Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado, 10258-10280 [2023-03196]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 33 (Friday, February 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10258-10280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03196]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100; FXES11130600000-223-FF06E00000]
RIN 1018-BG79


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the gray wolf 
(Canis lupus) in the State of Colorado, under section 10(j) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The State of Colorado 
(Colorado Parks and Wildlife or CPW) requested that the Service 
establish an NEP in conjunction with their State-led gray wolf 
reintroduction effort. Establishment of this NEP would provide for 
allowable, legal, purposeful, and incidental taking of the gray wolf 
within a defined NEP area while concurrently providing for the 
conservation of the species. The geographic boundaries of the NEP would 
include the State of Colorado. The best available data indicate that 
reintroduction of the gray wolf into Colorado is biologically feasible 
and will promote the conservation of the species. We are seeking 
comments on this proposal and on our associated draft environmental 
impact statement (DEIS), prepared pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, which describes the 
potential alternatives for providing a regulatory framework for the 
State's reintroduction.

DATES: We will accept comments on this proposed rule or the DEIS that 
are received or postmarked on or before April 18, 2023. Comments 
submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the 
closing date.
    Information Collection Requirements: If you wish to comment on the 
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, please note 
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a 
decision concerning the collection of information contained in this 
proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this proposed 
rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be submitted 
to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, (see ``Information Collection'' section below under 
ADDRESSES) by April 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: This proposed rule and the 
DEIS are available on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2022-0100 and on the Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/coloradowolf. We will also post information regarding public meetings 
at this website. Hardcopies of the documents are also available for 
public inspection at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT. Additional supporting information that we developed for this 
proposed rule will be available on the Service's website, at https://www.regulations.gov, or both.
    Information Collection Requirements: Send your comments on the 
information collection request to the Service Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by email to 
[email protected]; or by mail to 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. Please reference ``OMB Control Number 
1018-Gray Wolf'' in the subject line of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Alt, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, 
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone 303-236-
4773. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
    We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The proposed geographic boundary of the NEP;
    (2) Information pertaining to the conservation status of gray 
wolves and how it relates to the proposed reintroduction and rulemaking 
efforts;
    (3) The adequacy of the proposed regulations for the NEP;
    (4) Management flexibilities that could be added to the final rule 
to address expanding gray wolf populations; and
    (5) Whether to allow lethal management of gray wolves that are

[[Page 10259]]

having a significant impact to ungulate populations, similar to the 
provisions in the 2005 final rule that established a northern Rocky 
Mountains (NRM) gray wolf nonessential experimental population (70 FR 
1286, January 6, 2005).
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov. Because 
we will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer 
Review in Endangered Species Act Activities, which was published on 
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and the internal memorandum clarifying the 
Service's interpretation and implementation of that policy (Service in 
litt. 2016), we will seek the expert opinion of at least three 
appropriate independent specialists regarding scientific data and 
interpretations contained in this proposed rule. We will send copies of 
this proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. The purpose of such review is to 
ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analysis. Accordingly, the final decision may differ 
from this proposal. As noted below under Management Restrictions, 
Protective Measures, and Other Special Management and Means To Identify 
the Experimental Population we are considering whether to allow lethal 
management in response to impacts to wild ungulate herds under specific 
circumstances, and revising the NEP area if necessary. We are seeking 
comments regarding both these issues.

Previous Federal Actions

    Our November 3, 2020, final rule to remove the gray wolf from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) provides a full summary 
of our previous Federal actions for the species (85 FR 69778). Please 
see that final rule for additional information and detail regarding our 
previous Federal actions for the gray wolf. Although the action of 
delisting gray wolves in that rule was vacated, the regulatory history 
summary on pages 69779 to 69784 presents an accurate account of the 
regulatory history of gray wolves under the Act. Below, we summarize 
the previous Federal actions for the species that are most relevant to 
this proposed action or were completed since the November 3, 2020, 
final rule.
    The gray wolf was originally listed as a subspecies or as regional 
populations of subspecies in the lower 48 United States and Mexico. 
Early listings were under legislative predecessors of the Act--the 
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 and the Endangered Species 
Conservation Act of 1969. Later listings were under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973. In 1978, we published a rule reclassifying the 
gray wolf throughout the lower 48 United States and Mexico, subsuming 
the earlier listings of subspecies or regional populations of 
subspecies. The 1978 reclassification was undertaken to address changes 
in our understanding of gray wolf taxonomy and protect the species in 
the lower 48 United States and Mexico (43 FR 9607, March 9, 1978). 
Since that time, a long regulatory and legal history has resulted in 
two currently listed entities of gray wolves in the United States. 
These are: (1) C. lupus in Minnesota, listed as threatened, and (2) C. 
lupus wherever found in 44 U.S. States (``44-State entity''), and 
Mexico, listed as endangered (figure 1). In the United States, this 
includes: all of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West 
Virginia, and Wisconsin; and portions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, 
Utah, and Washington (figure 1). On April 2, 2009, we identified the 
Northern Rocky Mountains (NRM) gray wolf population as a distinct 
population segment and delisted that entity (74 FR 15123). The gray 
wolf is currently delisted in the NRM, which includes all of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming, the eastern one-third of Oregon and Washington, 
and a small portion of north-central Utah (figure 1). Figure 1 does not 
depict historical range; see figure 2 for historical and current 
ranges.

[[Page 10260]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE23.000

Figure 1. Current legal status of C. lupus under the Act in Minnesota, 
the 44-State entity wherever found, and Mexico. The former Northern 
Rocky Mountains distinct population segment (DPS) and the Mexican wolf 
nonessential experimental population (NEP) are not part of the 
currently listed entities. All map lines are approximations; see 50 CFR 
17.84(k) for exact boundaries.

    On November 3, 2020, we published the final rule to delist the two 
currently listed C. lupus entities under the Act (85 FR 69778). The 
rule became effective on January 4, 2021. On February 10, 2022, the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California vacated the 
final rule, resulting in the reinstatement of the 44-State entity as 
endangered and the Minnesota entity as threatened (Defenders of 
Wildlife v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 21-CV-00344-JSW, 2022 WL 
499838 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022)) (figure 1, above). As a result, the 
gray wolf is listed as an endangered species under the Act in the State 
of Colorado and all or parts of 43 additional States. The List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11(h) does not 
currently reflect this status information. However, the entries on the 
List pertaining to the gray wolf will be corrected to reflect the 
current status of gray wolf before any final rule to this proposed 
rulemaking action is effective.

Background and Biological Information

    We provide detailed background information on gray wolves in the 
lower 48 United States in a separate Gray Wolf Biological Report 
(Service 2020, entire) and the 2020 final rule to delist the two 
currently listed C. lupus entities under the Act (85 FR 69778, November 
3, 2020). Information in these documents is relevant to reintroduction 
efforts for gray wolves that may be undertaken in Colorado, and it can 
be found along with this rule at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket 
No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0100 (see Supplemental Documents). We summarize 
relevant information from these documents below.

Species Description

    Gray wolves are the largest wild members of the canid (dog) family, 
with adults ranging in weight from 18 to 80 kilograms (40 to 175 
pounds), depending on sex and geographic locale. Gray wolves are highly 
territorial, social animals that live and hunt in packs. They are well 
adapted to traveling fast and far in search of food, and to catching 
and eating large mammals. In North America, they are primarily 
predators of medium to large mammals, including deer, elk, and other 
species, and are efficient at shifting their diet to take advantage of 
available food resources (Service 2020, p. 6).

Historical and Current Range

    Gray wolves have a broad circumpolar range. In the lower 48 United 
States, range and number of gray wolves declined significantly during 
the 19th and 20th centuries primarily due to humans killing wolves 
through poisoning, unregulated trapping and shooting, and government-
funded wolf extermination efforts (Service 2020, pp. 9-14). By the time 
subspecies were first listed under the Act in 1974, gray wolves had 
been eliminated from most of their historical range within the lower 48 
United States. Outside of Alaska, wolves occurred in only two places 
within the lower 48 United States. An estimated 1,000 wolves persisted 
in northeastern Minnesota, and a small, isolated group of about 40 
wolves occurred on Isle Royale, Michigan (Service 2020, pp. 12-14).
    During the years since the species was reclassified in 1978, gray 
wolves within the lower 48 United States expanded in distribution 
(figure 2) and increased in number (Service 2020, p. 14). Gray wolves 
within the lower 48 United States now exist primarily in two large, 
stable or growing metapopulations in two separate geographic areas in 
the lower 48 United States--one in the

[[Page 10261]]

western Great Lakes area of the Eastern United States and one in the 
Western United States (Service 2020, p. 27). Subpopulations of gray 
wolves within each of these metapopulations are well-connected as 
evidenced by documented movements between States and high levels of 
genetic diversity (Service 2020, p. 27). The western Great Lakes 
metapopulation consists of more than 4,200 individuals broadly 
distributed across the northern portions of Michigan, Minnesota, and 
Wisconsin (Service 2020, p. 27). This metapopulation is also connected, 
via documented dispersals, to the large and expansive population of 
about 12,000-14,000 wolves in eastern Canada. As a result, gray wolves 
in the Great Lakes area do not function as an isolated metapopulation 
of 4,200 individuals in 3 States, but rather as part of a much larger 
``Great Lakes and Eastern Canada'' metapopulation (Service 2020, pp. 
27-28).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE23.001

Figure 2. Historical range and current range (as of January 2020) of 
gray wolves (Canis lupus) in the lower 48 United States.
    \1\ Based on Nowak (1995)
    \2\ Based on State data.
    \3\ U.S. portion of range only.
    \4\ Northern Rocky Mountains distinct population segment (DPS) and 
Mexican wolf nonessential experimental population (NEP) area 
boundaries.

    Gray wolves in the Western United States are distributed across the 
NRM and into western Oregon, western Washington, northern California, 
and most recently in northcentral Colorado (figure 2, above; Service 
2020, p. 28). The Western United States metapopulation consisted of 
more than 1,900 gray wolves in 2015 (at least 1,880 in the NRM and at 
least 26 outside the NRM boundary), the final year of a combined 
northern Rocky Mountains wolf annual report (Service 2020, p. 28, 
appendix 2). Based on the most current abundance estimates of gray 
wolves, Idaho estimated 1,543 gray wolves inhabited the State as of 
August 2021, and Montana had an estimated 1,144 gray wolves at the end 
of 2021 (Parks et al. 2022, pp. 9-10). In addition, the most recent 
year-end minimum counts for 2021 indicated at least 314 gray wolves in 
Wyoming, 206 wolves in Washington, 175 wolves in Oregon, and 17 in 
California (California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2021, 
entire; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2022, p. 4; 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) et al. 2022, p. 13; 
Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) et al. 2022, p. 3).
    Until recently, only lone wolves had been confirmed in Colorado 
beginning with a dispersing individual that died as a result of a 
vehicle collision in 2004. A disperser from Wyoming was first 
documented in north-central Colorado during the summer of 2019 and 
paired up with another wolf during the winter of 2020 (CPW 2021a, 
entire). This pair produced offspring in spring 2021, becoming the 
first documented reproductively active pack in Colorado in recent 
history. As of September 2022, this pack contains the only known wolves 
in Colorado, comprising seven individuals. This single pack does not 
meet the definition of a population of gray wolves used by the Service 
for previous NEP designations in the NRM (i.e., two breeding pairs 
successfully raising at least two pups for 2 consecutive years; Service 
1994, appendix 8). No evidence of reproduction in this pack has been 
documented in 2022. In January of 2020, CPW personnel also confirmed at 
least six wolves traveling together in Moffatt County in northwestern 
Colorado (Service 2020, p. 9). Later that year, that group was down to 
a single individual, and, at present, there is no indication that any 
wolf or wolves remain in that

[[Page 10262]]

part of Colorado. As such, we do not consider any gray wolves currently 
found in Colorado to constitute a population.

Life Cycle

    Gray wolves are highly territorial, social animals and group 
hunters, normally living in packs of 7 or less but sometimes attaining 
pack sizes of 20 or more wolves (Service 2020, p. 6). Wolves of both 
sexes reach sexual maturity between 1 and 3 years of age and, once 
paired with a mate, may produce young annually until they are over 10 
years old. Litters are born from early April into May and can range 
from 1 to 11 pups but generally include 5 to 6 pups (Service 2020, p. 
6). Normally a pack has a single litter annually, however, multiple 
litters have been documented in approximately 25 percent of packs 
annually in Yellowstone National Park (Stahler et al. 2020, p. 52). 
Offspring usually remain with their parents for 10-54 months before 
dispersing (reviewed by Mech and Boitani 2003, Jimenez et al. 2017).

Habitat Use

    The gray wolf is highly adaptable and can successfully occupy a 
wide range of habitats provided adequate prey (primarily ungulates) 
exists and human-caused mortality is sufficiently regulated (Mech 2017, 
pp. 312-315). Wolf packs typically occupy and defend a territory of 33 
to more than 2,600 square kilometers (km\2\) (13 to more than 1,004 
square miles (mi\2\)), with territories tending to be smaller at lower 
latitudes (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163; Fuller et al. 2003, pp. 187-
188). The large variability in territory size is likely due to 
differences in pack size; prey size, distribution, and availability; 
lag time in population responses to changes in prey abundance; and 
variation in prey vulnerability (e.g., seasonal age structure in 
ungulates) (Mech and Boitani 2003, p. 163).
    To identify areas of suitable wolf habitat in the conterminous 
United States, researchers have used models that relate the 
distribution of wolves to characteristics of the landscape. These 
models have shown the presence of wolves is correlated with prey 
availability and density, livestock density, road density, human 
density, land ownership, habitat patch size, and forest cover 
(Mladenoff et al. 1995, pp. 284-292; Mladenoff et al. 1999, pp. 41-43; 
Carroll et al. 2003, entire; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 542; Oakleaf et 
al. 2006, pp. 558-559; Hanley et al. 2018, pp. 6-8).
    In the Western United States, habitat models have identified 
suitable wolf habitat in the northern Rocky Mountains, southern Rocky 
Mountains (including Colorado and Utah), the Cascade Mountains of 
Washington and Oregon, and a small portion of the northern Sierra 
Nevada (Bennett 1994, entire; Switalski et al. 2002, entire; Carroll et 
al. 2003, entire; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 542; Larsen and Ripple 2006, 
entire; Oakleaf et al. 2006, pp. 558-559; Maletzke et al. 2015, entire; 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015, entire; Ditmer et al. 
2022, entire). Large blocks of suitable habitat have been identified in 
the central and southern Rocky Mountains but are currently unoccupied, 
with the exception of occasional dispersing wolves and the single group 
of seven wolves in north-central Colorado.

Movement Ecology

    Gray wolves rarely disperse before 10 months of age, and most 
commonly disperse between 1-3 years of age (Gese and Mech 1991, p. 
2949; Treves et al. 2009, entire; Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 589). 
Generally, by the age of 3 years, most wolves will have dispersed from 
their natal pack to locate social openings in existing packs or find a 
mate and form a new pack (Service 2020, p. 7). Dispersers may become 
nomadic and cover large areas as lone animals, or they may locate 
unoccupied habitats and members of the opposite sex to establish their 
own territorial pack (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 589). Dispersal distances 
in North America typically range from 65 to 154 kilometers (km) (40 to 
96 miles) (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 585), although dispersal distances 
of several hundred kilometers are occasionally reported (Jimenez et al. 
2017, p. 588). The ability to disperse long distances allows 
populations of gray wolves to quickly expand and recolonize vacant 
habitats provided rates of human-caused mortality are not excessive 
(e.g., Mech 1995, Boyd and Pletcher 1999, Treves et al. 2009, Mech 
2017, Hendricks et al. 2019). However, the rate of recolonization can 
be affected by the extent of intervening unoccupied habitat between the 
source population and newly colonized area, as Allee effects (reduced 
probability of finding a mate at low densities) are stronger at greater 
distances from source populations (Hurford et al. 2006, p. 250; 
Stenglein and Van Deelen 2016, entire).

Causes of Decline and Threats

    Unregulated, human-caused mortality was the primary factor that 
caused population declines of gray wolves across the lower 48 States 
during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Although there are some places 
wolves are not likely to persist long term due to high human or 
livestock densities, the regulation of human-caused mortality has been 
a primary factor contributing to increased wolf abundance and 
distribution in the lower 48 States. Regulation of human-caused 
mortality has significantly reduced the number of wolf mortalities 
caused by humans and, although illegal and accidental killing of wolves 
is likely to continue with or without the protections of the Act, at 
current levels those mortalities have had minimal impact on the 
abundance or distribution of gray wolves. The high reproductive 
potential of wolves, and their innate behavior to disperse and locate 
social openings or vacant suitable habitats, allows populations of gray 
wolves to withstand relatively high rates of human-caused mortality 
(Service 2020, pp. 8-9). See Historical and Current Range and Habitat 
Use sections, above, for additional information.

Recovery Efforts to Date

    Following our 1978 reclassification of the species under the Act, 
our national wolf strategy focused on conservation of gray wolves in 
three regions: the western Great Lakes; the NRM; and Mexican wolves in 
the Southwest and Mexico. We drafted recovery plans and implemented 
recovery programs for gray wolves in these three regions (Service 1987, 
entire; Service 1992, entire; Service 2017, entire). The revised NRM 
Wolf Recovery Plan established recovery criteria for wolves in three 
recovery areas across Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (Service 1987, 
entire), while the Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf (Service 
1992, entire) addressed populations of gray wolves in the upper 
Midwest. Mexican wolves have been listed separately as an endangered 
subspecies of gray wolf since 2015 and are not addressed in this 
proposed rule.
    The currently listed entity of gray wolf, to which the proposed 
Colorado NEP belongs, includes all or parts of 44 States; this listed 
entity encompasses populations of gray wolves in the Great Lakes States 
of Michigan and Wisconsin as well as wolves outside the delisted NRM in 
the Western United States. We have not included gray wolves outside the 
NRM and western Great Lakes in any recovery plan. However, as noted 
above, the presence of gray wolves in California, Oregon, and 
Washington, as well as the single pack in Colorado, is a result of 
dispersal and recolonization from core populations in the NRM in 
addition to reproduction and dispersal from resident packs in these 
States and neighboring Canadian provinces.
    While there are no Federal recovery plans addressing wolf recovery 
in

[[Page 10263]]

western States outside Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the States of 
California, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Utah have demonstrated a 
commitment to wolf conservation by developing management plans or 
codifying laws and regulations to protect wolves (November 3, 2020, 85 
FR 69778); this includes the passage of a voter-led initiative in 
Colorado calling specifically for the reintroduction of gray wolves to 
the western portion of the State (Colorado Revised Statute 33-2-105.8). 
At the end of 2021, 6 packs of gray wolves (totaling at least 43 wolves 
and 4 breeding pairs) were documented in western Washington where 
wolves are federally listed (WDFW et al. 2022, p. 16). In the western 
two-thirds of Oregon, where gray wolves are federally listed, a minimum 
of 31 wolves including at least 2 breeding pairs were distributed 
across 3 packs and 4 additional groups of 2 to 3 wolves at the end of 
2021 (ODFW 2022, p. 5). Wolves originating from Oregon have also 
expanded their range into California where a minimum of 17 wolves in 3 
packs were documented at the end of 2021 (CDFW 2021, entire).
    In addition to gray wolves found in the western States outside of 
the delisted NRM population, the Great Lakes metapopulation, consisting 
of approximately 4,200 wolves, is broadly distributed across the 
threatened Minnesota population and wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin 
that are part of the 44-State listed entity (Service 2020, p. 27). 
These States have an established history of cooperating with and 
assisting in recovery efforts for gray wolves and have made a 
commitment, through legislative actions, to continue these activities. 
For additional information regarding State management plans in 
Minnesota and states comprising the 44-State entity, see our November 
3, 2020, final rule to delist the two currently listed C. lupus 
entities under the Act (85 FR 69778). At present, both Minnesota and 
Wisconsin are in the process of updating their State wolf management 
plans.
    The NRM Wolf Recovery Plan was approved in 1980 (Service 1980, p. 
i) and revised in 1987 (Service 1987, p. i). The recovery goal for the 
NRM was reevaluated and, when necessary, modified as new scientific 
information warranted (Service 1987, p. 12; Service 1994, appendices 8 
and 9; Fritts and Carbyn 1995, p. 26; Bangs 2002, p. 1; 73 FR 10514, 
February 27, 2008; 74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). The Service's resulting 
recovery goal for the NRM population of gray wolves was 30 or more 
breeding pairs, defined as an adult male and an adult female wolf that 
have produced at least 2 pups that survived until December 31 of the 
year of their birth during the previous breeding season (Service 1994), 
comprising at least 300 wolves equitably distributed among Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming for 3 consecutive years, with genetic exchange 
(either natural or, if necessary, agency managed) between 
subpopulations. To provide a buffer above these minimum recovery 
levels, each State was to manage for at least 15 breeding pairs and 150 
wolves in midwinter (77 FR 55530, September 10, 2012, pp. 55538-55539; 
74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009, p. 15132). For additional information on 
NRM wolf recovery goals, see 74 FR 15130-15135 (April 2, 2009) and 
references therein.
    Wolves in the NRM distinct population segment (DPS) have recovered 
and were delisted. The NRM population achieved its numerical and 
distributional recovery goals at the end of 2000 (Service et al. 2008, 
table 4). The temporal portion of the recovery goal was achieved in 
2002 when the numerical and distributional recovery goals were exceeded 
for the third successive year (Service et al. 2008, table 4). In 2009, 
we concluded that gray wolves in the NRM far exceeded recovery goals. 
We also concluded that the NRM population: (1) Had at least 45 
reproductively successful packs and 450 individual wolves each winter 
(near the low point in the annual cycle of a wolf population); (2) was 
equitably distributed within the 250,000-km\2\ (100,000-mi\2\) area 
containing 3 areas of large core refugia (National Parks, wilderness 
areas, large blocks of remote secure public land) and at least 170,228 
km\2\ (65,725 mi\2\) of suitable wolf habitat; and (3) was genetically 
diverse and had demonstrated successful genetic exchange through 
natural dispersal and human-assisted migration management between all 3 
core refugia (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009). Gray wolves in the NRM 
remain well above the recovery goals established for this region (see 
Historical and Current Range section, above).

Reintroduction

    To date, purposeful reintroduction of gray wolves to Colorado has 
not occurred; current wolf occupancy in Colorado is the result of 
natural wolf dispersal from the NRM population (Service 2020, pp. 15-
19, 28; see Historical and Current Range section, above). The 
reintroduction of gray wolves in Idaho and Wyoming in the 1990s 
contributed to achieving the recovery goals for the NRM population in 
2002 (Service et al. 2008). For additional details on NRM 
reintroduction efforts, please see our biological report (Service 2020, 
entire) and the Release Procedures section in this document, below.

Regulatory Framework

    Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the prohibitions afforded to 
threatened and endangered species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits take 
of endangered wildlife. ``Take'' is defined by the Act as harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt 
to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act outlines the 
procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally 
listed species and protect designated critical habitat. It mandates 
that all Federal agencies use their existing authorities to further the 
purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of 
listed species. It also requires that Federal agencies, in consultation 
with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry 
out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not affect 
activities undertaken on private land unless they are authorized, 
funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.
    The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included 
the addition of section 10(j), which allows for populations of listed 
species planned to be reintroduced to be designated as ``experimental 
populations.'' The provisions of section 10(j) were enacted to 
ameliorate concerns that reintroduced populations will negatively 
impact landowners and other private parties, by giving the Secretary of 
the Interior greater regulatory flexibility and discretion in managing 
the reintroduced species to encourage recovery in collaboration with 
partners, especially private landowners. Under section 10(j) of the 
Act, and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.81, the Service may 
designate a population of an endangered or threatened species that will 
be released within its probable historical range as an experimental 
population. The Service may also designate an experimental population 
for an endangered or threatened species outside of the species' 
probable historical range in extreme cases when the Director of the 
Service finds that the primary habitat of the species within its 
historical range has been unsuitably and irreversibly altered or 
destroyed. Under section 10(j) of the Act, we make a

[[Page 10264]]

determination whether or not an experimental population is essential to 
the continued existence of the species based on best available science. 
Our regulations define an essential population as one whose loss would 
be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the 
species in the wild. All other experimental populations are to be 
classified as ``nonessential'' (50 CFR 17.80(b)).
    We treat any population determined by the Secretary to be an 
experimental population as if we had listed it as a threatened species 
for the purposes of establishing protective regulations with respect to 
that population (50 CFR 17.82). The designation as an experimental 
population allows us to develop tailored ``take'' prohibitions that are 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. 
The protective regulations adopted for an experimental population will 
contain applicable prohibitions, as appropriate, and exceptions for 
that population, allowing us discretion in devising management programs 
to provide for the conservation of the species.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, in 
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. For the 
purposes of section 7 of the Act, we treat an NEP as a threatened 
species when the population is located within a National Wildlife 
Refuge or unit of the National Park Service (50 CFR 17.83; see 16 
U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(i)). When NEPs are located outside of a National 
Wildlife Refuge or National Park Service unit, for the purposes of 
section 7, we treat the population as proposed for listing and only 
sections 7(a)(1) (50 CFR 17.83) and 7(a)(4) (50 CFR 402.10) of the Act 
apply (50 CFR 17.83). In these instances, NEPs provide additional 
flexibility in managing the nonessential population because Federal 
agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). 
Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities 
to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 
7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with 
the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed to be listed. As a result, NEPs provide 
additional flexibility in managing the nonessential population.
    Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat 
shall not be designated for any experimental population that is 
determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate 
critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
    Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any 
population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an 
endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary 
transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find by 
regulation that such release will further the conservation of the 
species. In making such a finding the Service uses the best scientific 
and commercial data available to consider:
    (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species 
as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for 
introduction elsewhere (see Effects on Wild Populations, below);
    (2) The likelihood that any such experimental population will 
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see 
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below);
    (3) The relative effects that establishment of an experimental 
population will have on the recovery of the species (see Effects of the 
NEP on Recovery Efforts, below); and
    (4) The extent to which the introduced population may be affected 
by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private 
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see 
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below).
    Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations 
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act 
must provide:
    (1) Appropriate means to identify the experimental population, 
including, but not limited to, its actual or proposed location, actual 
or anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be 
released, and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental 
population (see Proposed Experimental Population and Experimental 
Population Regulation Requirements sections, below);
    (2) A finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial 
data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the 
experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued 
existence of the species in the wild (see Is the Proposed Experimental 
Population Essential or Nonessential? section, below);
    (3) Management restrictions, protective measures, or other special 
management concerns for that population, which may include, but are not 
limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental 
population designated in the regulations from natural populations (see 
Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special 
Management, below); and
    (4) A process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or 
failure of the release and the effect of the release on the 
conservation and recovery of the species (see Review and Evaluation of 
the Success or Failure of the NEP, below).
    Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service must consult with appropriate 
State fish and wildlife agencies, local governmental entities, affected 
Federal agencies, affected Tribes, and affected private landowners in 
developing and implementing experimental population rules. To the 
maximum extent practicable, section 10(j) rules represent an agreement 
between the Service, the affected State and Federal agencies, affected 
Tribes, and persons holding any interest in land that may be affected 
by the establishment of an experimental population.

Proposed Experimental Population

    We are proposing to designate this NEP at the request of CPW, to 
facilitate their planned reintroduction of gray wolves to the State per 
the requirements of Proposition 114 (now codified as Colorado Revised 
Statute 33-2-105.8), which directs the CPW Commission to take the steps 
necessary to reintroduce gray wolves to lands west of the Continental 
Divide by December 23, 2023.

Proposed Reintroduction Areas and Release Sites

    The proposed NEP area is the entire State of Colorado. This scale 
is appropriate, given that CPW has proposed a discrete release area 
(figure 3), and gray wolves have high dispersal ability (Jimenez et al. 
2017, p. 582). Furthermore, gray wolves released on the west side of 
the Continental Divide may move to locations beyond the western portion 
of the State, including east of the Continental Divide. Within the 
proposed statewide NEP designation, CPW proposes to release gray wolves 
obtained from the delisted NRM population (Idaho, Montana, eastern 
Oregon, eastern Washington, Wyoming) at multiple sites west of the 
Continental Divide. Individual release sites will be located on private 
or State lands with high habitat suitability and low wolf-livestock 
conflict risk based on models developed by Ditmer et al. (2022). All 
release sites will be located west of the Continental Divide

[[Page 10265]]

(Colorado Revised Statute 33-2-105.8), and north of U.S. Highway 50 
(figure 3). CPW proposes to release a total of 10 to 15 wolves at a 
50:50 sex ratio each year during winter for up to 3 consecutive years, 
although exact numbers and sex ratios may vary due to factors 
associated with capture from source populations (CPW 2021b, p. 24). 
After initial releases are completed, CPW will monitor the success of 
reintroduction efforts and document wolf abundance and distribution 
annually to evaluate progress toward meeting State wolf recovery 
objectives (CPW 2021b, p. 24).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17FE23.002

Figure 3. Map of the State of Colorado with county boundaries and the 
general area (crosshatched) for CPW's proposed initial (1-3 years) 
release site area for a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of 
gray wolves.

Release Procedures

    CPW officials plan to capture wild gray wolves in cooperating 
States in the Western United States where wolves are federally delisted 
(Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the eastern third of Washington and Oregon, 
and north-central Utah) using a combination of net gunning, helicopter 
darting, or trapping. Wolf captures will be conducted in accordance 
with approved protocols specific to each jurisdiction from which donor 
wolves are to come. Animals will be a mix of sex and age classes, with 
a sex ratio of 50:50 preferred, and ideally donor animals will be 
unrelated and of dispersing age (2 years and older). Each wolf selected 
for transport will be photographed, examined to evaluate condition and 
to obtain biological measurements and samples, tested for diseases, 
vaccinated for a wide variety of diseases, and treated for internal and 
external parasites. Additionally, wolves will be fitted with either a 
global positioning system (GPS) or a very high frequency (VHF) radio 
transmitter as well as other markers to assist with individual 
identification. Captured animals will be transported to Colorado in 
large, aluminum crates (similar to those used for wolf reintroduction 
in the NRM) by aircraft, ground transportation, or a mix of techniques, 
with a goal of releasing captured animals as quickly as possible to 
minimize time in captivity and capture-related stress. All animals will 
be ``hard released'' (released shortly after transport to 
reintroduction sites with no preconditioning; CPW 2021b, pp. 19-21) 
during winter (November through March), with no acclimation time 
between capture, transport, and release. The Final Report on Wolf 
Restoration Logistics Recommendations developed by the Colorado Wolf 
Restoration and Management Plan Technical Working Group (CPW 2021b, 
entire) provides additional details regarding the proposed release 
procedures.

Reintroduction Site Management

    As noted in the Proposed Reintroduction Areas and Release Sites and 
Release Procedures sections above, the CPW plans to ``hard release'' 
gray wolves on State or private lands within a discrete release area 
(figure 3, above). Given that gray wolves released in this manner are 
more likely to disperse immediately from the release site rather than 
remain together at the site (CPW 2021b, entire), CPW does not plan to 
implement any special management practices at individual release sites. 
For additional information, please see the State of Colorado's Final 
Report on Wolf Restoration Logistics Recommendations (CPW 2021b, 
entire).

How will the NEP further the conservation of the species?

    Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before authorizing the release as an 
experimental population, the Service must find by regulation that such 
release will further the conservation of

[[Page 10266]]

the species. We explain our rationale for making our finding below. In 
making such a finding, we must consider effects on donor populations, 
the likelihood of establishment and survival of the experimental 
population, the effects that establishment of the experimental 
population will have on recovery of the species, and the extent to 
which the experimental population will be affected by Federal, State, 
or private activities.

Effects on Wild Populations

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 require that we consider any 
possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result 
of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction 
elsewhere. The preferred donor population for the proposed 
reintroduction of gray wolves to Colorado is the delisted NRM 
population, found in Idaho, Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern 
Washington, and Wyoming. Gray wolves in these States are managed by 
State fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes. These wolves are an 
appropriate source for the Colorado reintroduction because of 
similarities in habitat and preferred prey; at least one member of the 
current pack in Colorado dispersed from the NRM population; and the NRM 
population reached numerical, spatial, and temporal recovery goals by 
the end of 2002 (Service 2020, p. 15; see the Recovery Efforts to Date 
section, above). The NRM wolf population continues to demonstrate 
stable to slightly increasing demographic trends with an estimated 
1,543 wolves in Idaho as of August 2021 and slightly over 1,850 wolves 
in California, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming at the end of 
2021 (CDFW 2021, entire; ODFW 2022, p. 4; Parks et al. 2022, pp. 9-10; 
WDFW et al. 2022, p. 13; WGFD et al 2022, p. 3). Further, the NRM 
population is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that 
encompasses all of Western Canada (Service 2020, p. 29). Given the 
demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population 
and limited number of animals that will be collected, we expect 
negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.
    If donor wolves from the Western United States are not available, 
another possible source of gray wolves for the Colorado reintroduction 
may be from the wolf population in the western Great Lake States of 
Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin. Wolves in Minnesota are currently 
listed as threatened under the Act, while wolves in Michigan and 
Wisconsin are listed as endangered. The Western Great Lakes region has 
nearly 4,400 wolves (Michigan Department of Natural Resources 2022, pp. 
19-21; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2021, unpaginated; 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2022, p. 4) and are part of a 
larger metapopulation of wolves that extends into central and eastern 
Canada. As a result, the capture, transport, and reintroduction to 
Colorado of approximately 30 to 45 gray wolves over a 2-to-3-year 
period would have little to no effect on the wolf population in the 
western Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, or Wisconsin.

Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival

    In our findings for designation of an NEP, we must consider if the 
reintroduced population will become established and survive in the 
foreseeable future. In this section of the preamble, we address the 
likelihood that populations introduced into the proposed NEP will 
become established and survive. In defining the experimental population 
boundary, we attempted to encompass the area where the population is 
likely to become established in the foreseeable future. The term 
``foreseeable future'' appears in the Act in the statutory definition 
of ``threatened species.'' However, the Act does not define the term 
``foreseeable future.'' Similarly, our implementing regulations 
governing the establishment of an NEP under section 10(j) of the Act 
use the term ``foreseeable future'' (50 CFR 17.81(b)(2)) but do not 
define the term. However, our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future 
on a case-by-case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so 
far into the future as we can reasonably determine that both the future 
threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In 
other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we 
can make reliable predictions. While we use the term ``foreseeable 
future'' here in a different context (to determine the likelihood of 
population establishment and to establish boundaries for identification 
of the experimental population), we apply a similar conceptual 
framework. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific 
and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes 
applicable to the relevant effects of release and management of the 
species and to the species' likely responses in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.
    For the purposes of this proposed rule, we define the foreseeable 
future for our evaluation of the likelihood of survival and 
establishment as approximately 10 years, the time horizon within which 
we can reasonably forecast population expansion of gray wolves in 
Colorado given the results of previous reintroduction efforts of gray 
wolves in the NRM. This timeframe is also similar to the timeframe for 
the expansion of wolves from the NRM into portions of the currently 
listed 44-State entity in California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington 
(Service 2020, p. 28).
    In evaluating the likelihood of establishment and survival of this 
proposed NEP in the foreseeable future, we considered the extent to 
which causes of extirpation in the NEP area have been addressed, 
habitat suitability and prey availability within the NEP area, and 
existing scientific and technical expertise and experience with 
reintroduction efforts. As discussed below, we expect that gray wolves 
will become established during this time span, given the species' 
adaptability and dispersal ability.
Addressing Causes of Extirpation Within the Experimental Population 
Area
    Investigating the causes for the extirpation of gray wolves is 
necessary to understand whether we are sufficiently addressing threats 
to the species in the proposed NEP so that reintroduction efforts are 
likely to be successful. The International Union for the Conservation 
of Nature's Guidelines for Reintroduction and Other Conservation 
Translocations (2013, p. 4) identifies several criteria to consider 
prior to undertaking a reintroduction, including ``strong evidence that 
the threat(s) that caused any previous extinction have been correctly 
identified and removed or sufficiently reduced.'' Wolves depend on 
abundant prey (primarily ungulates) and can successfully colonize and 
occupy a wide range of habitats as long as human-caused mortality is 
adequately managed (Mech 2017, pp. 312-315). Historical wolf declines 
in Colorado resulted from purposeful efforts to eradicate the species 
by State and Federal authorities, primarily due to conflicts with 
domestic livestock production (Service 2020, pp. 9-14; see Habitat Use 
and Causes of Decline and Threats sections, above, for additional 
information). In 2004, CPW created a Wolf Management Working Group, 
largely in response to dispersal of wolves from the NRM population to

[[Page 10267]]

Colorado and other western States. The working group developed a series 
of recommendations for wolf management in Colorado, including 
recognition of the ecological value of wolves and an intent to accept 
their presence in Colorado (Colorado Wolf Management Working Group 
2004, p. 3). The recommendations of the Wolf Management Working Group 
were formally adopted by the Colorado Wildlife Commission in 2005 and 
were reaffirmed by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission in 2016 
(85 FR 69778, November 3, 2020; p. 69837).
    Gray wolves are currently classified as an endangered species by 
the State of Colorado and can be taken only in self-defense. The State 
of Colorado expanded its conservation efforts for gray wolves through 
the passage of Proposition 114 (now codified as Colorado Revised 
Statute 33-2-105.8), which directs the CPW Commission to take the steps 
necessary to reintroduce gray wolves to lands west of the Continental 
Divide by December 23, 2023. Colorado Revised Statute 33-2-105.8 calls 
for the development and implementation of a Colorado Wolf Restoration 
and Management Plan, which is expected by late 2023. The plan follows a 
phased approach whereby the conservation status of gray wolves is 
linked with numerical and temporal population targets (CPW 2022a, p. 
2). For additional information, please see CPW 2022a (entire). 
Purposeful eradication is no longer a tool used for wolf management. 
Based on the elimination of purposeful eradication, and the fact that 
gray wolves are protected under State and Federal laws, we do not 
anticipate the original cause of wolf extirpation from Colorado to be 
repeated.
Habitat Suitability/Prey Availability
    Excluding occasional dispersing wolves and a single group of at 
least seven wolves presently in north-central Colorado, large blocks of 
gray wolf habitat in the central and southern Rocky Mountains are not 
currently occupied by gray wolves. Models developed to assess habitat 
suitability and the probability of wolf occupancy indicate that 
Colorado contains adequate habitat to support a population of gray 
wolves, although the number of wolves that the State could support 
varies among the models. One model estimated that the State could 
support between 407 and 814 wolves based on prey and habitat 
availability (Bennett 1994, pp. 112, 275-280).
    Carroll et al. (2003, entire) examined multiple models to evaluate 
suitable wolf habitat, occupancy, and the probability of wolf 
persistence given various landscape changes and potential increases in 
human density in the southern Rocky Mountains, which included portions 
of southeastern Wyoming, Colorado, and northern New Mexico. Using a 
resource selection function (RSF) model developed for wolves in the 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and projecting it to Colorado, Carroll et 
al. (2003, pp. 541-542) identified potential wolf habitat across north-
central and northwest Colorado and the southwestern part of the State. 
RSF model predictions indicate that Colorado could support an estimated 
1,305 wolves with nearly 87 percent of wolves occupying public lands in 
the State. Carroll et al. (2003, entire) also used a dynamic model that 
incorporated population viability analysis to evaluate occupancy of 
gray wolves and persistence based on current conditions as well as 
potential changes resulting from increased road and human densities in 
the future. The dynamic model based on current conditions predicted 
similar distribution and wolf population estimates as the RSF model; 
however, as predicted, as road and human densities increased in 
Colorado, the availability of suitable habitat and the estimated number 
of wolves that habitat could support declined (Carroll et al. 2003, pp. 
541-543).
    An analysis similar to that of Carroll et al. (2003, entire) was 
conducted for the entirety of the Western United States and indicated 
that high-quality wolf habitat exists in Colorado and Utah, but that 
wolves recolonizing Colorado and Oregon would be most vulnerable to 
landscape changes because these areas lack, and are greater distances 
from, large core refugia (Carroll et al. 2006, pp. 33-36). The authors 
proposed that habitat improvements, primarily in the form of road 
removal or closures, could mitigate these effects (Carroll et al. 2006, 
p. 36). Switalski et al. (2002, pp. 12-13) and Carroll et al. (2003, p. 
545) also cautioned that model predictions may be inaccurate because 
they did not account for the presence of livestock and the potential 
use of lethal removal to mitigate conflicts, which may affect the 
likelihood of establishment of gray wolves as well as their year-to-
year survival and distribution on the landscape.
    Wolves can successfully occupy a wide range of habitats provided 
adequate prey exists (Mech 2017). Wolves in the Western United States 
rely on habitats containing large prey such as mule deer, elk, and 
moose (Smith et al. 2010, entire). CPW manages wild ungulate 
populations, such as elk and mule deer, using herd management plans, 
which establish population objective minimums and maximums for each 
ungulate herd in the State (CPW 2020, entire). The herd management 
plans consider both biological and social factors when setting herd 
objective ranges (CPW 2020, entire). Similar to mule deer populations 
in other western States, mule deer in Colorado have declined due to a 
multitude of factors since the 1970s to a statewide population estimate 
of 433,100 animals in 2018, which was well below the minimum statewide 
population objective of 500,450 (CPW 2020, entire). In 2018, of 54 mule 
deer herds in the State, 23 were below their population objective 
minimum with the western part of the State being the most affected. In 
contrast, elk populations in Colorado were stable in 2018 with a winter 
population estimate of 287,000 elk (CPW 2020, entire). Although 22 of 
42 elk herds are above the maximum population objective, the ratio of 
calves per 100 cows (a measure of overall herd fitness) has declined in 
some southwestern herd units, and research has been initiated to 
determine potential causes. Moose are not native to Colorado, so to 
create hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities, CPW transplanted 
moose to the State beginning in 1978 and has since transplanted moose 
on four other occasions through 2010. In 2018, the moose population was 
estimated at 3,200 animals and continues to increase as moose expand 
into new areas of the State.
    In summary, while deer and elk numbers are down from their peak 
populations in some parts of Colorado, they still number in the 
hundreds of thousands of individuals, and the State is actively 
managing populations to meet objectives (CPW 2020, entire). In 
addition, as of the latest estimates, elk numbers exceed their 
population objectives in 22 of 42 herds (CPW 2020, p. 9). Introduced 
moose provide an additional potential food resource for wolves in some 
parts of the State. Therefore, wolf habitat and prey are suitable and 
abundant within the proposed NEP area and would support population 
establishment and survival.
Reintroduction Expertise/Experience/Track Record
    Conservation efforts to reintroduce gray wolves to the NRM began in 
1995, with the reintroduction of wolves to portions of Idaho and 
Wyoming. Following their release, wolves rapidly increased in abundance 
and distribution in the region due to natural reproduction and the 
availability of

[[Page 10268]]

high-quality, suitable wolf habitat in the NRM. Between 1995 and 2008, 
populations of gray wolves in the NRM increased an average of 24 
percent annually, reaching 1,655 wolves by the end of 2008 (Service et 
al. 2016, table 6b), while total mortality averaged approximately 16 
percent annually between 1999 and 2008 (Service et al. 2000-2009, 
entire). Wolf numbers and distribution in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 
stabilized after 2008 as suitable habitat became increasingly saturated 
(74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009; p. 15160).
    Between 2009 and 2015, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming began to manage 
wolves with the objective of reversing or stabilizing population growth 
while continuing to maintain populations well above Federal recovery 
targets for the NRM population (depending upon the Federal status of 
wolves at that time; see 85 FR 69778, November 3, 2020; pp. 69779-
69782). During this time period, States began to use public harvest as 
a management tool to achieve State-specific management objectives. As a 
result, during those years when legal harvest occurred, total wolf 
mortality in the NRM increased to an average of 29 percent of the 
minimum known population (Service et al. 2010-2016, entire), while 
population growth declined to an average of approximately 1 percent 
annually (Service et al. 2010-2016, entire). Although this mortality 
rate was significantly higher than mortality rates during the previous 
decade, the NRM population demonstrated an ability to sustain itself, 
consistent with scientific information demonstrating that the species' 
reproductive and dispersal capacity can compensate for a range of 
mortality rates (Service 2020, pp. 8-9). As of 2015, the final year of 
a combined NRM wolf count at the end of federally required post-
delisting monitoring in Idaho and Montana, wolves in the NRM remained 
well above minimum recovery levels with a minimum known population of 
1,704 wolves distributed across Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. An 
additional 177 wolves were documented in the NRM portions of Oregon and 
Washington at the end of 2015. Wolves in the NRM continue to remain 
above minimum recovery levels, demonstrating availability of technical 
expertise to successfully reintroduce gray wolf populations. For more 
information regarding the success of reintroduction efforts in the NRM, 
please see the Recovery Efforts to Date section, above.
    Based on our demonstrated ability to reintroduce and successfully 
establish wolves to the NRM that reached recovery goals, the 
availability of habitat suitability and prey availability in the 
proposed reintroduction area (see Habitat Suitability/Prey Availability 
section, above), the demonstrated resiliency of gray wolves in the 
United States, and the ongoing development of a comprehensive Gray Wolf 
Restoration and Management plan in Colorado, the best available 
scientific data indicate that the reintroduction of gray wolves into 
suitable habitat in Colorado supports the likely success of 
establishment and survival of the reintroduced population, and the 
proposed experimental population has a high likelihood of becoming 
established within the foreseeable future.

Effects of the NEP on Recovery Efforts

    We are proposing to designate an experimental population of gray 
wolf in Colorado to support CPW's planned effort to reintroduce gray 
wolves to the State of Colorado, and to further the conservation of the 
currently listed 44-State entity. CPW developed a draft Gray Wolf 
Restoration and Management Plan for the reintroduction and management 
of gray wolves in the State, with the goal of restoring the species to 
Colorado in a phased approach to the point where it no longer needs 
protection under State statute (CPW 2022a, entire). This management 
plan focuses on the primary threat to gray wolves, which is human-
caused mortality (e.g., Fuller et al. 2003, Mech 2017). We anticipate 
the State's plan will be finalized in the spring of 2023.
    As noted in the Recovery Efforts to Date section, above, 
populations of gray wolves in the 44-State listed entity number more 
than 4,500 individuals and occupy portions of California, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington (Service 2020, pp. 27-28). Although 
gray wolves are present in Colorado, they do not currently meet our 
definition of a population. Reintroduction efforts in Colorado will 
provide additional redundancy for the 44-State listed entity. 
Redundancy is the ability for the species to withstand catastrophic 
events, for which adaptation is unlikely, and is associated with the 
number and distribution of populations. Representation is the ability 
of a species to adapt to changes in the environment and is associated 
with its ecological, genetic, behavioral, and morphological diversity. 
If successful, the reintroduction in the NEP would improve redundancy 
by increasing the number of populations at the southern extent of the 
currently occupied range and representation by increasing the 
ecological diversity of the habitats occupied by the listed entity. For 
these reasons, reintroduction efforts undertaken by CPW would increase 
the redundancy and representation, and hence viability, of the 
currently listed 44-State entity (e.g., Smith et al. 2018).
    Previous NEP designations have conserved and recovered gray wolves 
in other regions of the United States, particularly in the NRM. 
Additional management flexibility, relative to the mandatory 
prohibitions covering nonessential experimental species under the Act, 
is expected to help address local, State, and Tribal concerns about 
wolf-related conflicts in Colorado, similar to those experienced in 
other NRM States. Addressing these concerns proactively may result in 
greater human acceptance of gray wolves and other species of concern. 
Based on past modeling efforts, it has been estimated that Colorado 
could biologically support approximately 400 to 1,200 wolves (Bennett 
1994, pp. 112, 275-280; Carroll et al. 2006, p. 33), but due to social 
constraints that could limit the distribution of wolves in the state 
(Ditmer et al. 2022, p. 12), the total number of wolves Colorado could 
support may be slightly lower. Nonetheless, this action will contribute 
to the conservation of the listed entity by increasing redundancy and 
representation.

Actions and Activities in Colorado That May Affect Introduced Gray 
Wolves

    A large proportion of Colorado is composed of publicly owned 
Federal lands (approximately 36 percent; Congressional Research Service 
2020). Public lands include National Forests, National Parks, National 
Monuments, and National Wildlife Refuges, which comprise approximately 
63 percent of all public lands in Colorado. In addition, the Bureau of 
Land Management manages approximately 35 percent of public land in 
Colorado, much of which is located in the western portion of the State 
where reintroduction efforts for gray wolves will take place (figure 
3). Although much of this public land is largely unavailable and/or 
unsuitable for intensive development and contains an abundance of wild 
ungulates, livestock grazing does occur on public lands in Colorado, 
which may increase the potential for mortality of gray wolves from 
lethal control of chronically depredating packs. However, in both 
Minnesota and the northern Rocky Mountains, lethal control of 
depredating wolves has had little effect on wolf distribution and 
abundance (Service 2020 p. 22; 85 FR 69778, November 3, 2020; p. 
69842).

[[Page 10269]]

    Humans sparsely inhabit most of the NEP area containing suitable 
habitat for gray wolves. However, the NEP area contains human 
infrastructure and activities that pose some risk to success of the 
NEP. Risks include wolves killed as a result of mistaken identity, 
accidental capture during animal damage control activities, and high-
speed vehicular traffic. Human-caused mortality includes both 
controllable and uncontrollable sources of mortality. Controllable 
sources of mortality are discretionary, can be limited by the managing 
agency, and include permitted take, sport hunting, and direct agency 
control. Sources of mortality that will be difficult to limit, or may 
be uncontrollable, occur regardless of population size and include 
things such as natural mortalities, illegal take, and accidental deaths 
(e.g., vehicle collisions, capture-related mortalities) (85 FR 69778, 
November 3, 2020). The biggest risks likely include illegal take of 
wolves and individuals hit by motor vehicles. Accidental mortality 
caused by vehicle collisions are uncontrollable, but are not 
anticipated to be a significant cause of mortality. However, if 
population levels and controllable sources of mortality are adequately 
regulated, the life-history characteristics of wolf populations provide 
natural resiliency to high levels of human-caused mortality (85 FR 
69778, November 3, 2020). In conjunction with previous reintroduction 
efforts, implementation of this proposed rule, if finalized would 
reflect continuing success in recovering gray wolves through 
longstanding cooperative and complementary programs by a number of 
Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. In particular, the stakeholder 
engagement process developed by CPW in support of its Gray Wolf 
Restoration and Management Plan development is broadly based and 
includes a diverse array of stakeholders in the State, which has helped 
to address potential adverse effects to gray wolves through Federal, 
State, or private actions. Therefore, Federal, State, or private 
actions and activities in Colorado that are ongoing and expected to 
continue are not likely to have significant adverse effects on gray 
wolves within the proposed NEP area.

Experimental Population Regulation Requirements

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) include a list of what we should 
provide in regulations designating experimental populations under 
section 10(j) of the Act. We explain what our proposed regulations 
include and provide our rationale for those regulations, below.

Means To Identify the Experimental Population

    Our regulations require that we provide appropriate means to 
identify the experimental population, which may include geographic 
locations, number of individuals to be released, anticipated movements, 
and other information or criteria. The proposed Colorado NEP area 
encompasses the entire State. As discussed below, we conclude that 
after initial releases, any gray wolves found in Colorado will, with a 
high degree of likelihood, have originated from and be members of the 
NEP. However, we recognize that absent identifying tags or collars, it 
may be very difficult for members of the public to easily determine the 
origin of any individual gray wolf. Therefore, we propose to use 
geographic location to identify members of the NEP. As such, any wolf 
within the State of Colorado will be considered part of the NEP 
regardless of its origin. Similarly, any wolf outside of the State will 
take on the status of that location. For example, a wolf moving from 
Wyoming into Colorado will take on the NEP status, whereas a wolf 
moving from Colorado into Wyoming will take on a not-listed status, or 
endangered status if it moves into any other adjacent State.
    Although a single pack of wolves occurred in Colorado as of October 
2022, this single pack does not constitute a population (see Historical 
and Current Range section, above). While an adult female wolf dispersed 
from Wyoming to Colorado in 2019 to form half of the first 
reproductively active pack in the State in recent history, the origins 
of her mate are unknown. It is likely the male dispersed from the 
Greater Yellowstone area (approximately 480 kilometers (300 miles) 
north and east of their current location), but his exact origin is 
uncertain (CPW 2021a, entire). The mean dispersal distance of male 
wolves in the NRM is 98.1 km (60 miles) (Jimenez et al. 2017, p. 585). 
The nearest known pack in Wyoming is more than 200 km (124 miles) from 
the Colorado border, which is more than two times the average dispersal 
distance for gray wolves. In addition, gray wolves in most of Wyoming, 
outside of the wolf trophy game management area, are considered 
predators and can legally be killed with no limit on such take. Wolf 
packs are unlikely to persist in portions of Wyoming where they are 
designated as predatory animals (85 FR 69778, November 3, 2020).
    Despite these challenges, it is possible that gray wolves 
dispersing from the NRM population could successfully enter the NEP. 
However, these movements would likely be infrequent given the NEP's 
distance from existing populations, given the difficulty of dispersal 
across most of Wyoming, and the normal dispersal distances for gray 
wolves. Additionally, the small numbers of individuals likely to occupy 
the NEP following the release and the sizable distances between 
populations makes any potential interaction between individuals or a 
merging of populations highly unlikely. Further, even if gray wolves 
from the NRM or other populations were to disperse into the NEP, the 
presence of one or a few individual dispersing gray wolves would not 
constitute a population, as described above. Therefore, gray wolves 
reintroduced into Colorado will be wholly geographically separate from 
the delisted portion of the NRM population as well as the remainder of 
the currently listed 44-State entity. Based on this geographic 
separation, we conclude that any gray wolves found in Colorado after 
the initial release will, with a high degree of likelihood, be members 
of the NEP; therefore, we conclude that geographic location is an 
appropriate means to identify members of the NEP.
    As noted in the Release Procedures section, above, CPW plans to fit 
individual animals reintroduced to the proposed Colorado NEP with GPS 
collars or a mix of GPS and VHF collars, with GPS preferred in the 
early stages of the reintroduction effort. Reintroduced wolves fitted 
with radio telemetry collars and other identifiable marks prior to 
release will enable CPW to determine if animals within Colorado are 
members of the reintroduced NEP, and not extant wolves from other 
populations (e.g., the delisted NRM population). However, as 
reintroduced wolves begin to reproduce and disperse from Colorado 
packs, wolf abundance and distribution will increase in Colorado and 
the ability to capture and mark a high proportion of the population 
will decline. Given the challenges associated with marking a high 
number of wolves as the population increases and the distance from 
known packs in Wyoming and other populations of gray wolves, we will 
consider all gray wolves found in the State of Colorado to be members 
of the NEP.
    Although CPW and the Service determined that there is no existing 
population of wolves in the proposed NEP area that would preclude 
reintroduction and establishment of an experimental population in the 
State (see definition of wolf population in Historical and Current 
Range section, above), both agencies will continue to

[[Page 10270]]

monitor for the presence of any naturally recolonizing wolves. If a 
naturally recolonizing population of wolves is discovered in the 
proposed Colorado NEP area prior to release, the Service will exclude 
that geographic area where the natural recolonizing wolves occur from 
the NEP area to ensure the reintroduced wolves are wholly separate 
geographically from non-experimental wolves. Any naturally recolonizing 
population of wolves would be considered endangered under the Act.

Is the Proposed Experimental Population Essential or Nonessential?

    When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of 
the Act, we must determine whether or not that population is essential 
to the continued existence of the species. This determination is based 
solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 17.80(b)) state that an experimental population is 
considered essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce 
the likelihood of survival of that species in the wild. We are 
proposing to designate the population of gray wolves in Colorado as 
nonessential for the following reason.
    Populations of gray wolves within the 44-State listed entity 
include the Great Lakes metapopulation and growing populations in 
California, Oregon, and Washington. Multiple large, growing or stable 
metapopulations of gray wolves inhabiting separate and ecologically 
diverse areas ensure that the survival of the listed species does not 
rely on any single population. Therefore, the loss of the Colorado NEP 
would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of 
the species in the wild, and we find that the Colorado NEP is not 
essential to the continued existence of the species.

Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special 
Management

    We have included management measures to address potential conflicts 
between wolves and humans and wolves and domestic animals. Management 
of the nonessential experimental population would allow reintroduced 
wolves to be hazed, killed, or relocated by the Service or our 
designated agent(s) for domestic animal depredations. Under special 
conditions, the public could harass or kill wolves attacking livestock 
(defined below). We have also requested input on whether to allow 
lethal management of gray wolves that are having a significant impact 
to ungulate populations. If allowed for the purpose of ungulate 
management, authorization for removal of wolves would require a 
science-based determination that an unacceptable impact to a wild 
ungulate herd has occurred and that removal of gray wolves would not 
impede wolf conservation.
    As the lead agency for reintroduction efforts for gray wolves in 
Colorado, CPW will coordinate with the Service on releases, monitoring, 
and other tasks as needed to ensure successful reintroduction of the 
species to the State. Definitions pertaining to special management 
provisions are listed below:
    Designated agent--Federal, State, or Tribal agencies authorized or 
directed by the Service may conduct gray wolf management consistent 
with this rule.
    The State of Colorado and Tribes within the State with wolf 
management plans also may become designated agents by submitting a 
request to the Service to establish an MOA under this proposed rule. 
Once accepted by the Service, the MOA may allow the State of Colorado 
or Tribes within the State to assume lead authority for wolf 
conservation and management within their respective jurisdictions and 
to implement the portions of their State or Tribal wolf management 
plans that are consistent with this proposed rule. The Service 
oversight (aside from Service law enforcement investigations) under an 
MOA is limited to monitoring compliance with this proposed rule, 
issuing written authorizations for wolf take on reservations without 
wolf management plans, and an annual review of the State or Tribal 
program to ensure consistency with this proposed rule. Under either a 
cooperative agreement or an MOA, no management outside the provisions 
of this proposed rule is allowed unless additional public comment is 
solicited and this rule is modified accordingly.
    Domestic animals--Animals that have been selectively bred over many 
generations to enhance specific traits for their use by humans, 
including for use as pets. This includes livestock (as defined below) 
and dogs.
    Incidental take: Experimental population rules contain specific 
prohibitions and exceptions regarding the taking of individual animals 
under the Act. These rules are compatible with most routine human 
activities in the proposed NEP area (e.g., resource monitoring, 
invasive species management, and research; see How Will the NEP Further 
the Conservation of the Species? above). Section 3(19) of the Act 
defines ``take'' as ``to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such 
conduct.'' ``Incidental take'' is further defined as take that is 
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise 
lawful activity. If we adopt this section 10(j) rule as proposed, 
management of the NEP would allow employees of the Service and 
designated agents acting on our behalf to intentionally take gray 
wolves under certain circumstances. See table 1 below for additional 
details on incidental take of gray wolves within the proposed NEP area.
    Intentional harassment--The deliberate and pre-planned harassment 
of wolves, including by less-than-lethal munitions that are designed to 
cause physical discomfort and temporary physical injury but not death.
    Interagency consultation--For purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act, section 10(j) of the Act and our regulations (at 50 CFR 17.83) 
provide that nonessential experimental populations are treated as 
species proposed for listing under the Act except on National Park 
Service and National Wildlife Refuge System lands, where they are 
treated as threatened species for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act. We intend to address our section 7(a)(2) consultation 
obligations for gray wolves within units of the National Wildlife 
Refuge system in Colorado through a programmatic intra-Service 
consultation prior to finalizing this proposed rule and will coordinate 
with the National Park Service to address section 7(a)(2) obligations 
on any National Park Service units in Colorado.
    In the act of attacking--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.
    Landowner--An owner or lessee of private land, or their immediate 
family members, or the owner's employees, contractors, or volunteers 
who are currently employed to actively work on that private land. In 
addition, the owners (or their employees or contractors) of livestock 
that are currently and legally grazed on that private land and other 
leaseholders on that private land (such as outfitters or guides who 
lease hunting rights from private landowners), are considered 
landowners on that private land for the purposes of this regulation. 
Private land, under this proposed rule, also includes all non-Federal 
land and land within Tribal reservations. Individuals legally

[[Page 10271]]

using Tribal lands in the State of Colorado with wolf management plans 
are considered landowners for the purposes of this proposed rule.
    Livestock--Cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, mules, goats, domestic 
bison, and herding and guarding animals (alpacas, llamas, donkeys, and 
certain breeds of dogs commonly used for herding or guarding 
livestock). Livestock excludes dogs that are not being used for 
livestock guarding or herding.
    Livestock Producer--A person that is actively engaged in farming/
ranching and that receives a substantial amount of total income from 
the production of livestock.
    Non-injurious--Does not cause either temporary or permanent 
physical damage or death.
    Opportunistic harassment--Harassment without the conduct of prior 
purposeful actions to attract, track, wait for, or search out the wolf.
    Private land--All land other than that under Federal Government 
ownership and administration and including Tribal reservations.
    Problem wolves--Wolves that we or our designated agents confirm to 
have attacked any other domestic animals twice within a calendar year 
are considered problem wolves for purposes of agency wolf control 
actions.
    Public land--Federal land such as that administered by the National 
Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 
Defense, or other agencies with the Federal Government.
    Public land permittee--A person or that person's employee who has 
an active, valid Federal land-use permit to use specific Federal lands 
to graze livestock or operate as an outfitter or guiding business that 
uses livestock. This definition does not include private individuals or 
organizations who have Federal permits for other activities on public 
land such as collecting firewood, mushrooms, antlers, Christmas trees, 
or logging, mining, oil or gas development, or other uses that do not 
require livestock. In recognition of the special and unique authorities 
of Tribes and their relationship with the U.S. Government, for the 
purposes of this proposed rule, the definition includes Tribal members 
who legally graze their livestock on ceded public lands under 
recognized Tribal treaty rights.
    Remove--Place in captivity, relocate to another location, or kill.
    Research--Scientific studies resulting in data that will lend to 
enhancement of the survival of gray wolves.
    Rule-- ``This rule'' in the regulatory text refers to the proposed 
NEP regulations.
    Wounded--Exhibiting scraped or torn hide or flesh, bleeding, or 
other evidence of physical damage caused by a wolf bite.

    Table 1--Allowable Forms of Take for Gray Wolves in the Proposed
                            Colorado NEP Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Description of provision in the
          Take provision              proposed experimental population
                                                    rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take in defense of human life.....  Any person may take a wolf in
                                     defense of the individual's life or
                                     the life of another person. The
                                     unauthorized taking of a wolf
                                     without demonstration of an
                                     immediate and direct threat to
                                     human life may be referred to the
                                     appropriate authorities for
                                     prosecution.
Agency take of wolves determined    The Service, or our designated
 to be a threat to human life and    agents, may promptly remove (that
 safety.                             is, place in captivity or kill) any
                                     wolf determined by the Service or
                                     designated agent to be a threat to
                                     human life or safety.
Opportunistic harassment..........  Anyone may conduct opportunistic
                                     harassment of any gray wolf in a
                                     non-injurious manner at any time.
                                     Opportunistic harassment must be
                                     reported to the Service or our
                                     designated agent within 7 days.
Intentional harassment............  After the Service, or our designated
                                     agent, has confirmed wolf activity
                                     on private land, on a public land
                                     grazing allotment, or on a Tribal
                                     reservation, the Service or our
                                     designated agent may issue written
                                     take authorization valid for not
                                     longer than 1 year to any landowner
                                     or public land permittee to
                                     intentionally harass wolves in a
                                     nonlethal, injurious manner. The
                                     harassment must occur in the area
                                     and under the conditions as
                                     specifically identified in the
                                     written take authorization.
                                     Intentional harassment must be
                                     reported to the Service or a
                                     designated agent within 7 days.
Taking wolves ``in the act of       Consistent with State or Tribal
 attacking'' livestock on PRIVATE    requirements, any landowner may
 land.                               take (injure or kill) a gray wolf
                                     in the act of attacking (wounding,
                                     harassing, molesting, or killing)
                                     livestock or dogs (working or pet)
                                     on their private land. Any wolf
                                     taken in the act must be reported
                                     to the Service or our designated
                                     agent within 24 hours. The carcass
                                     and surrounding area must not be
                                     disturbed in order to preserve
                                     physical evidence that the
                                     livestock or dogs were recently
                                     attacked by a wolf or wolves. The
                                     Service or our designated agent
                                     must be able to confirm that the
                                     livestock or dog were wounded,
                                     harassed, molested, or killed by a
                                     wolf or wolves. The taking of any
                                     wolf without such evidence may be
                                     referred to the appropriate
                                     authorities for prosecution.
Taking wolves ``in the act of       Consistent with State or Tribal
 attacking'' livestock on PUBLIC     requirements, any livestock
 land.                               producer and public land permittee
                                     who is legally using public land
                                     under a valid Federal land-use
                                     permit may take a gray wolf in the
                                     act of attacking their livestock on
                                     the person's allotment or other
                                     area authorized for their use
                                     without prior written
                                     authorization. The Service or our
                                     designated agent must be able to
                                     confirm that the livestock or dogs
                                     were wounded, harassed, molested,
                                     or killed by a wolf or wolves. The
                                     carcass of any wolf taken and the
                                     area surrounding it should not be
                                     disturbed to preserve physical
                                     evidence that the take was
                                     conducted according to this
                                     proposed rule. Any person legally
                                     present on public land may
                                     immediately take a wolf that is in
                                     the act of attacking the
                                     individual's stock animal or dog,
                                     provided conditions noted in taking
                                     of wolves in the act on private
                                     land are met. Any take or method of
                                     take on public land must be
                                     consistent with the rules and
                                     regulations on those public lands.
                                     Any lethal or injurious take must
                                     be reported to the Service or a
                                     designated agent within 24 hours.

[[Page 10272]]

 
Additional taking by private        At the Service's or our designated
 citizens on their PRIVATE LAND.     agents' direction, the Service or
                                     designated agent may issue a
                                     ``shoot on-sight'' written take
                                     authorization of limited duration
                                     (45 days or less) to a landowner or
                                     their employees to take up to a
                                     specified (by the Service or our
                                     designated agent) number of wolves
                                     on their private land if: (1) The
                                     landowner has had at least one
                                     depredation by wolves on livestock
                                     that has been confirmed by the
                                     Service or our designated agent
                                     within the last 30 days; and (2)
                                     the Service or our designated agent
                                     has determined that problem wolves
                                     are routinely present on the
                                     private land and present a
                                     significant risk to the health and
                                     safety of livestock; and (3) the
                                     Service or our designated agent has
                                     authorized lethal removal of wolves
                                     from that same private land. These
                                     authorizations may be terminated at
                                     any time once threats have been
                                     resolved or minimized. Any lethal
                                     or injurious take must be reported
                                     to the Service or a designated
                                     agent within 24 hours.
Additional taking by grazing        At the Service's or our designated
 permittees on PUBLIC LAND.          agents' direction, the Service or
                                     designated agent may issue a
                                     ``shoot on-sight'' written take
                                     authorization of limited duration
                                     (45 days or less) to a public land
                                     grazing permittee to take up to a
                                     specified (by the Service or our
                                     designated agent) number of wolves
                                     on that permittee's active
                                     livestock grazing allotment if: (1)
                                     The grazing allotment has had at
                                     least one depredation by wolves on
                                     livestock that has been confirmed
                                     by the Service or our designated
                                     agent within the last 30 days; and
                                     (2) the Service or our designated
                                     agent has determined that problem
                                     wolves are routinely present on
                                     that allotment and present a
                                     significant risk to the health and
                                     safety of livestock; and (3) the
                                     Service or our designated agent has
                                     authorized lethal removal of wolves
                                     from that same allotment. These
                                     authorizations may be terminated at
                                     any time once threats have been
                                     resolved or minimized. Any take or
                                     method of take on public land must
                                     be consistent with the rules and
                                     regulations on those public lands.
                                     Any lethal or injurious take must
                                     be reported to the Service or a
                                     designated agent within 24 hours.
Agency take of wolves that          The Service or our designated agent
 repeatedly depredate livestock.     may carry out harassment, nonlethal
                                     control measures, relocation,
                                     placement in captivity, or lethal
                                     control of problem wolves. The
                                     Service or our designated agent
                                     will consider: (1) Evidence of
                                     wounded livestock, dogs, or other
                                     domestic animals, or remains of
                                     livestock, dogs, or domestic
                                     animals that show that the injury
                                     or death was caused by wolves, or
                                     evidence that wolves were in the
                                     act of attacking livestock, dogs,
                                     or domestic animals; (2) the
                                     likelihood that additional wolf-
                                     caused losses or attacks may occur
                                     if no control action is taken; (3)
                                     evidence of unusual attractants or
                                     artificial or intentional feeding
                                     of wolves; and (4) evidence that
                                     animal husbandry practices
                                     recommended in approved allotment
                                     plans and annual operating plans
                                     were followed.
Incidental take...................  Any person may take a gray wolf if
                                     the take is incidental to an
                                     otherwise lawful activity, if
                                     reasonable due care was practiced
                                     to avoid such taking, and such
                                     taking was reported within 24
                                     hours. (The Service may allow
                                     additional time if access is
                                     limited.) Shooting a wolf as a
                                     result of mistaking it for another
                                     species is not considered
                                     accidental and may be referred to
                                     the appropriate authorities for
                                     prosecution.
Permits for recovery actions that   Permits are available and required,
 include take of gray wolves.        except as otherwise allowed by this
                                     proposed rule, for scientific
                                     purposes, enhancement of
                                     propagation or survival,
                                     educational purposes, or other
                                     purposes consistent with the Act
                                     (50 CFR 17.32).
Additional taking provisions for    Any Service employee or our
 agency employees and our            designated agent may take a gray
 designated agent.                   wolf from the NEP: (1) For take
                                     related to the release, tracking,
                                     monitoring, recapture, and
                                     management for the NEP; (2) to aid
                                     or euthanize sick, injured, or
                                     orphaned wolves or transfer to a
                                     licensed veterinarian for care; (3)
                                     to dispose of a dead specimen; (4)
                                     to salvage a dead specimen that may
                                     be used for scientific study; (5)
                                     to aid in law enforcement
                                     investigations involving wolves
                                     (collection of specimens for
                                     necropsy, etc.); or (6) to remove
                                     wolves with abnormal physical or
                                     behavioral characteristics, as
                                     determined by the Service or our
                                     designated agent, from passing on
                                     or teaching those traits to other
                                     wolves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review and Evaluation of the Success or Failure of the NEP

    CPW plans to use radio transmitters, remote cameras, surveys of 
roads and trails to document wolf sign, and other monitoring techniques 
to document wolf reproductive success, abundance, and distribution in 
Colorado post-release. This information will be summarized in an annual 
report by CPW that describes wolf conservation and management 
activities that occurred in Colorado each calendar or biological year 
to evaluate progress toward achieving the State of Colorado's 
downlisting and recovery criteria. The annual report will be due 
annually to the Service by June 30th and posted on CPW's website. The 
annual report may include, but not be limited to: post-release wolf 
movements and behavior; wolf minimum counts or abundance estimates; 
reproductive success and recruitment; territory use and distribution; 
cause-specific wolf mortalities; and a summary of wolf conflicts and 
associated management activities to minimize wolf conflict risk. For 
additional details, please see CPW 2021b (entire) and the Release 
Procedures section, above.
    The Service will evaluate Colorado's wolf reintroduction and 
management program in an annual summary report. Additionally, 5 years 
after the last reintroductions are completed, the

[[Page 10273]]

Service will evaluate whether the wolf population is meeting the 
State's recovery goals and conservation of the species. During this 
evaluation, we will assess the reintroduction program and coordinate 
with CPW if it is determined that modifications to reintroduction 
protocols are necessary. Five years after the reintroductions is a 
reasonable timeline for this evaluation because it would mirror the 
minimum post-delisting monitoring period used to evaluate the success 
of management programs after species have achieved recovery. It would 
also provide a suitable period to evaluate wolf population growth and 
abundance in order to assess progress toward achieving the State of 
Colorado's recovery goals, while concurrently minimizing wolf-related 
conflicts in the State. If modifications to wolf monitoring and 
management activities are needed, the Service will coordinate closely 
with CPW to ensure progress toward achieving recovery goals while 
concurrently minimizing wolf-related conflicts in Colorado.

Other Considerations

    Above, we considered potential effects of the release on wild 
populations of the delisted NRM potential donor populations. Although 
not required under our regulations, we also considered potential 
effects of the release on the Mexican wolf. The number of gray wolves 
in Colorado could continue to grow and expand, which could increase the 
likelihood that gray wolves in Colorado disperse far enough south to 
encounter Mexican wolves. The timing and extent of any potential future 
contact are uncertain and difficult to project, but if contact were to 
occur, interbreeding could be a concern for the Mexican wolf, depending 
on its state of recovery at the time. If gray wolves come to occupy 
Mexican wolf recovery areas, these physically larger wolves are likely 
to dominate smaller Mexican wolves and quickly occupy breeding 
positions, as will their hybrid offspring. Hybrid population(s) thus 
derived will not contribute towards recovery because they will 
significantly threaten integrity of the listed entity (Odell et al. 
2018, entire). However, potential inbreeding would be unlikely to have 
significant effects on the gray wolf, given the narrow geographic range 
in which such contact would likely occur relative to the species' 
overall range.

Findings

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available (in 
accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find that releasing gray wolves into 
the State of Colorado with the regulatory provisions in this proposed 
rulemaking will further the conservation of the species in the 
currently listed 44-State entity. The NEP status is appropriate for the 
introduced population; the potential loss of the experimental 
population would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival 
of the species in the 44-State listed entity since more than 4,600 
wolves are distributed across at least 6 different States in the 
Western United States and the western Great Lakes.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that 
this proposed rule is not significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while 
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote 
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most 
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. 
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches 
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for 
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further 
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that 
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open 
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner 
consistent with these requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare, and make 
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. We certify that, if finalized, this proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
    This proposed rule is modeled after previous NEP designations in 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming that contributed to the recovery of gray 
wolves while allowing for the control and management of wolves that 
caused conflicts and economic impacts on livestock producers. The 
majority of gray wolves in the Western United States are part of the 
NRM population, which is no longer protected under the Act. Despite 
increased incidences of human-caused mortality in the NRM population 
after delisting, this population is stable to increasing, and wolves 
from this population have readily dispersed to other States, including 
Colorado (Service 2020, pp. 14-19; 85 FR 69778, November 3, 2020).
    The State of Colorado has recognized the utility of NEP 
designations in reintroducing gray wolves while addressing the concerns 
of local, State, and Tribal governments, as well as private entities, 
and engaged in an extensive stakeholder outreach process to develop a 
State management plan with broad-based support (CPW 2022b). This 
process, which involved a Stakeholder Advisory Group comprising a 
diverse array of stakeholders such as agricultural producers, hunting 
guides, wolf conservation advocates, and other interests and a 
Technical Working Group comprising gray wolf experts, assisted in the 
formulation of an impact-based management matrix and the overall 
Colorado Gray Wolf Management and Restoration Plan.
    The reduced restrictions on taking problem wolves (see definition 
above under Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other 
Special Management) in this proposed rule, relative to endangered 
species that receive the full protections of sections 7 and 9 of the 
Act, will make the management of wolves easier and more effective, thus 
reducing the economic losses that result from depredation of wolves on 
livestock and guard animals and dogs. Furthermore, a State program to 
compensate livestock producers who experience livestock losses caused 
by wolves is being developed and will be implemented upon CPW 
Commission

[[Page 10274]]

approval. As a point of reference, compensation for livestock losses in 
Montana in 2021 totaled $103,815.95 (Parks et al. 2022, p. 19), and 
compensation in Wyoming for the same period totaled $208,124.00 (WGFD 
et al. 2022, pp. 23-24). The potential effect on livestock producers in 
western States is very small, but more flexible wolf management will 
provide benefits to stakeholders and livestock producers by providing 
options to protect assets.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (1) This proposed rule would not ``significantly or uniquely'' 
affect small governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, that, if adopted, this rulemaking 
would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on 
local or State governments or private entities. A small government 
agency plan is not required. Small governments would not be affected 
because the proposed NEP designation would not place additional 
requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.
    (2) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 
million or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This 
proposed NEP designation for gray wolves in Colorado would not impose 
any additional management or protection requirements on the States or 
other entities.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule will 
not have significant implications concerning taking of private property 
by the Federal Government. This proposed rule will substantially 
advance a legitimate government interest (conservation of a listed 
species) and will not present a bar to all reasonable and expected 
beneficial use of private property. Because of the regulatory 
flexibility provided by NEP designations under section 10(j) of the 
Act, we believe that the increased flexibility in this proposed rule 
and State or Tribal lead wolf management will reduce regulatory 
restrictions on private lands and will result in minor positive 
economic effects for a small percentage of livestock producers.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule will 
not have significant federalism effects. This proposed rule will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the States and the Federal Government, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
CPW requested that we undertake this rulemaking to support the 
conservation of wolves in the 44-State entity and in Colorado and to 
provide increased take authority to resolve wolf conflicts, which we 
believe will assist with conservation of the species. No intrusion on 
State policy or administration is expected; roles or responsibilities 
of Federal or State governments will not change; and fiscal capacity 
will not be substantially affected. This proposed rule operates to 
maintain the existing relationship between the States and the Federal 
Government and is being undertaken at the request of CPW. We have 
endeavored to cooperate with CPW and other State agencies in the 
preparation of this proposed rule. Therefore, this proposed 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 (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this proposed 
rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and would meet the 
requirements of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains existing and new collections of 
information that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. We will ask OMB to review and 
approve the new information collection requirements contained in this 
rulemaking related to the establishment of an NEP of the gray wolf 
(Canis lupus) in the State of Colorado, under section 10(j) of the ESA. 
OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements 
associated with permitting requirements associated with native 
endangered and threatened species, and experimental populations, and 
assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0094, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife 
Permit Applications and Reports--Native Endangered and Threatened 
Species; 50 CFR parts 10, 13, and 17'' (expires January 31, 2024).
    Experimental populations established under section 10(j) of the 
Act, as amended, require information collection and reporting to the 
Service. We will collect information on the gray wolf NEP to help 
further the recovery of the species and to assess the success of the 
reintroduced populations. There are no forms associated with this 
information collection. The respondents notify us when an incident 
occurs, so there is no set frequency for collecting the information. 
Other Federal agencies provide us with the vast majority of the 
information on experimental populations under cooperative agreements 
for the conduct of the recovery programs. However, the public also 
provides some information to us. The proposed new information 
collection requirements identified below require approval by OMB:
    1. Appointment of designated agent--A designated agent is an 
employee of a Federal, State, or Tribal agency that is authorized or 
directed by the Service to conduct gray wolf management. A prospective 
designated agent submits a letter to the Service requesting designated 
agent status. The letter includes a proposal for the work to be 
completed and resume of qualifications for the work they wish to 
perform. The Service will then respond to the requester with a letter 
authorizing them to complete the work.
    2. Request for written take authorization--After receiving 
confirmation of wolf activity on private land, on a public land grazing 
allotment, or on a Tribal reservation, we or the designated agent may 
issue written take authorization valid for not longer than 1 year, with 
appropriate conditions, to any landowner or public land permittee to 
intentionally harass wolves. The harassment must occur in the area and 
under the conditions as specifically identified in the written take 
authorization.
    3. Request for ``shoot-on-sight'' written take authorization--The 
Service or designated agent may issue a ``shoot-on-sight'' written take 
authorization of limited duration (45 days or fewer) to a landowner or 
their employees, or to a public land grazing permittee, to take up to a 
specified (by the Service or our designated agent) number of wolves.
    4. Reporting requirements--Except as otherwise specified in this 
proposed rule or in an authorization, any take of a gray wolf must be 
reported to the Service or our designated agent as follows (additional 
reasonable time will be allowed if access to the site is limited):

[[Page 10275]]

    a. Lethal take must be reported within 24 hours.
    b. Opportunistic or intentional harassment must be reported within 
7 days.
    c. Gray wolves taken into captivity for care or to be euthanized 
must be reported to the Service within 24 hours, or as soon as 
reasonably appropriate.
    5. Annual report--To evaluate progress toward achieving State 
downlisting and delisting criteria, the Service will summarize 
monitoring information in an annual report by Colorado Parks and 
Wildlife. The report, due by June 30 of each year, will describe wolf 
conservation and management activities that occurred in Colorado each 
calendar or biological year. The annual report may include, but not be 
limited to:
     post-release wolf movements and behavior;
     wolf minimum counts or abundance estimates;
     reproductive success and recruitment;
     territory use and distribution;
     cause-specific wolf mortalities; and
     a summary of wolf conflicts and associated management 
activities to minimize wolf conflict risk.
    6. Recovery or reporting of dead individuals and specimen 
collection from experimental populations--This type of information is 
for the purpose of documenting incidental or authorized scientific 
collection. Specimens are to be retained or disposed of only in 
accordance with directions from the Service. Most of the contacts with 
the public deal primarily with the reporting of sightings of 
experimental population animals, or the inadvertent discovery of an 
injured or dead individual.
    We will use the information described above to assess the 
effectiveness of control activities and develop means to reduce 
problems with livestock where depredation is a problem. Service 
recovery specialists use the information to determine the success of 
reintroductions in relation to established recovery plan goals for the 
threatened and endangered species involved.
    Title of Collection: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
Experimental Populations--Colorado Gray Wolf (50 CFR 17.84).
    OMB Control Number: 1018-New.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New.
    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals; private sector; and 
State/local/Tribal governments.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: Annually for annual report and on occasion 
for other requirements.
    Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of       Number of
                  Requirement                        annual          annual       Total annual           Average completion time           Total annual
                                                   respondents   responses each     responses                                              burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Appointment of Designated Agent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Request for Written Take Authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Request for ``Shoot-on-Sight'' Written Take Authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Reporting Requirement--Lethal Take
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Reporting Requirement--Opportunistic or Intentional Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................

[[Page 10276]]

 
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Reporting Requirement--Captivity for Care or to be Euthanized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Annual Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Notification--Recovery or Reporting of Dead Specimen and Specimen Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals....................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
Private Sector.................................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
State/Local/Tribal Gov't.......................               1               1               1  30 min (reporting).....................               1
                                                                                                 30 min (recordkeeping).................
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals:....................................              24  ..............              24  .......................................              24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Send your written comments and suggestions on this information 
collection by the date indicated in DATES to the Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/
PERMA (JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or 
by email to [email protected]. Please reference OMB Control Number 
1018-Gray Wolf in the subject line of your comments.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relatives with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; 65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we have 
considered possible effects of this proposed this rule on federally 
recognized Indian Tribes. We notified the Native American Tribes within 
and adjacent to the NEP about this proposed rule. We invited the two 
Colorado Tribes to serve as cooperating agencies in the development of 
the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and offered government-
to-government consultation. We communicated with Indian Tribes in 
Colorado, eastern Utah, and portions of northern Arizona and northern 
New Mexico through written contact, including informational mailings 
from the Service and email notifications to attend video and 
teleconference informational sessions and public hearings and to 
comment on the DEIS and proposed rule. We invited all Tribes in 
Colorado areas surrounding the NEP in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico to 
request government-to-government consultation under Secretarial Order 
3206. We held an informational webinar for all Tribes, to discuss our 
proposed rule. If future activities resulting from this proposed rule 
may affect Tribal resources, the Service will communicate and consult 
on a government-to-government basis with any affected Native American 
Tribes in order to find a mutually agreeable solution.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    In compliance with all provisions of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), we are in the process of analyzing the 
impacts of this proposed rule. On July 21, 2022, we published a 
document in the Federal Register that announced our intent to prepare 
an environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate the potential 
environmental impacts of issuing a proposed rule as requested by the 
State of Colorado for its reintroduction and management of the gray 
wolf (87 FR 43489). We accepted comments until August 22, 2022. We have 
now completed a draft EIS (DEIS), which is available for public review 
and comment as described above in DATES and ADDRESSES. The DEIS 
evaluates options for a regulatory framework, including a rule 
consistent with section 10(j) of the Act, for the reintroduction and 
management of gray wolves in part of the species' historical range in 
Colorado. The DEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts that may 
result from two action alternatives and the no-action alternative and 
includes relevant and reasonable measures that could avoid or mitigate 
potential impacts.
    Based on any new information resulting from public comment received 
on the DEIS or on this proposed rule, we will determine if there are 
any significant impacts or effects that would be caused by implementing 
this proposed rule. All appropriate NEPA analysis will be finalized 
before this proposed rule is finalized.

[[Page 10277]]

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of 
energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is 
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
statement of energy effects is required.

Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866)

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.84 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.84   Special rules--vertebrates.

    (a) Wolf, gray (Canis lupus). (1) The regulations in this paragraph 
(a) set forth the provisions of a rule to establish an experimental 
population of gray wolves. The Service finds that establishment of an 
experimental population of gray wolves as described in this paragraph 
(a) will further the conservation of the species.
    (2) Determinations. The gray wolves identified in paragraph (a)(3) 
of this section constitute a nonessential experimental population (NEP) 
under Sec.  17.81(c)(2). These wolves will be managed in accordance 
with the provisions of this rule in the boundaries of the NEP area 
within the State of Colorado or any Tribal reservation found in the 
State that has a wolf management plan, as further provided in this 
rule. Furthermore, the State of Colorado or any Tribe within the State 
that has a wolf management plan consistent with this rule can request 
the Service to assume the lead authority for wolf management under this 
rule within the borders of the NEP area in the State or reservation as 
set forth in paragraph (a)(10) of this section.
    (3) Designated area. The site for this experimental population is 
within the historical range of the species. The Colorado NEP area 
encompasses the entire State of Colorado. All wolves found in the wild 
within the boundary of the Colorado NEP area are considered 
nonessential experimental animals. Any wolf that is outside the 
Colorado NEP area, with the exception of wolves in the States of Idaho, 
Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, and portions of the States of Oregon, 
Washington, and Utah, is considered endangered. Any wolf originating 
from the Colorado NEP area and dispersing beyond its borders may be 
managed by the wolf management regulations established for that area or 
may be returned to the Colorado NEP area.
    (4) Definitions. Key terms used in this rule have the following 
meanings:
    Designated agent--An employee of a Federal, State, or Tribal agency 
that is authorized or directed by the Service to conduct gray wolf 
management consistent with this rule.
    Domestic animals--Animals that have been selectively bred over many 
generations to enhance specific traits for their use by humans, 
including for use as pets. This term includes livestock and dogs.
    Intentional harassment--The deliberate and pre-planned harassment 
of wolves, including by less-than-lethal munitions that are designed to 
cause physical discomfort and temporary physical injury but not death.
    In the act of attacking--The actual biting, wounding, grasping, or 
killing of livestock or 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.
    Landowner--Any of the following entities:
    (i) An owner or lessee of private land, or their immediate family 
members, or the owner's employees, contractors, or volunteers who are 
currently employed to actively work on that private land.
    (ii) The owners, or their employees or contractors, of livestock 
that are currently and legally grazed on private land and herding and 
guarding animals (such as alpacas, llamas, or donkeys) and other 
leaseholders on private land, such as outfitters or guides who lease 
hunting rights from private landowners.
    (iii) Individuals legally using Tribal lands in the State of 
Colorado with wolf management plans.
    Livestock--Cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, mules, goats, domestic 
bison, and herding and guarding animals (alpacas, llamas, donkeys, and 
certain breeds of dogs commonly used for herding or guarding 
livestock). Livestock excludes dogs that are not being used for 
livestock guarding or herding.
    Livestock Producer--A person that is actively engaged in farming/
ranching and that receives a substantial amount of total income from 
the production of livestock.
    Non-injurious--Does not cause either temporary or permanent 
physical damage or death.
    Opportunistic harassment--Harassment without the conduct of prior 
purposeful actions to attract, track, wait for, or search out the wolf.
    Private land--All land other than that under Federal Government 
ownership and administration and including Tribal reservations.
    Problem wolves--Wolves that we or our designated agent confirm to 
have attacked any other domestic animals on private land twice within a 
calendar year.
    Public land--Federal land such as that administered by the Service,

[[Page 10278]]

National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of 
Reclamation, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, 
Department of Defense, or other agencies within the Federal Government.
    Public land permittee--A person or that person's employee who has 
an active, valid Federal land-use permit to use specific Federal lands 
to graze livestock or operate an outfitter or guiding business that 
uses livestock and Tribal members who legally graze their livestock on 
ceded public lands under recognized Tribal treaty rights. This term 
does not include private individuals or organizations who have Federal 
permits for other activities on public land such as collecting 
firewood, mushrooms, antlers, or Christmas trees, logging, mining, oil 
or gas development, or other uses that do not require livestock.
    Remove--Place in captivity, relocate to another location, or kill.
    Research--Scientific studies resulting in data that will lend to 
enhancement of the survival of the gray wolf.
    Rule--The regulations in this paragraph (a).
    Wounded--Exhibiting scraped or torn hide or flesh, bleeding, or 
other evidence of physical damage caused by a wolf bite.
    (5) Allowable forms of take of gray wolves. Take of gray wolves in 
the experimental population is allowed without a permit only in these 
specific circumstances: opportunistic harassment; intentional 
harassment; take in defense of human life; take to protect human 
safety; take by designated agents to remove problem wolves; incidental 
take; take under any previously authorized permits issued by the 
Service; take per authorizations for employees of designated agents; 
take for research purposes; and take to protect livestock animals and 
dogs. Consistent with the requirements of the State or Tribe, take is 
allowed on private land. Take on public land is allowed as specified in 
paragraph (a)(5)(iv)(A) of this section. Other than as expressly 
provided by the regulations in this rule, all other forms of take are 
considered a violation of section 9 of the Act. Any wolf or wolf part 
taken legally must be turned over to the Service unless otherwise 
specified in this rule. Any take of wolves must be reported as set 
forth in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.
    (i) Opportunistic harassment. Anyone may conduct opportunistic 
harassment of any gray wolf in a non-injurious manner at any time. 
Opportunistic harassment must be reported to the Service or a 
designated agent within 7 days as set forth in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section.
    (ii) Intentional harassment. After we or a designated agent have 
confirmed wolf activity on private land, on a public land grazing 
allotment, or on a Tribal reservation, we or the designated agent may 
issue written take authorization valid for not longer than 1 year, with 
appropriate conditions, to any landowner or public land permittee to 
intentionally harass wolves. The harassment must occur in the area and 
under the conditions as specifically identified in the written take 
authorization. Intentional harassment must be reported to the Service 
or a designated agent(s) within 7 days as set forth in paragraph (a)(6) 
of this section.
    (iii) Take by landowners on their private land. Landowners may take 
wolves on their private land in the following two additional 
circumstances:
    (A) Consistent with State or Tribal requirements, any landowner may 
take a gray wolf in the act of attacking livestock or dogs (working or 
pet) on their private land, provided that there is no evidence of 
intentional baiting, feeding, or deliberate attractants of wolves. To 
preserve physical evidence that the livestock or dogs were recently 
attacked by a wolf or wolves, the carcass and surrounding area must not 
be disturbed. The Service or designated agent must be able to confirm 
that the livestock or dogs were wounded, harassed, molested, or killed 
by wolves. The take of any wolf without such evidence of a direct and 
immediate threat may be referred to the appropriate authorities for 
prosecution.
    (B) The Service or designated agent may issue a ``shoot-on-sight'' 
written take authorization of limited duration (45 days or fewer) to a 
landowner or their employees to take up to a specified (by the Service 
or our designated agent) number of wolves on their private land if:
    (1) The landowner has had at least one depredation by wolves on 
livestock that has been confirmed by the Service or our designated 
agent within the last 30 days; and
    (2) The Service or our designated agent has determined that problem 
wolves routinely occur on the private land and present a significant 
risk to the health and safety of livestock; and
    (3) The Service or our designated agent has authorized lethal 
removal of wolves from those same private lands.
    (4) These authorizations may be terminated at any time once threats 
have been resolved or minimized.
    (iv) Take on public land. Consistent with State or Tribal 
requirements, any livestock producer and public land permittee (see 
definitions in paragraph (a)(4) of this section) who is legally using 
public land under a valid Federal land-use permit may take a gray wolf 
in the act of attacking livestock or dogs on the person's allotment or 
other area authorized for the person's use without prior written 
authorization.
    (A) The Service or designated agent must be able to confirm that 
the livestock or dog were wounded, harassed, molested, or killed by a 
wolf or wolves. The carcass of any wolf taken and the area surrounding 
it should not be disturbed to preserve physical evidence that the take 
was conducted according to this rule. Any person legally present on 
public land may immediately take a wolf that is in the act of attacking 
the individual's stock animal or dog, provided conditions described in 
paragraph (a)(5)(iii)(A) of this section for private land (i.e., ``in 
the act of attacking'') are met. Any take or method of take on public 
land must be consistent with the laws and regulations on those public 
lands.
    (B) The Service or our designated agent may issue a ``shoot-on-
sight'' written take authorization of limited duration (45 days or 
fewer) to a public land grazing permittee to take up to a specified (by 
the Service or our designated agent) number of wolves on that 
permittee's active livestock grazing allotment if all of the following 
situations occur:
    (1) The grazing allotment has had at least one depredation by 
wolves on livestock that has been confirmed by the Service or our 
designated agent within the last 30 days; and
    (2) The Service or our designated agent has determined that problem 
wolves routinely occur on that allotment and present a significant risk 
to the health and safety of livestock; and
    (3) The Service or our designated agent has authorized lethal 
removal of wolves from that same allotment.
    (4) These authorizations may be terminated at any time once threats 
have been resolved or minimized.
    (5) Any take or method of take on public land must be consistent 
with the rules and regulations on those public lands.
    (v) Agency take of wolves that repeatedly depredate livestock. The 
Service or our designated agent may carry out harassment, nonlethal 
control measures, relocation, placement in captivity, or lethal control 
of problem wolves. The Service or our designated agent will consider:
    (A) Evidence of wounded livestock, dogs, or other domestic animals, 
or remains of livestock, dogs, or domestic animals that show that the 
injury or

[[Page 10279]]

death was caused by wolves, or evidence that wolves were in the act of 
attacking livestock, dogs, or domestic animals;
    (B) The likelihood that additional wolf-caused losses or attacks 
may occur if no control action is taken;
    (C) Any evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or 
intentional feeding of wolves; and
    (D) Evidence that animal husbandry practices recommended in 
approved allotment plans and annual operating plans were followed.
    (vi) Take in defense of human life. Any person may take a gray wolf 
in defense of the individual's life or the life of another person. The 
taking of a wolf without an immediate and direct threat to human life 
may be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (vii) Take to protect human safety. The Service or our designated 
agent may promptly remove any wolf that we or our designated agent 
determines to be a threat to human life or safety.
    (viii) Incidental take. Take of a gray wolf is allowed if the take 
is accidental and/or incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and if 
reasonable due care was practiced to avoid such take and such take is 
reported within 24 hours as set forth at paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section. We may refer incidental take that does not meet these 
provisions to the appropriate authorities for prosecution. Shooters 
have the responsibility to identify their target before shooting. 
Shooting a wolf as a result of mistaking it for another species is not 
considered accidental and may be referred to the appropriate 
authorities for prosecution.
    (ix) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued by 
the Service under 50 CFR 17.32, or our designated agent, may take 
wolves in the wild, pursuant to terms of the permit.
    (x) Additional take authorization for agency employees. When acting 
in the course of official duties, any employee of the Service or a 
designated agent may take a wolf when necessary in regard to the 
release, tracking, monitoring, recapture, and management of the NEP or 
to:
    (A) Aid or euthanize a sick, injured, or orphaned wolf and transfer 
it to a licensed veterinarian for care;
    (B) Dispose of a dead specimen;
    (C) Salvage a dead specimen that may be used for scientific study;
    (D) Aid in law enforcement investigations involving wolves 
(collection of specimens for necropsy, etc.); or
    (E) Remove wolves with abnormal physical or behavioral 
characteristics, as determined by the Service or our designated agent, 
from passing on or teaching those traits to other wolves.
    (F) Such take must be reported to the Service as set forth in 
paragraph (a)(6) of this section, and specimens are to be retained or 
disposed of only in accordance with directions from the Service.
    (xi) Take for research purposes. Permits are available and 
required, except as otherwise allowed by this rule, for scientific 
purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, educational purposes, 
or other purposes consistent with the Act (50 CFR 17.32). Scientific 
studies should be reasonably expected to result in data that will lead 
to development of sound management of the gray wolf and to enhancement 
of its survival as a species.
    (6) Reporting requirements. Except as otherwise specified in this 
rule or in an authorization, any take of a gray wolf must be reported 
to the Service or our designated agent as follows: Lethal take must be 
reported within 24 hours, and opportunistic or intentional harassment 
must be reported within 7 days. We will allow additional reasonable 
time if access to the site is limited.
    (i) Report any take of wolves, including opportunistic harassment 
or intentional harassment, to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado 
Ecological Services Field Office Supervisor (134 Union Boulevard, Suite 
670, Lakewood, Colorado 80225, [email protected]), or a Service-
designated agent of another Federal, State, or Tribal agency.
    (ii) Unless otherwise specified in this paragraph (a) any wolf or 
wolf part taken legally must be turned over to the Service, which will 
determine the disposition of any live or dead wolves.
    (7) Prohibitions. Take of any gray wolf in the NEP is prohibited, 
except as provided in paragraphs (a)(5) and (8) of this section. 
Specifically, the following actions are prohibited by this rule:
    (i) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever, any wolf or part thereof 
from the experimental population taken in violation of the regulations 
in this paragraph (a) or in violation of applicable State or Tribal 
fish and wildlife laws or regulations or the Act.
    (ii) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in this 
paragraph (a).
    (8) Monitoring. Gray wolves in the NEP area will be monitored by 
radio telemetry or other standard wolf population monitoring techniques 
as appropriate. Any animal that is sick, injured, or otherwise in need 
of special care may be captured by authorized personnel of the Service 
or our designated agent and given appropriate care. Such an animal will 
be released back into its respective area as soon as possible, unless 
physical or behavioral problems make it necessary to return the animal 
to captivity or euthanize it. If a gray wolf is taken into captivity 
for care or is euthanized, it must be reported to the Service within 24 
hours or as soon as reasonably appropriate.
    (9) Review and evaluation of the success or failure of the NEP. 
Radio transmitters, remote cameras, surveys of roads and trails to 
document wolf sign, and other monitoring techniques will be used to 
document wolf reproductive success, abundance, and distribution in 
Colorado post-release.
    (i) To evaluate progress toward achieving State downlisting and 
delisting criteria, the Service will summarize this information in an 
annual report by CPW, submitted by June 30 of each year, that describes 
wolf conservation and management activities that occurred in Colorado 
each calendar or biological year. The annual report may include, but 
not be limited to: post-release wolf movements and behavior; wolf 
minimum counts or abundance estimates; reproductive success and 
recruitment; territory use and distribution; cause-specific wolf 
mortalities; and a summary of wolf conflicts and associated management 
activities to minimize wolf conflict risk.
    (ii) To assess the reintroduction program, the Service will 
evaluate Colorado's wolf reintroduction and management program in a 
summary report each year that wolf reintroductions occur in the State 
and for a minimum of 5 years after reintroductions are complete. If the 
Service determines that modifications to reintroduction protocols and 
wolf monitoring and management activities are needed, the Service will 
coordinate closely with the State to ensure progress toward achieving 
recovery goals while concurrently minimizing wolf-related conflicts in 
Colorado.
    (10) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The State of Colorado or any 
Tribe within the State, subject to the terms of this rule, may request 
an MOA from the Service to take over lead management responsibility and 
authority to implement this rule by managing the nonessential 
experimental gray wolves in the State or on that Tribal reservation, 
and implement all parts of their State or Tribal plan that are 
consistent with this rule, provided that the State or Tribe has a wolf 
management plan approved by the Service.

[[Page 10280]]

    (i) The State or Tribal request for wolf management under an MOA 
must demonstrate:
    (A) That authority and management capability reside in the State or 
Tribe to conserve the gray wolf throughout the geographical range of 
the experimental population within the State of Colorado or within the 
Tribal reservation;
    (B) That the State or Tribe has an acceptable conservation program 
for the gray wolf, throughout the NEP area within the State or Tribal 
reservation, including the requisite authority and capacity to carry 
out that conservation program;
    (C) Exactly what parts of the State or Tribal plan the State or 
Tribe intends to implement within the framework of this rule; and
    (D) That the State or Tribal management progress will be reported 
to the Service on at least an annual basis so the Service can determine 
if State or Tribal management was conducted in full compliance with 
this rule.
    (ii) The Service will approve such a request upon a finding that 
the applicable criteria are met and that approval is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the gray wolf in the NEP.
    (iii) If the Service approves the request, the Service will enter 
into an MOA with the State of Colorado or appropriate Tribal 
representative.
    (iv) An MOA for State or Tribal management as provided in this rule 
may allow the State of Colorado or any Tribe within the State to become 
designated agents and lead management of the nonessential experimental 
gray wolf population within the borders of their jurisdictions in 
accordance with the State's or Tribe's wolf management plan, except 
that:
    (A) The MOA may not provide for any form of management inconsistent 
with the protection provided to the species under this rule, without 
further opportunity for appropriate public comment and review and 
amendment of this rule.
    (B) The MOA cannot vest the State of Colorado or any Tribe within 
the State with any authority over matters concerning section 4 of the 
Act (determining whether a species warrants listing).
    (C) In the absence of a Tribal wolf management plan or cooperative 
agreement, the MOA cannot vest the State of Colorado with the authority 
to issue written authorizations for wolf take on reservations. The 
Service will retain the authority to issue these written authorizations 
until a Tribal wolf management plan is developed.
    (D) The MOA for State or Tribal wolf management must provide for 
joint law enforcement responsibilities to ensure that the Service also 
has the authority to enforce the State or Tribal management program 
prohibitions on take.
    (E) The MOA may not authorize wolf take beyond that stated in the 
rule but may be more restrictive.
    (v) The authority for the MOA will be the Act, the Fish and 
Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j), and the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and any applicable treaty.
    (vi) In order for the MOA to remain in effect, the Service must 
find, on an annual basis, that the management under the MOA is not 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the gray wolf in the NEP. The 
Service or State or Tribe may terminate the MOA upon 90 days' notice 
if:
    (A) Management under the MOA is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of the gray wolf in the NEP;
    (B) The State or Tribe has failed materially to comply with this 
rule, the MOA, or any relevant provision of the State or Tribal wolf 
management plan;
    (C) The Service determines that biological circumstances within the 
range of the gray wolf indicate that delisting the species is 
warranted; or
    (D) The States or Tribes determine that they no longer want the 
wolf management authority vested in them by the Service in the MOA.
* * * * *

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-03196 Filed 2-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P