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, 4720-4736 [08-334]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4720-4736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-334]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 post-delisting 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 https://
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 https://
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

[[Page 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

[[Page 4722]]

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 mid-winter (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 low-density 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 human-caused 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.).

[[Page 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

[[Page 4724]]

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 Service-approved 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

[[Page 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 radio-collared 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.

[[Page 4726]]

    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

[[Page 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 
human-caused 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 wolf-ungulate 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,

[[Page 4728]]

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