 

wolves causing unacceptable impacts to 

ungulate herds or populations because 

such impacts have never been shown to 

be ‘‘primarily caused by wolf 

predation.’’ Thus, the wording in the 

definition of ‘‘unacceptable impact’’ to a 

wild ungulate population or herd in the 

2005 special regulation set an 

unattainable standard for approval of 

wolf control and no State or Tribe was 

able to use the special rule for that 

purpose. The revision of the definition 

of ‘‘unacceptable impact’’ to include 

wolves as ‘‘one of the major causes’’

now provides the intended flexibility 

for wolf management by States and 

Tribes. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4726 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

We acknowledged in the preamble of 

the revised rule and final EA that many 

ungulate populations and herds 

currently are at or above States’

management objectives. However, we 

also are aware of a few instances where 

herds are not meeting or soon may not 

meet those objectives, and evidence 

indicates that wolves are one of the 

major causes of the failure to maintain 

those objectives (Wyoming Governor 

and Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission 2005, pp. 5–6; IDFG 2006, 

pp. 11–12, Figures 1, 2, and 3). The 

intention of this revision is to provide 

States and Tribes the flexibility to 

control wolves in such localized 

situations. We expect that such 

situations will continue to be few, and, 

along with the safeguards in the revised 

NEP special rule, resulting take of 

wolves would not have a meaningful 

impact on wolf populations and would 

not affect recovery of the NRM wolf 

population. 

The terms ‘‘livestock’’ and ‘‘stock 

animals’’ were confusing to some 

commenters who thought the revision to 

increase wolf control flexibility for the 

latter is unnecessary. Although the 

animals listed in ‘‘livestock’’ overlap 

with some ‘‘stock animals’’ (e.g., horse, 

mule, donkey, llama), the latter refers to 

animals used for transport of people or 

their possessions. The revision does not 

supplant the definition of livestock with 

that of stock animals. The 2005 special 

regulation did not allow any person on 

public land, who was legally present but 

did not have a land-use permit to graze 

livestock or operate an outfitter or 

guiding business, to kill wolves in 

defense of these animals. For example, 

an individual using a llama to pack-in 

gear while recreating on public lands for 

his or her enjoyment was not allowed to 

lethally take a wolf to protect that llama 

under the 2005 special regulation. The 

revised special regulation now allows 

anyone legally present on private or 

public land, except land administered 

by the National Park Service, to lethally 

take wolves in defense of horses, mules, 

donkeys, llamas or goats that are being 

used to transport people or their 

possessions. The 2005 rule also did not 

allow outfitters and guides or the public 

on public land to take wolves to protect 

hunting dogs. The revised rule now 

allows anyone legally present on private 

or public land, except land 

administered by the National Park 

Service, to take wolves in defense of any 

dog. 

While there have been no reports of 

wolves depredating stock animals 

accompanied by their owners in recent 

years, some reports indicate that wolves 

have been close enough to spook stock 

animals. Two wolves have been taken 

by Federal land permittees as wolves 

chased and harassed horses in corrals or 

on pickets. This demonstrates that 

wolves may occasionally attack stock 

animals. The increased flexibility in the 

revised special regulation will allow 

owners to protect their private property 

in the few instances when this type of 

situation may occur. 

Issue 5—A large proportion of 

commenters were alarmed because they 

believed that the revisions to the 2005 

NEP special rule would allow States and 

Tribes to kill wolves in large numbers, 

reduce populations to the minimum 

recovery numbers, or even reduce them 

below recovery levels. Others thought 

that the safety margin of 20 breeding 

pairs and 200 wolves per State was not 

adequate based on population viability 

analysis theories. Some stated that the 

constraints in the rule on wolf control 

are not adequate to prevent abuse of the 

increased management flexibility and 

that wolves could be killed for reasons 

other than those described. Others 

thought the rule would allow ‘‘open 

season’’ or public hunting of wolves. On 

the other hand, some supporters of the 

revised rule expressed belief that a wolf 

population explosion has decimated elk 

and moose populations. They advocated 

killing as many wolves as possible by 

any means necessary. 

Response 5—The minimum 

numerical and distributional recovery 

goal for the NRM wolf population is at 

least 10 breeding pairs and at least 100 

wolves in each of the States of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming (62 FR 151804). 

Under this modified special rule, a State 

cannot be authorized to control wolves 

for ungulate population impacts if such 

control would contribute to reducing 

wolves to below 20 breeding pairs and 

200 wolves in that State. These numbers 

are twice the minimum recovery goals. 

Therefore, this NEP special rule should 

not result in the reduction of the NRM 

wolf population to minimum recovery 

numbers. Furthermore, this NEP special 

rule’s restriction preventing wolf control 

below 20 breeding pairs and 200 wolves 

does not mean that States and Tribes 

will be allowed to eliminate all wolves 

above those levels. This is only one of 

many prerequisites. As in the 2005 

special rule, this modified NEP special 

rule requires States and Tribes to 

address specific criteria in their 

proposals for wolf control and follow 

rigorous peer review, public comment, 

and Service approval processes before 

control can be authorized. The State or 

Tribe proposing to control wolves 

would have to demonstrate that an 

ungulate herd or population cannot 

meet management objectives and wolves 

are one of the major causes. They also 

have to scientifically demonstrate that 

wolf control is warranted and the 

proposed level and duration of wolf 

control is appropriate for addressing the 

impacts to ungulates. 

As explained in the preamble, many 

of the elk populations in the NEP areas 

are currently at or above State 

management objectives and only a few 

elk herds or other ungulate populations 

are considered to be declining or low 

due to wolf predation. We also explain 

in the preamble that core refugia in the 

NRM would supply a constant source of 

dispersers to fill in vacancies created by 

agency control. Because agency control 

of wolves is likely to occur in only a few 

discrete areas, the movement of 

dispersers between packs and 

populations, and thus connectivity, 

would not be disrupted. 

This rule applies only to wolves in 

the two NRM NEP areas in States with 

Service-approved wolf management 

plans. Control of wolves in national 

parks and other lands administered by 

the National Park Service, as well as 

wolves listed as endangered, is not 

authorized by this rule. 

Furthermore, the standards in this 

NEP special rule for approving a wolf 

control proposal would not allow 

wolves to be killed for just any reason. 

In their proposal, the State or Tribe 

must describe impacts from wolves on 

the ungulate herd or populations and 

demonstrate in the proposal that wolf 

control is warranted for relieving 

unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds 

or populations. If effects to ungulates by 

wolves are not among the major causes 

of the inability to achieve management 

objectives, wolf control would not be 

appropriate. 

Based on records of wolf threats or 

attacks on dogs and stock animals, the 

number of incidents in which wolves 

might be taken under the modified 

special rule for these purposes is 

expected to be very small. Furthermore, 

when one wolf out of an attacking group 

is shot, the rest of the wolves almost 

invariably flee. Fleeing wolves could no 

longer be ‘‘in the act of attacking’’ and 

taking of such wolves would be in 

violation of the law. Therefore, we fully 

expect that abuse of the law and taking 

of more than one wolf during each 

incident to be unlikely. 

This modified NEP special rule does 

not authorize open public hunting nor 

would it allow States or Tribes to use 

public hunting as a method for 

controlling wolves causing unacceptable 

impacts to ungulates. A State or Tribe 

may choose to enlist persons as 

designated agents of that agency to 

conduct highly controlled damage hunts 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4727 

on private property for controlling 

wolves, but this method would need to 

be included in their proposal and 

subject to all the NEP special rule’s 

criteria and procedural requirements for 

our approval. 

Evidence does not support the belief 

that wolves are decimating ungulate 

populations in the NRM. Currently 

many elk populations are at or above 

management objectives in Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming. Some 

populations of other ungulates, such as 

mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose 

are depressed in some areas, but this is 

mostly due to causes other than wolf 

predation, such as disease and poor 

habitat quality. The need for wolf 

control to help restore ungulate herds or 

populations to State or Tribal 

management objectives is not pervasive, 

and uncontrolled removal of wolves is 

not necessary, appropriate, or allowable 

under this NEP special rule. 

We agree that wolf populations tend 

to be resilient to regulated humancaused mortality. However, because we 

anticipated that the revised NEP special 

rule may result in more killing of 

wolves than is currently occurring, we 

established measures to ensure that wolf 

control for ungulate management 

purposes would not undermine wolf 

recovery goals or the States’ ability to 

manage for 15 breeding pairs as 

obligated by their Service-approved 

wolf management plans. Most peer 

reviewers noted that the rule’s 

safeguards and safety margins were 

adequate to prevent abuse and that the 

revisions would result in little impact to 

the recovered wolf population. No peer 

reviewer expressed concern that the 

revisions would result in significant 

impacts to the recovered NRM wolf 

population or that the rule’s safety 

margin is inadequate. Two peer 

reviewers questioned the necessity of 

the additional safety margin of 20 

breeding pairs and 200 wolves in 

consideration of the resilience of wolves 

to take and the current recovery level 

safety margin of 15 breeding pairs 

required by the States’ Service-approved 

wolf management plans. The additional 

safety margin of 5 breeding pairs above 

the 15 breeding pairs the States will 

manage for is the same size of the safety 

margin over the 10 breeding pairs 

necessary for delisting. This buffer is 

intended to prevent the compromise of 

State wolf management objectives from 

unforeseen events that may cause wolf 

declines in combination with the 

additional mortality from wolf control. 

Issue 6—We received a number of 

comments, including from two peer 

reviewers, that the term ‘‘major causes’’

in the proposed revised definition of 

‘‘unacceptable impacts’’ be further 

defined. One of the peer reviewers 

suggested some criteria to consider. 

Some commenters said that long-term 

studies would be necessary to show that 

wolves are one of the major causes of 

ungulate declines. 

Response 6—Consideration of 

whether wolves are one of the major 

causes of ungulate population declines 

would require comparing the 

significance of the wolf impact with that 

of the other causes. Because the 

relationship between wolf predation 

and ungulate populations is very 

complex (Mech and Peterson 2003, pp. 

146) and because a host of other 

interconnected local factors can 

influence how it might affect ungulate 

populations (Garrott, et al. 2005, pp. 

1245), we could not predict all the 

specifics in each way wolves could be 

one of the major causes of ungulate 

impacts. If we attempted to develop a 

specific list of required criteria, we may 

unintentionally exclude other valid 

conditions. Furthermore, even the 

suggested criteria from the peer 

reviewer included some level of 

subjectivity (e.g., ‘‘high proportion,’’

‘‘strong evidence,’’ ‘‘excessive’’) that 

would require further definition. 

Therefore, we believe that the validity of 

a State’s claim that wolves are a major 

cause of ungulate impacts would be 

better determined on a case-by-case 

basis, where such a determination will 

depend upon the adequacy of the data 

and science describing the conditions, 

and their relative importance, 

contributing to ungulate herd or 

population declines. We would rely on 

professional evaluation and judgment 

inherent in the required peer reviews 

and our approval process to ensure that 

such determinations are appropriate. 

Due to the complexity of wolfungulate interactions, it may be difficult 

to unequivocally prove that wolves are 

one of the major causes of ungulate 

decline. However, reasonable inferences 

can sometimes be made by comparing 

ungulate herds or populations with 

similar environmental conditions where 

wolves are absent, are present in much 

smaller numbers, and are present in 

similar or larger numbers. We would 

consider this information along with 

other data required by the NEP special 

rule and the soundness of the science 

presented in the proposal. 

Issue 7—We received several 

suggestions that the States should be 

required to demonstrate that they are 

addressing other major causes of 

ungulate herd or population declines in 

concert with wolf control. These 

suggestions were in response to an 

interpretation that the rule requires the 

States or Tribes merely to describe the 

other major causes in their proposals. 

We also received a comment that the 

State may not have control over all other 

major causes, such as climate change. 

Response 7—Our intent was that 

States or Tribes would need to 

demonstrate that they have attempted to 

address other major causes or that they 

are committed to do so in concert with 

wolf control. We have refined the 

wording in the rule so that it more 

clearly expresses that intent (see 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

section). We would not disapprove a 

proposal merely because the State or 

Tribe has no power to address certain 

other causes of ungulate declines. 

However, we would expect the proposal 

to describe why the State or Tribe does 

not have control over those issues and 

how they otherwise might be addressed. 

Issue 8—Some commenters stated that 

social effects to wolf packs from killing 

alpha males and females (i.e., breeders) 

were not considered, nor were effects to 

pack structure and productivity from 

killing subadults and pups. Others 

thought removing entire packs would 

fragment populations and prevent 

genetic exchange. 

Response 8—As explained in the 

preamble, wolf packs and populations 

are known to be very resilient to a 

number of causes of mortality, including 

human-caused, as long as there is 

adequate food and a surrounding 

population with dispersing individuals 

to provide replacements. Ultimately, the 

population’s productivity in terms of 

recruitment and immigration is what 

allows it to persist under human harvest 

(Fuller, et al. 2003, pp. 184–185). 

Populations with average or high 

productivity can withstand higher levels 

of take, especially if populations that 

can provide replacements are nearby 

(Fuller, et al. 2003, pp. 184–185). 

Population size, proximity of other wolf 

packs, and the number of dispersing 

wolves influence the frequency with 

which alpha males and females will be 

replaced (Brainerd , et al. in press, 

pp. 15–16). Wolf populations in the 

NRM where this rule applies are 

characterized by robust size, high 

productivity, and closely neighboring 

packs, and have many dispersers 

(Jimenez, et al. in prep). Therefore, 

social vacancies, whether from loss of 

breeders or nonbreeders, in these areas 

are likely to be quickly filled by 

dispersing wolves or other wolves 

within the pack. Often subadults and 

pups are the first to be removed in wolf 

control programs because they tend to 

be naive and, therefore, more vulnerable 

to take. Vacancies from loss of subadults 

and pups, like other age-class vacancies, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

are likely to be readily filled by 

dispersers or new offspring, given the 

ready supply of dispersers from core 

refugia in the NRM. If an entire pack is 

removed, a new pack is likely to form 

for the same reasons as described earlier 

in this preamble. Therefore, gaps that 

would fragment populations and disrupt 

genetic exchange are not likely to occur 

in the NRM wolf population. 

Issue 9—Some commenters stated that 

localized wolf control would create 

population sinks that deplete nearby 

source populations. Others thought wolf 

control to relieve unacceptable ungulate 

impacts would be futile because wolves 

would constantly fill in vacancies 

created by control actions. 

Response 9—We agree that the 

vacancies created by wolf control (or 

other forms of wolf mortality) are likely 

to be filled with wolves from other 

packs. However, in the NRM this 

situation is not likely to constitute a 

population sink that depletes or affects 

stability of source populations (core 

refugia). Wolves disperse from their 

natal packs regardless of human-caused 

mortality elsewhere. Wolf populations 

and packs routinely turn over members 

(Mech 2007). Vacancies created by wolf 

control are most likely to be filled by 

young adult dispersers that leave their 

packs because they are unable to breed 

or as an evolutionary strategy to avoid 

inbreeding (VonHoldt, et al. 2007), 

because they are attempting to increase 

access to food (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

p. 12), or due to social tensions in their 

natal pack (Mech and Boitani 2003, 

p. 13). Such individuals would not have 

directly contributed, through breeding, 

to the productivity of the packs they 

left. Although some of these dispersers 

may have filled other vacancies within 

the source population and had the 

potential to breed there, those vacancies 

will be quickly filled by other 

dispersing wolves or wolves within 

those packs (Fuller, et al. 2003, p. 181 

and 183). As described earlier in this 

preamble, core refugia in the NRM wolf 

population provide a constant source of 

dispersers. While removing a pack may 

draw another pack into that area, 

approved wolf removal under this rule 

will not be at a rate and level (see 

preamble) that would create a void large 

and long enough in the core refugia to 

impact the stability of the wolf 

populations in the NRM. 

While vacancies created by wolf 

control are likely to be filled, wolf 

density in the control area could be 

temporarily lowered to the extent that 

would allow the ungulate herd or 

population to respond, depending on 

the proposed level and duration of 

control. For example, control on an 

annual basis for 3 to 5 years may 

decrease predation and relieve impacts 

to the herd or population enough to 

allow the population to return to 

management objective levels. As long as 

other major causes of ungulate 

population impacts have been 

addressed, the lowered post-control 

wolf density should allow the ungulate 

herd or population to remain at 

management objectives. Wolf removal as 

envisioned under this rule is limited in 

time until the ungulate herd meets its 

management objectives or until it is 

evident that wolf removal is not having 

a positive effect on the herd’s status. If 

the required monitoring shows that the 

desired results are not achieved under 

the terms of the approved proposal, we 

would expect the State or Tribe to 

reevaluate whether continued control is 

warranted. If wolf densities and 

ungulate depredation return to levels 

that cause the ungulate herd or 

population to decline below 

management objectives again, the State 

or Tribe would need to submit another 

proposal under the processes required 

by this rule. 

Issue 10—Commenters provided 

several reasons why they believe the 

NEP special rule was inappropriate, 

such as: (1) Wolves keep ungulate herds 

healthy by culling the sick and weak; 

(2) it allows killing of wolves for 

preying on their natural prey; (3) wolves 

are keystone predators that play an 

important role in the ecosystem; and 

(4) wolves decrease impacts of ungulate 

herds on riparian vegetation. 

Response 10—Although wolves often 

prey on the less fit individuals of a prey 

population, they can also kill healthy 

animals resulting in additive mortality 

that can contribute to failure to sustain 

State or Tribal ungulate management 

objectives. We agree that ungulates are 

part of wolves’ natural prey base and 

that wolves can play an important role 

in ecosystem function, as do other large 

predators. However, the anticipated 

levels of wolf removal under this NEP 

special rule would not result in 

disruption of ecosystem functions or 

meaningful impacts on other species 

that benefit from wolf presence. The 

most dramatic improvement of riparian 

vegetation after the return of wolves 

appeared to reduce elk browsing 

pressure is in Yellowstone National 

Park, where this rule does not apply and 

wolf control would not be allowed. 

However, the magnitude of cascading 

ecological effects from wolves is under 

some debate (Ripple and Beschta 2004, 

p. 755), and a number of biotic and 

abiotic factors are believed to affect 

woody browse conditions along with 

changes in ungulate behavior due to 

wolf presence (Smith, et al. 2003, pp. 

338–339). Given observations in 

Yellowstone National Park and 

depending on a variety of conditions, 

removal of wolves to meet State or 

Tribal ungulate management objectives 

for a particular herd or population may 

result in increased browsing pressure in 

those localized areas. However, 

balancing management of ungulate 

populations with that of plant 

communities and habitats outside 

Federal lands is under the purview of 

State and Tribal natural resource 

agencies, not the Act. 

Issue 11—Some commenters were 

concerned that wolf control would 

prevent wolves from re-establishing in 

neighboring States that do not currently 

have wolf populations. 

Response 11—Given the levels and 

extent of anticipated control of wolves 

for unacceptable ungulate impacts, we 

do not expect wolf numbers to be 

reduced enough to cause a meaningful 

reduction in the probability of 

dispersers reaching other States. 

Issue 12—Some commenters believed 

that we improperly considered 

economic, political, or other factors in 

developing the proposed rule. Some 

believed we were influenced by special 

interests and State politicians, while 

others thought we favored 

environmental interests and the public 

outside the affected region. Several 

commenters believed that we neglected 

to address economic impacts to the 

tourist industry in the Yellowstone area 

and provided a citation on the economic 

benefits of wolves (Duffield, et al. 2006, 

p. 51). Others expressed that wolf 

predation on ungulates has negatively 

affected local economies by reducing 

clients for outfitters and guides and 

causing elk to move from feed grounds 

into areas where they cause damage and 

transmit disease to livestock. 

Response 12—The Act requires that 

the decision to list a species as 

threatened or endangered be based on 

the best available science, and this 

prohibits economic considerations 

when making that decision. However, 

no similar prohibition is applicable to 

the promulgation of a 10(j) rule, and 

economic and other factors, including 

the effects on other wildlife 

populations, are appropriate for 

consideration. In promulgating this 

regulation, we have fully complied with 

the requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. Moreover, we have 

addressed the various benefits and costs 

associated with this rulemaking as 

required by the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 

(see Required Determinations section). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4729 

In particular, the expected level of wolf 

control resulting from this rule and the 

fact that this rule does not apply within 

Yellowstone National Park, where most 

of the public now goes to view wolves, 

will not affect wolf numbers and 

distribution in a manner that will 

significantly alter the opportunities for 

the public to observe and enjoy wolves 

in the wild. Therefore, we do not expect 

wolf-based tourism and dependent 

economies to be materially affected. We 

also acknowledge that in some 

situations this rule may result in 

economic benefits for guides and 

outfitters, and possibly other associated 

businesses, if wolf control results in 

higher ungulate populations that allow 

higher rates of hunter harvest. 

Issue 13—Some commenters believed 

that we are promoting public 

intolerance by allowing killing of 

wolves for natural predation and others 

questioned the basis of our statement 

that the revision to the NEP special rule 

may increase public tolerance and 

decrease illegal take. Others suggested 

that public education should be used to 

reduce anti-wolf sentiments instead of 

controlling wolves. 

Response 13—Because wolves are 

currently at population levels much 

higher than recovery goals, we believe it 

is appropriate to provide increased 

management flexibility to address 

conflicts between wolves and human 

uses. It is not unreasonable to assume 

that incentives for illegal take of wolves 

would be diminished by providing a 

legal and responsible mechanism for 

addressing those issues that are part of 

the basis for intolerance of wolves. 

However, because data are not available 

to support or disclaim this premise, we 

have removed this claim from the EA. 

State and Federal agencies, such as the 

National Park Service (NPS), and 

numerous conservation organizations 

continue to provide the public extensive 

information about wolf biology, ecology, 

and behavior. 

Issue 14—Some, including one peer 

reviewer, questioned how we would be 

able to determine that a killed wolf had 

been chasing or harassing a dog or stock 

animal, when such activities would not 

result in physical signs on the subject of 

the attack. 

Response 14—Making such a 

determination may be difficult in some 

cases, especially if the incident is not 

reported quickly because such evidence 

is generally temporary in nature. The 

requirement for reporting within 24 

hours of take of the wolf will help 

ensure that the evidence is available 

upon investigation. If no actual biting, 

wounding, grasping, or killing has 

occurred, evidence must be available 

that a reasonable person would have 

believed that it was likely to occur at 

any moment. In such cases, we expect 

that the wolf carcass would be in very 

close proximity to the stock animal or 

dog or evidence that the stock animal or 

dog was chased, molested, or harassed 

by wolves. Evidence to indicate this 

activity may include photographs of 

stock animals or dogs, pickets, 

temporary livestock corrals or camps, 

the wolf carcass, and the surrounding 

area immediately following the taking of 

the wolf, and/or tracks of the stock 

animal or dog and wolf, hairs, damaged 

vegetation, or trampled ground. Since 

the 2005 special rule went into effect, 27 

wolves have been killed while in the act 

of attacking livestock and, based on the 

evidence, the resulting investigations 

resulted in determinations that most of 

these wolves had been chasing, 

molesting, or harassing livestock. In two 

additional incidents where wolves were 

killed, one person was charged and 

convicted for violating the law and a 

second person is under investigation 

because the evidence did not indicate 

that wolves were in the act of attacking 

livestock. Thus, staff from State and 

Federal agencies involved with 

livestock depredations have developed 

expertise in determining wolf activities 

from field evidence and in most cases 

can make a reasonable determination 

whether that evidence indicates that a 

wolf was in the act of attacking the stock 

animal or dog. 

Issue 15—The Wildlife Services 

division of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service indicated that 

language in the proposed rule implied 

that dogs are safe from wolf attack if 

they are near humans and provided 

information on some reports of wolves 

killing pet, herding, and guarding dogs 

with humans nearby (USDA 2007, p. 1). 

Response 15—Although wolf attacks 

on dogs in the presence of humans are 

extremely rare, we acknowledge that the 

possibility exists. Hence, the revision to 

the NEP special rule to provide 

individuals the additional flexibility to 

defend their dogs against wolf attacks. 

We have added the information on 

reported attacks in the preamble of this 

final rule. 

Issue 16—Several commenters were 

concerned that wolves would be killed 

when attracted to dogs used for hunting, 

or when protecting pups. 

Response 16—The rule prohibits 

killing of wolves with the use of 

intentional baiting, feeding, or 

deliberate attractants of wolves. For 

example, it would be unlawful to 

knowingly approach a wolf den or 

rendezvous site with a dog and then 

attempt to shoot those wolves. Anyone 

who uses dogs to deliberately attract 

wolves to kill them while in the guise 

of hunting would also be in violation of 

the law. On the other hand, the rule is 

intended to allow hunters to protect 

their hunting dogs from wolves that are 

in the act of attacking their dogs, if the 

hunter did not knowingly attract those 

wolves to the dogs. 

Issue 17—One peer reviewer thought 

we should clarify what take this NEP 

special rule would allow in national 

parks and asked for clarification of what 

the ‘‘legally present’’ requirement 

means. 

Response 17—This NEP special rule 

does not authorize any take of wolves 

on lands administered by the National 

Park Service. ‘‘Legally present’’ means 

that the person is (1) on their own 

property, (2) not trespassing and has the 

landowner’s permission to bring their 

stock animal or dog on the property, or 

(3) abiding by regulations governing 

legal presence on public lands. As a 

means of clarification we have included 

this definition in this NEP special rule 

(see Changes From the Proposed Rule 

section). 

Issue 18—We received requests that 

goats be added to the definition of stock 

animals in the revised NEP special rule, 

because goats are used as pack animals 

in areas of the NRM where wolves could 

be a threat. 

Response 18—We revised the 

definition of stock animals to add goats 

to the list (see Changes From the 

Proposed Rule section). 

C. Comments on Processes and 

Requirements 

Issue 19—Questions arose from 

commenters and peer reviewers 

regarding how approvals of proposals to 

control wolves could be scientifically 

based, as required by the NEP special 

rule, should State or Tribal management 

objectives for ungulate populations or 

herds have no biological basis. Some 

feared that management objectives 

would be deliberately inflated as an 

excuse to kill wolves. Others, including 

two peer reviewers, were concerned that 

management objectives may be set on 

carrying capacity for ungulates without 

consideration of the presence of wolves 

and thus unattainable with wolves in 

the system. Another peer reviewer 

stressed that ungulate populations at 

high densities relative to available 

resources will have low productivity 

regardless of wolf predation. This peer 

reviewer suggested that we provide a 

list of potential morphological indices 

of population vigor related to resource 

availability (such as antler size, hind leg 

length, and newborn calf weight) that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4730 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

States and Tribes could consider in the 

development of management objectives. 

Response 19—We agree that 

determining the scientific validity of a 

proposal to control wolves to restore 

ungulate herd or population 

management objectives would be 

difficult without a clear picture of the 

basis of those objectives. However, 

because the States and Tribes are 

experts in management of their ungulate 

populations, and management 

objectives may need to be determined 

by a number of complex factors and can 

change depending on conditions, we 

have elected not to direct specific 

factors the States and Tribes should 

consider in the establishment of their 

management objectives. Instead, we 

have added a requirement that the basis 

of the State or Tribal management 

objectives for the affected ungulate herd 

or population be described in the 

proposals for wolf control (see Changes 

From the Proposed Rule section). The 

NEP special rule also requires any such 

proposal for wolf control to include a 

description of the data indicating that 

the ungulate herd or population is 

below management objectives and why 

wolf control is a warranted solution to 

restore the herd or population to 

management objective levels. If 

management objectives are not being 

met because ungulate productivity is 

affected by its population density, the 

State or Tribe will still have to 

demonstrate in the proposal that the 

removal of wolves will help restore the 

ungulate herd or population to 

management objectives because wolves 

are a major factor in the decline of the 

herd or population. We believe that 

inclusion of such information in the 

proposal, combined with the required 

peer review and public comment 

processes, will enable us to make a 

sound science-based determination on 

whether the proposed wolf control is 

appropriate. 

Issue 20—We received requests to 

include a trigger in the rule to allow 

wolf control when calf/cow ratios in elk 

populations drop below 30 calves per 

100 cows. 

Response 20—As explained in 

Response 19, we will rely on the States 

and Tribes to provide in their proposals 

specific information indicating that 

ungulate herd or population objectives 

cannot be met. With respect to this 

comment, the proposal will need to 

demonstrate that a specific calf/cow 

ratio indicates that the herd or 

population will be unable to meet the 

established management objectives that 

wolves are a primary cause of the 

inability to meet management 

objectives, and that wolf control will 

resolve this problem. 

Issue 21—Some commenters wanted 

the definition of unacceptable impacts 

to include effects caused by wolves at 

key ungulate feeding areas or feed 

grounds. Others expressed disapproval 

that wolf control would be allowed for 

merely causing ungulate herds or 

populations to move from normal 

feeding areas. 

Response 21—As explained in 

Response 19, we do not specify factors 

that the State or Tribe must consider in 

the establishment of their ungulate 

management objectives. If the State or 

Tribe proposes to control wolves 

because they are affecting ungulates at 

key feeding areas, we will expect the 

proposal to include information that 

demonstrates that management 

objectives cannot be met because wolves 

are disrupting ungulate feeding patterns 

and behavior. The proposal should 

provide support linking wolf activities 

at the feeding areas with disruption of 

ungulate feeding, poor nutrition in 

ungulates, and effects to survival and 

recruitment of ungulates as a 

consequence. 

Issue 22—Some commenters thought 

that the Service, rather than the State or 

Tribe, should select peer reviewers or at 

a minimum have the option to reject 

peer reviews of proposals to control 

wolves for unacceptable ungulate 

impacts. Others recommended that we 

drop the requirement for peer and 

public review altogether so that wolf 

control actions would not be delayed 

when critically needed. 

Response 22—Independent peer 

review plays an important role in 

maximizing the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of the information 

upon which we will base our decisions. 

Peer review will help ensure that such 

information is the best scientific and 

commercial information available. 

Because the relationships between 

ungulate populations and wolves and 

other factors affecting such populations 

are highly complex, peer review from 

those with expertise in these 

relationships is even more critical in 

evaluating whether proposed wolf 

control is appropriate. Through their 

extensive level of experience with 

ungulate conservation, State and Tribal 

game and fish agencies have access to 

experts on predator-prey relationships 

in the academic and scientific 

communities. Assigning the 

responsibility to conduct peer reviews 

to each State and Tribe proposing to 

control wolves will result in a more 

efficient process. 

In this final NEP special rule, we 

clarify that the States and Tribes will be 

required to follow the OMB Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005), 

which provides the professional 

standards that the Service uses in 

soliciting peer review from independent 

experts who have demonstrated 

expertise and specialized knowledge on 

the relevant issues. We also added 

details to the NEP special rule to clarify 

the requirements for peer review of wolf 

control proposals. Specifically, before 

submitting a wolf control proposal to us 

for approval, the State or Tribe will 

need to obtain five independent peer 

reviews of the proposal. To avoid a 

potential appearance of conflict of 

interest, those peer reviews must be 

obtained from experts other than staff of 

State, Tribal, or Federal agencies 

directly or indirectly involved in 

predator control or ungulate 

management in Montana, Idaho, or 

Wyoming. The State or Tribe also must 

explain in their proposal how the 

standards of the OMB peer review 

bulletin were considered and satisfied 

(see Changes From the Proposed Rule 

section). 

Wolf predation significantly 

impacting ungulate populations is 

known to occur only in combination 

with a number of other causes of 

population declines. The relationships 

between these other factors, wolves, and 

prey populations are very complex and 

rarely result in a sudden precipitous 

decline requiring response in less than 

the normal time to conduct peer reviews 

and a public comment process. 

Issue 23—A number of commenters 

objected to approval of any State or 

Tribal programmatic proposal for wolf 

control because they feared such an 

approach would allow the States or 

Tribes to rely on claims of broad-based 

ungulate impacts rather than providing 

evidence of localized impacts to a 

particular herd or population. Some 

commenters were also concerned that 

peer reviewers would not be able to 

predict the significance of the role of 

wolf predation in future ungulate 

impacts given the complex nature of 

interrelated factors affecting ungulate 

populations. Some also believed that 

programmatic proposals would limit the 

ability of the public to comment on 

issues related to local conditions and 

specific actions that would not be 

evident at the time of public review of 

the programmatic proposal. A 

commenter asked what the 

consequences would be if a control 

project was not consistent with an 

approved programmatic proposal. On 

the other hand, some promoted 

acceptance of programmatic proposals 

because such an approach would allow 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4731 

States and Tribes to expeditiously 

address wolf impacts without delay 

associated with peer and public review 

on each individual control action. 

Response 23—The NEP special rule 

does not discuss programmatic 

proposals per se. A programmatic 

proposal could be approved if it 

adequately addresses all the criteria 

required by the NEP special rule to 

show that the science supports the need 

for the proposed wolf control and has 

undergone all the procedural 

requirements for submission to the 

Service. We expect a programmatic 

proposal to clearly delineate specific 

conditions that would warrant wolf 

control for the period of time and 

geographic area covered by the 

proposal. Furthermore, before we could 

approve a programmatic proposal, we 

would have to be able to determine that 

control under such a proposal would 

not contribute to reducing the wolf 

population in the State below 20 

breeding pairs and 200 wolves. 

A programmatic proposal must 

undergo the same peer and public 

review processes as would a specific 

proposal. As stated above, a 

programmatic proposal would need to 

contain enough details to show that the 

required criteria for approving wolf 

control have been met. During review, 

peer reviewers and the public would 

have the opportunity to provide input 

on whether the details are sufficient or 

appropriate in such a programmatic 

proposal. 

If a specific control action is not 

consistent with the approved 

programmatic plan, it would be subject 

to enforcement of the Act’s existing 

regulations governing NEPs of the gray 

wolf. 

As explained in our response to Issue 

22, typical times for peer review and 

public comment processes are not 

expected to affect the timeliness of 

control actions. 

Issue 24—Some commenters wanted 

the regulations to include and describe 

an appeal process for the approval or 

disapproval of a proposal to control 

wolves for ungulate impacts. We also 

received requests that the regulations 

require specific means for public review 

of proposals, such as posting proposals 

on the Internet and providing 60-day 

comment periods. Others asked how we 

would rescind an approval if a State or 

Tribe continued to control wolves if the 

State’s population dropped below the 

special rule’s safety margin of 20 

breeding pairs and 200 wolves. 

Response 24—We encourage States 

and Tribes to work closely with us 

while developing their proposals to 

ensure that all the required criteria in 

the regulations will be met. Based on 

expected coordination with the States 

and Tribes, we do not believe an appeal 

process for disapproved proposals is 

necessary. We believe that transparency 

of the peer review and public comment 

processes, the NEP special rule’s criteria 

for an approvable proposal, and our 

standards for the use of the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available preclude the need for an 

appeal process. Furthermore, should we 

disapprove a proposal, we would 

explain the reasons for the disapproval, 

and the State or Tribe may revise the 

proposal and resubmit it for further 

consideration. 

In the NEP special rule, we intend to 

allow for a transparent process for 

review of wolf control proposals by 

requiring the State or Tribe to 

implement peer reviews and a public 

comment period. The methods and 

processes for providing adequate and 

reasonable public review and input will 

be determined by the State or Tribe 

submitting a wolf control proposal. 

Monitoring of wolf populations (see 

Response 26) will provide a feedback 

loop that would inform the State or 

Tribe if the control actions are no longer 

appropriate or in danger of 

noncompliance with the regulations. If 

a State or Tribe continued to take 

wolves after the State’s wolf population 

dropped below the rule’s safety margin, 

the State or Tribe will be in violation of 

the law and subject to an investigation 

and further action by the Service’s 

Division of Law Enforcement. 

Issue 25—We received thousands of 

comments asking to prohibit aerial 

gunning as part of wolf control actions 

and some suggesting that the proposed 

revisions to the NEP special rule would 

violate the Airborne Hunting Act. Other 

commenters asked for prohibitions on a 

variety of methods, including but not 

limited to hunting, trapping, poisoning, 

and killing with motorized vehicles. 

One peer reviewer expressed a 

preference for hunting and trapping 

over aerial gunning and poisoning to 

gain more public acceptance of control 

measures. Some commenters objected to 

the use of trapping and poisoning on 

public property. Some commenters 

suggested using various forms of 

nonlethal control before resorting to 

killing wolves. 

Response 25—The States will likely 

use shooting from the ground and air as 

the primary method of control of wolves 

for ungulate impacts. These methods are 

considered the most efficient and 

humane of those available. Based on the 

experience and expertise of State agency 

staff, we believe the States should be 

allowed the flexibility to determine the 

appropriate methods of control within 

the confines of existing laws and 

regulations. This NEP special rule does 

not supersede or invalidate any other 

Federal, State, or Tribal laws and 

regulations, including the Airborne 

Hunting Act. All management activities 

under this NEP special rule must be 

conducted in compliance with all other 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Furthermore, if control methods result 

in take of wolves exceeding the level in 

an approved proposal under this NEP 

special rule, the control actions must 

cease and will be subject to enforcement 

under the Act. 

We and our partners in wolf recovery 

continue to investigate and implement a 

variety of nonlethal methods of wolf 

management. While preventative and 

nonlethal control methods can be useful 

in some situations, they are not 

consistently reliable, so lethal control 

remains a primary tool for managing 

wolves affecting ungulate populations, 

livestock, and domestic animals. 

Issue 26—Some commenters, 

including two peer reviewers, said that 

the rule should include a requirement 

for monitoring to determine 

effectiveness of wolf control actions and 

a process for adaptive management. 

Some questioned how monitoring by the 

States or Tribes would be funded or 

urged us to provide such funding. 

Response 26—In the NEP special 

rule’s requirement for wolf control 

proposals to include a description of 

how ungulate population responses to 

wolf removal will be measured, we now 

specify that the proposal must describe 

how control actions will be adjusted to 

maintain their effectiveness. While the 

wolf is listed, Idaho and Montana 

receive Federal funding to conduct wolf 

population monitoring, and we provide 

staff to conduct monitoring in 

Wyoming. Wolf control for livestock 

depredation is reported informally on a 

weekly basis and officially in annual 

reports. The annual reports include 

comprehensive information on control 

actions, wolf population status, and 

analyses of the effectiveness of wolf 

control for livestock depredation. This 

reporting mechanism will be used for 

wolf control actions for unacceptable 

ungulate impacts under this rule. We 

expect the annual reports to include an 

evaluation of the effectiveness of wolf 

control and other measures in relieving 

unacceptable impacts to ungulate herds 

or populations just as is done for wolf 

control for livestock depredation. An 

adaptive management framework for 

wolf control for unacceptable ungulate 

impacts may entail slight modifications 

to the approved control actions. 

However, any necessary changes that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4732 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

would increase level and duration of 

take of wolves or impacts to wolf 

populations that were not considered 

for the approval of the control actions 

will require submission of a new 

proposal and must comply with the 

rule’s criteria and procedures for 

approval. The Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game’s proposal for wolf control, 

submitted in 2006 (Idaho Department of 

Fish and Game 2006, pp. 20–21), 

provides an example of the type of 

information on proposed monitoring 

that should be included. 

Wolf populations in the NRM have 

been and will continue to be intensively 

monitored. This monitoring is 

conducted by the Service, NPS, Nez 

Perce Tribe, and the States of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming and will help 

provide information on any effects to 

wolf populations from wolf control 

actions. Currently, Idaho and Montana 

receive Federal funding for wolf 

management and monitoring. Such 

funding is likely to continue at least 

until the wolf is delisted. While the wolf 

is listed, the Service provides funding 

and staff to conduct wolf management 

and monitoring in Wyoming outside the 

national parks. The NPS covers funding 

for monitoring in the national parks, but 

wolf control under this rule will not 

occur there. 

Issue 27—A couple of commenters 

claimed that the proposed rule is 

arbitrary and capricious because (1) the 

post-delisting wolf management plans, 

required for a State or Tribe to be 

eligible to use the NEP special rule, 

would be implemented only after 

delisting, yet we could approve wolf 

control before then, and (2) the Act 

provides no basis for allowing wolf 

control before delisting based on how a 

State or Tribe might manage wolves 

after delisting. 

Response 27—The requirement for 

approved post-delisting management 

plans for a State or Tribe to be eligible 

to apply the revised NEP special rule is 

not based on the specifics of wolf 

management after delisting, when the 

NEP special rule will no longer exist. 

Development of a wolf management 

plan demonstrates that the State or 

Tribe has undertaken a formal process 

that commits it to a management 

strategy for sustaining wolf recovery. 

This commitment assures that any 

proposal to remove wolves will be in 

alignment with long-term wolf 

conservation and not based solely on a 

goal to benefit ungulate populations. In 

addition, adoption of the wolf 

management plan will demonstrate that 

the wildlife agency has received the 

necessary local political and 

administrative support within the State 

or Tribe for implementing the plan and 

approved wolf control. 

Issue 28—We received requests, 

including from a State agency, to 

increase the required reporting period 

after a wolf is killed from 24 to 72 hours 

to accommodate instances where the 

take occurred in remote areas. 

Response 28—In recognition of the 

need for a greater reporting time in 

certain situations, 50 CFR 17.84(n)(6) 

already allows for reasonable additional 

time for reporting if access to a site is 

limited. We believe this existing 

provision appropriately addresses the 

concern raised by the commenter and 

that no modification is needed. 

Issue 29—One commenter 

recommended that the NEP special rule 

specifically prohibit trapping of wolves 

in primary conservation areas for grizzly 

bears. 

Response 29—Only two grizzly bears 

have been accidently trapped since 

trapping wolves for monitoring and 

livestock control purposes began in 

1986. The type of trap in one incident 

is now used by State or Federal agency 

staff only when grizzly bears are 

hibernating. In the other incident in 

Glacier National Park, a trapped bear 

was killed by another bear. Currrently, 

several measures are implemented to 

minimize accidental trapping and safety 

issues for nontarget species and agency 

staff (unintentional trapping of bears is 

much more dangerous to agency staff 

than it is to the bears). Some of these 

measures include the use of transmitters 

on traps to detect sprung traps, careful 

placement of traps, and use of less 

odorous bait to minimize attracting 

bears. If a bear is accidentally trapped, 

agency staff dart and release it. 

Therefore, wolf control authorized by 

this NEP special rule is highly unlikely 

to compromise grizzly bear 

conservation. 

Issue 30—Some commenters 

requested additional time for public 

comment. Some believed that we did 

not advertise the hearings and public 

comment periods sufficiently. Some 

objected that hearings were not held in 

major population areas such as Denver, 

Colorado, or Portland, Oregon. 

Response 30—We provided a total of 

60 days in two separate 30-day periods 

for public comment. We announced 

information on the comment period and 

hearings in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed rule, our national Web 

site, and regional Web sites in the two 

affected regions. We also provided legal 

notices of the comment period and 

hearings for publication in 11 major and 

local newspapers in Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming. We sent out press 

releases to print and broadcast media; 

members of Congress; relevant State, 

Tribal, Federal, and local agencies; and 

hundreds of interested parties in Idaho, 

Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, 

and Kansas. We also sent information 

on the opportunity for public comment 

to two major national environmental 

organizations that distributed the 

information to their membership, on 

their Web sites, and to other 

organizations that made similar efforts. 

Given that we received more than 

260,000 comments from throughout the 

country, we believe sufficient notice 

and time was provided for widespread 

public comment. In selecting hearing 

locations, we believe that we achieved 

a balance between proximity to the most 

affected public in the three States where 

the rule would apply and the public’s 

accessibility to the hearing locations. 

D. Comments on Legal Compliance With 

Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

Issue 31—The proposed revised 

special rule is not in compliance with 

section 2 of the Act nor does it conform 

to the purposes of section 10(j) because 

it does not further the conservation of 

the species. The proposed revisions are 

tantamount to delisting and in violation 

of Section 4 of the Act by allowing take 

as if the species was not listed. 

Response 31—The regulations under 

the Act relating to establishment of 

experimental populations specifically 

recognize the creation of special rules 

containing both prohibitions and 

exceptions for those populations (50 

CFR 17.82). Under section 10(j), such 

exceptions are intended to allow 

management practices to address 

potential negative impacts or concerns 

from reintroductions. The 10(j) special 

regulations of 1994 and 2005 for the 

NEP of the gray wolf in the NRM 

include provisions for managing wolf 

populations impacting livestock and 

ungulate populations. Such provisions 

are necessary for the continued 

enhancement and conservation of wolf 

populations because they foster local 

tolerance of introduced wolves. 

However, these revisions do not alter 

the protected status of the gray wolf in 

the NRM provided under section 4 of 

the Act. The reintroduction of the gray 

wolf into Central Idaho, Southwestern 

Montana, and Yellowstone National 

Park under the 10(j) provisions clearly 

furthered the conservation of the 

species. Since 1995, when the 

reintroductions first occurred, wolf 

populations expanded in size and 

distribution and reached the minimum 

recovery goals in 2000 and have 

exceeded those goals every year since 

then. As described above, our 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4733 

modifications to the provisions of the 

2005 special rule do not compromise 

the continued conservation of these 

populations in this remarkable recovery 

success story. 

Issue 32—One commenter thought 

that we should prepare an 

environmental impact statement rather 

than an EA to comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

because the rule would allow the killing 

of nearly 1,000 wolves, constituting a 

major Federal action significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. 

Response 32—As a result of the 

analysis in the EA, we made a finding 

of no significant impact because we 

concluded, among other reasons, that 

the likely amount of take of wolves that 

the rule would authorize would be 

relatively low and would not 

compromise recovery of the NRM wolf 

population. Based on the current 

available information where wolves may 

be causing unacceptable impacts to 

ungulate populations, it is our 

expectation that the total number of 

wolves taken would be well below 

1,000. 

E. General Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

Issue 33—The State of Montana 

supported all aspects of the revisions to 

the 10(j) special rule, but did not want 

efforts to finalize it to take priority over, 

and thus delay, finalizing the delisting 

rule. 

Response 33—The Service remains 

committed to finalizing both the 10(j) 

rule and its decision on the proposed 

delisting rule in early 2008. The revised 

10(j) special rule is intended to provide 

flexibility for wolf management in the 

NEP areas (including in Montana) in 

case the final determination on the 

delisting is delayed or concludes the 

wolf should remain listed. 

F. Comments Not Germane to the 

Revisions of the Special Regulations 

Some comments went beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking, or beyond the 

authority of the Service or the Act. 

Since these issues do not relate to the 

action we proposed, they are not 

addressed here. These comments 

included support or opposition for 

future delisting, assertions that wolf 

reintroduction was illegal and/or 

usurped States’ rights, and that the type 

of wolf that currently lives in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming is a nonnative 

wolf. Many of these types of comments 

were discussed in the reclassification 

rule (68 FR 15804, April 1, 2003). We 

also received comments expressing 

support for, and opposition to wolf 

recovery efforts and the proposal (or 

parts of it) without further explanation. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

As a result of comments and 

additional information received during 

the comment period, and additional 

analysis, we made several changes to 

the special rule as proposed on July 6, 

2007 (72 FR 36942). We describe the 

specific changes below. Discussion of 

the basis for these changes are in our 

responses to the relevant comments 

where indicated below. 

1. Proposed—Among the criteria 

States or Tribes would be required to 

address in a proposal to control wolves 

for unacceptable impacts to ungulate 

herds or populations was ‘‘Identifies 

possible remedies or conservation 

measures in addition to wolf removal.’’

1. Final—The requirement is changed 

to ‘‘Demonstrates that attempts were 

and are being made to address other 

identified major causes of ungulate herd 

or population declines or the State or 

Tribal government commitment to 

implement possible remedies or 

conservation measures in addition to 

wolf removal; * * *.’’ See Response 7 

in Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. 

2. Proposed—Defined ‘‘stock animal’’

as a ‘‘horse, mule, donkey, or llama used 

to transport people or their 

possessions.’’

2. Final—The definition of ‘‘stock 

animal’’ is changed to ‘‘a horse, mule, 

donkey, llama, or goat used to transport 

people or their possessions.’’ See 

Response 18 in Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations. 

3. Proposed—Required States and 

Tribes to describe data showing that 

ungulate herds or populations are below 

management objectives, but did not 

require a description of the basis of the 

management objectives. 

3. Final—In proposals for wolf control 

to address unacceptable ungulate 

impacts, in addition to other criteria 

States and Tribes must meet, the basis 

of the ungulate management objectives 

must be described. See Response 19 in 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. 

4. Proposed—Required States and 

Tribes to conduct peer review of wolf 

control proposals before submission to 

the Service for approval, but did not 

provide details of peer review 

requirements. 

4. Final—The rule now specifies that 

the State or Tribe must conduct the peer 

review process in conformance with the 

OMB’s Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review and obtain five 

peer reviews from experts on the related 

issues, other than those employed by 

State, Tribal, or Federal agencies 

directly or indirectly involved in 

predator control or ungulate 

management. See Response 22 in 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. 

5. Proposed—Required State or Tribal 

proposals to control wolves for 

unacceptable ungulate impacts to 

include a description of how ungulate 

population responses to wolf control 

would be measured, but did not address 

adaptive management. 

5. Final—The rule now includes a 

requirement that the proposal describe 

how control actions will be adjusted for 

effectiveness. See Response 26 in 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations. 

6. Proposed—Referred to the 

individuals to whom the take provisions 

in this rule would apply as ‘‘citizens’’. 

6. Final—To be consistent with the 

language in the Act, the rule now 

substitutes the word ‘‘person’’ for 

‘‘citizen’’. 

7. Proposed—Specified that 

individuals must be ‘‘legally present’’

on private or public land in order to 

lethally take wolves in defense of their 

stock animals and dogs, but did not 

provide a description of what we meant 

by ‘‘legally present’’. 

7. Final—As a means of clarification 

this rule now includes a definition of 

when a person is ‘‘Legally present’’. See 

Response 17 in Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review—In 

accordance with the criteria in 

Executive Order 12866, this rule is a 

significant regulatory action and subject 

to Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) review. An economic analysis is 

not required because this rule will result 

in only minor and positive economic 

effects on a small percentage of people 

in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 

(a) This regulation will not have an 

annual economic effect of $100 million 

or adversely affect an economic sector, 

productivity, jobs, the environment, or 

other units of government. A brief 

assessment to clarify the costs and 

benefits associated with this rule 

follows: 

Costs Incurred—Under this rule, 

management of wolves by States or 

Tribes with wolf management plans is 

voluntary. Therefore, associated costs to 

States and Tribes for control of wolves 

causing unacceptable impacts to 

ungulate herds or populations are 

discretionary. While we do not quantify 

expected expenditures, these costs may 

consist of staff time and salary as well 

as transportation and equipment 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4734 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to control wolves. Costs to the 

Service would include those associated 

with staff time and salary coordinating 

with States and Tribes during 

development of wolf control proposals 

and review and determination of 

approval of proposals. 

We have funded State and Tribal wolf 

monitoring, research, and management 

efforts for gray wolves in Montana, 

Idaho, and Wyoming, and intend to 

continue to do so as long as wolves are 

listed in these States. For the past 

several years Congress has specifically 

provided funding for wolf management 

to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and 

the Nez Perce. In addition, Federal grant 

programs are available that fund or 

partially fund wildlife management 

programs by the States and Tribes. 

Benefits Accrued—The objectives of 

the proposed rule change are (1) to 

provide a means for States and Tribes 

with Service-approved wolf 

management plans to address the 

unacceptable impacts of a recovered 

wolf population to ungulate populations 

and herds, and (2) to allow persons in 

the boundaries of the NEP areas within 

any States or Tribal lands that has a 

Service-approved wolf management 

plan other than on lands administered 

by NPS to take wolves that are in the act 

of attacking their stock animals or dogs. 

Allowing wolf removal in response to 

unacceptable impacts will help 

maintain ungulate populations or herds 

at or above State or Tribal objectives. As 

a result, hunters and associated 

businesses, including guides, outfitters, 

and the hunting retail industry, may 

benefit from increased hunting 

opportunities. Increased hunting 

opportunities provide States with 

additional revenue which is used for 

wildlife management and habitat 

restoration, protection, and 

enhancement. 

Allowing take of wolves in the act of 

attacking stock animals or dogs would 

have a beneficial economic impact to 

the affected individuals by allowing 

them to protect such private property, as 

well as avoid the need for persons to 

unnecessarily replace and retrain these 

animals. 

(b) This regulation does not create 

inconsistencies with other agencies’

actions. Agency responsibilities for 

section 7 of the Act are the same for this 

rule as the previous NEP special rules. 

This rule reflects the continuing success 

in recovering the gray wolf through 

long-standing cooperative and 

complementary programs by a number 

of Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. 

Implementation of Service-approved 

State or Tribal wolf management plans 

supports these existing partnerships. 

(c) This rule will not alter the 

budgetary effects or entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs, or the rights 

and obligations of their recipients, 

because we do not foresee, as a result of 

this rule, any new impacts or 

restrictions to existing human uses of 

lands in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or 

any Tribal reservations that remain 

under the 1994 NEP special rules. 

(d) OMB has determined that this rule 

could raise novel legal or policy issues. 

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

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

SBREFA of 1996), whenever a Federal 

agency is required to publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., 

small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA also amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require a 

certification statement. Based on the 

information that is available to us at this 

time, we certify that this regulation will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The following discussion 

explains our rationale. 

The revisions in this rule relax some 

of the previous restrictions on take of 

wolves and do not increase restrictions. 

For a discussion of how small entities 

may benefit from this increased 

flexibility see the Benefits Accrued 

section in the Required Determinations 

section above. One study indicated that 

the return of wolves to the NRM infused 

approximately $35.5 million to local 

economies from increased tourism to 

observe wolves in the wild (Duffield, et 

al. 2006, p.51). The expected level of 

wolf control resulting from this rule and 

the fact that this rule does not apply 

within Yellowstone National Park, 

where most of the public goes to view 

wolves, will not affect wolf numbers 

and distribution in a manner that would 

significantly alter the opportunities for 

the public to observe and enjoy wolves 

in the wild. Therefore, local small 

entities benefiting from tourism 

associated with wolf-viewing are not 

likely to see decreases in business as the 

result of the revisions to this rule. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This regulation is not a major rule 

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

(a) This regulation will not have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more and is fully expected to 

have no significant economic impacts. 

The proposed regulation further reduces 

the effect that wolves will have on a few 

persons by increasing the opportunity 

for them to protect their stock animals 

and dogs. Since there are so few small 

businesses impacted by this regulation, 

the combined economic effects are 

minimal. 

(b) This regulation will not cause a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions and will 

impose no additional regulatory 

restraints in addition to those already in 

operation. 

(c) This regulation will not have 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or the ability 

of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises. 

Based on the analysis of identified 

factors, we have determined that no 

individual industries within the United 

States will be significantly affected and 

that no changes in the demography of 

populations are anticipated. The intent 

of this special rule is to facilitate and 

continue existing commercial activities 

while providing for the conservation of 

species by better addressing the 

concerns of affected landowners and the 

impacts of a recovered wolf population. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule defines a process for 

voluntary and cooperative transfer of 

management responsibilities for a listed 

species back to the States. Therefore, in 

accordance with the Unfunded 

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

seq.): 

(a) This rule will not ‘‘significantly or 

uniquely’’ affect small governments. A 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

(b) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

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

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

This rule is not expected to have any 

significant economic impacts nor will it 

impose any unfunded mandates on 

other Federal, State, or local government 

agencies to carry out specific activities. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 4735 

Takings (Executive Order 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this rule will not have significant 

implications concerning taking of 

private property by the Federal 

Government. This rule will substantially 

advance a legitimate government 

interest (conservation and recovery of 

listed species) and will not present a bar 

to all reasonable and expected beneficial 

use of private property. Because this 

proposed rule change pertains only to 

the relaxation of restrictions on lethal 

removal of wolves, it will not result in 

any takings of private property. 

Federalism (Executive Order 13132) 

This rule maintains the existing 

relationship between the States and the 

Federal Government. The State of 

Wyoming requested that we undertake 

this rulemaking in order to assist the 

States in reducing conflicts with local 

landowners and returning wolf 

management to the States or Tribes. We 

have cooperated with the States in 

preparation of this rule. Maintaining the 

recovery goals for these wolves will 

contribute to their eventual delisting 

and their return to State management. It 

is a voluntary decision whether to 

undertake Programs and actions to take 

wolves under this rule. This rule will 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

States and the Federal Government, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. No intrusion on 

State policy or administration is 

expected; roles or responsibilities of 

Federal or State governments will not 

change; and fiscal capacity will not be 

substantially directly affected. 

Therefore, this rule does not have 

significant Federalism effects or 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment pursuant to 

the provisions of Executive Order 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 

12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988, the Department of the Interior 

has determined that this rule does not 

unduly burden the judicial system and 

meets the applicable standards provided 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

require that Federal agencies obtain 

approval from OMB before collecting 

information from the public. A Federal 

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. This rule does not contain any 

new collections of information that 

would require us to obtain OMB 

approval. OMB approval is required if 

information will be collected from 10 or 

more persons (5 CFR 1320.3). ‘‘Ten or 

more persons’’ refers to the persons to 

whom a collection of information is 

addressed by the agency within any 12- 

month period, and to any independent 

entities to which the initial addressee 

may reasonably be expected to transmit 

the collection of information during that 

period, including independent State, 

territorial, Tribal, or local entities and 

separately incorporated subsidiaries or 

affiliates. For the purposes of this 

definition, ‘‘persons’’ does not include 

employees of the respondent acting 

within the scope of their employment, 

contractors engaged by a respondent for 

the purpose of complying with the 

collection of information, or current 

employees of the Federal government 

when acting within the scope of their 

employment, but it does include former 

Federal employees. This rule includes a 

requirement that a State or Tribe 

requesting approval to control wolves 

for unacceptable ungulate impacts 

submit a proposal to us. However, as 

these proposals will only be submitted 

by States or Tribes with Serviceapproved wolf management plans, we 

do not anticipate that it will affect 10 or 

more persons, as defined above. 

Therefore, OMB approval and a control 

number are not needed for information 

collections associated with these 

proposals. Existing information 

collections already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. include permit application 

forms, assigned OMB control number 

1018–0094, and the notification 

requirements in our experimental 

population regulations under 50 CFR 

17.84, assigned OMB control number 

1018–0095. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

We have prepared an environmental 

analysis and finding of no significant 

impact, as defined under the authority 

of the NEPA of 1969. These documents 

are available from the Office of the 

Western Gray Wolf Recovery 

Coordinator (see ADDRESSES section) or 

from our Web site at http:// 

westerngraywolf.fws.gov/. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes (Executive 

Order 13175) 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

coordinated with affected Tribes within 

the experimental population areas of 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming on this 

rule. We have fully considered all 

comments on the proposed special 

regulations that were submitted by 

Tribes and Tribal members during the 

public comment period and have 

attempted to address those concerns, 

new data, and new information where 

appropriate. 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

(Executive Order 13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 requiring 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions that significantly affect energy 

supply, distribution, and use. This rule 

is not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, or use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from our Helena office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.84 by revising 

paragraph (n) as follows: 

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

‘‘unacceptable impact’’ and, in 

alphabetical order, add the terms 

‘‘legally present,’’ ‘‘stock animal,’’ and 

‘‘ungulate population or herd,’’ to read 

as set forth below; and 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
4736 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

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

sentence following the heading and 

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

(n)(4)(xiii) to read as set forth below: 

§ 17.84 Special rules—vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(3) * * * 

* * * * * 

Legally present—A Person is legally 

present when (1) on their own property, 

(2) not trespassing and has the 

landowner’s permission to bring their 

stock animal or dog on the property, or 

(3) abiding by regulations governing 

legal presence on public lands. 

* * * * * 

Stock animal—A horse, mule, 

donkey, llama, or goat used to transport 

people or their possessions. 

Unacceptable impact—Impact to 

ungulate population or herd where a 

State or Tribe has determined that 

wolves are one of the major causes of 

the population or herd not meeting 

established State or Tribal management 

goals. 

Ungulate population or herd—An 

assemblage of wild ungulates living in 

a given area. 

* * * * * 

(4) Allowable forms of take of gray 

wolves. The following activities, only in 

the specific circumstances described 

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

Opportunistic harassment; intentional 

harassment; take on private land; take 

on public land except land administered 

by National Parks; take in response to 

impacts on wild ungulate populations; 

take in defense of human life; take to 

protect human safety; take by 

designated agents to remove problem 

wolves; incidental take; take under 

permits; take per authorizations for 

employees of designated agents; take for 

research purposes; and take to protect 

stock animals and dogs. * * * 

* * * * * 

(v) Take in response to wild ungulate 

impacts. If wolf predation is having an 

unacceptable impact on wild ungulate 

populations (deer, elk, moose, bighorn 

sheep, mountain goats, antelope, or 

bison) as determined by the respective 

State or Tribe, a State or Tribe may 

lethally remove the wolves in question. 

(A) In order for this provision to 

apply, the State or Tribes must prepare 

a science-based document that: 

(1) Describes the basis of ungulate 

population or herd management 

objectives, what data indicate that the 

ungulate population or herd is below 

management objectives, what data 

indicate that wolves are a major cause 

of the unacceptable impact to the 

ungulate population or herd, why wolf 

removal is a warranted solution to help 

restore the ungulate population or herd 

to State or Tribal management 

objectives, the level and duration of 

wolf removal being proposed, and how 

ungulate population or herd response to 

wolf removal will be measured and 

control actions adjusted for 

effectiveness; 

(2) Demonstrates that attempts were 

and are being made to address other 

identified major causes of ungulate herd 

or population declines or the State or 

Tribe commits to implement possible 

remedies or conservation measures in 

addition to wolf removal; and 

(3) Provides an opportunity for peer 

review and public comment on their 

proposal prior to submitting it to the 

Service for written concurrence. The 

State or Tribe must: 

(i) Conduct the peer review process in 

conformance with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005) 

and include in their proposal an 

explanation of how the bulletin’s 

standards were considered and satisfied; 

and 

(ii) Obtain at least five independent 

peer reviews from individuals with 

relevant expertise other than staff 

employed by a State, Tribal, or Federal 

agency directly or indirectly involved 

with predator control or ungulate 

management in Idaho, Montana, or 

Wyoming. 

(B) Before we authorize lethal 

removal, we must determine that an 

unacceptable impact to wild ungulate 

populations or herds has occurred. We 

also must determine that the proposed 

lethal removal is science-based, will not 

contribute to reducing the wolf 

population in the State below 20 

breeding pairs and 200 wolves, and will 

not impede wolf recovery. 

* * * * * 

(xiii) Take to protect stock animals 

and dogs. Any person legally present on 

private or public land, except land 

administered by the National Park 

Service, may immediately take a wolf 

that is in the act of attacking the 

individual’s stock animal or dog, 

provided that there is no evidence of 

intentional baiting, feeding, or 

deliberate attractants of wolves. The 

person must be able to provide evidence 

of stock animals or dogs recently (less 

than 24 hours) wounded, harassed, 

molested, or killed by wolves, and we 

or our designated agents must be able to 

confirm that the stock animals or dogs 

were wounded, harassed, molested, or 

killed by wolves. To preserve evidence 

that the take of a wolf was conducted 

according to this rule, the person must 

not disturb the carcass and the area 

surrounding it. The take of any wolf 

without such evidence of a direct and 

immediate threat may be referred to the 

appropriate authorities for prosecution. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 27, 2007. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 08–334 Filed 1–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 070627217–7523–02] 

RIN 0648–AV70 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Northeast 

Region Standardized Bycatch 

Reporting Methodology Omnibus 

Amendment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing 

approved management measures 

contained in the Standardized Bycatch 

Reporting Methodology (SBRM) 

Omnibus Amendment (SBRM 

Amendment) to the Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs) of the 

Northeast Region, developed by the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Councils (Councils). The 

SBRM Amendment establishes an 

SBRM for all 13 Northeast Region FMPs, 

as required under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). The measures include: Bycatch 

reporting and monitoring mechanisms; 

analytical techniques and allocation of 

at-sea fisheries observers; an SBRM 

performance standard; a review and 

reporting process; framework 

adjustment and annual specifications 

provisions; a prioritization process; and 

provisions for industry-funded 

observers and observer set-aside 

programs. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 27, 2008. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES