Supporting Statement A
for paperwork reduction act submission
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,
Experimental Populations – Colorado Gray Wolf (50 CFR 17.84)
OMB Control Number 1018-0189
Terms of Clearance: This is a request for final approval of the new OMB control number assigned (1018-0189) in conjunction with information collection associated with our final rule (RIN 1018-BG79), Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado. Changes to the ICR since OMB’s review at the proposed rule stage are highlighted in yellow.
Individuals of designated experimental populations for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) are categorically protected. Documentation of human-related mortalities, recovery of dead specimens, animal husbandry actions necessary to manage the population, and other types of take related to the status of experimental populations is important for monitoring the success of reintroduction efforts and recovery efforts in general. To minimize potential conflict with humans that could undermine recovery efforts, livestock depredations connected with experimental populations of listed species require prompt attention for purposes of determining the location, timing, and nature of the predatory behavior involved, accurate determination of the species responsible for a livestock kill, and the timely application of necessary control measures. We collect information in nonform format. The information collection requirements are in 50 CFR 17.84.
We prepared final regulations (RIN 1018-BG79) establishing a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the State of Colorado, under section 10(j) of the ESA. The State of Colorado (Colorado Parks and Wildlife or CPW) requested the Service establish an NEP in conjunction with their State-led gray wolf reintroduction effort. Establishment of this NEP will 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. Designation of this NEP, at the request of CPW, facilitates 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.
Experimental populations established under section 10(j) of the ESA, as amended, require information collection and reporting to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we). We collect information on the experimental populations listed in 50 CFR 17.84 to help further the recovery of the species and to assess the success of the reintroduced populations. The respondents notify us when an incident occurs, so there is no set frequency for collecting the information. We use the information to:
Document the locations of reintroduced animals.
Determine causes of mortality and conflict with human activities so that Service managers can minimize conflicts with people.
Improve management techniques for reintroduction.
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. Reporting parties include, but are not limited to, individuals or households, businesses, farms, nonprofit organizations, and State/local/tribal governments. We collect the information by means of telephone calls or facsimiles from the public to Service offices specified in the individual regulations. Standard information collected includes:
Name, address, and phone number of reporting party.
Species involved.
Type of incident.
Take (quantity).
Location and time of reported incident.
Description of the circumstances related to the incident.
There are no forms associated with this information collection. We propose to collect the following information where we have authorized harassment or lethal take of experimental animals (e.g., livestock depredation or in defense of human life):
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 requested 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.
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.
Request for “repeatedly depredating wolf or wolves” written take authorization – At the Service’s or our designated agents’ direction, the Service or designated agent may issue a “repeated depredation” written take authorization of limited duration (45 days or less) to a landowner or their employees to take up to a specified (by the Service or our designated agent) number of wolves on their private land if: (1) The landowner has had at least one depredation by wolves on livestock that has been confirmed by the Service or our designated agent within the last 30 days; and (2) the Service or our designated agent has determined that repeatedly depredating wolves are routinely present on the private land and present a significant risk to the health and safety of livestock; and (3) the Service or our designated agent has authorized lethal removal of wolves from that same private land. These authorizations may be terminated at any time once threats have been resolved or minimized. Any lethal or injurious take must be reported to the Service or a designated agent within 24 hours. We will allow additional reasonable time if access to the site is limited. This exception does not apply if there is evidence of unusual attractants or artificial or intentional feeding. Based on public comments, we changed “shoot-on-sight” to be “repeated depredation.”
Reporting requirements – Except as otherwise specified in this rule or in an authorization, any take of a gray wolf must be reported to the Service or our designated agent as follows (additional reasonable time will be allowed if access to the site is limited):
Lethal take must be reported within 24 hours.
Opportunistic or intentional harassment must be reported within 7 days.
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.
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.
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.
The exception to allow take of gray wolves that are contributing to unacceptable impacts to wild ungulate population or herds on Tribal land requires Tribes to develop a science-based proposal that must, at a minimum, include the following information:
(A) The basis of ungulate population or herd management objectives;
(B) Data indicating that the ungulate herd is below management objectives;
(C) Data indicating that wolves are a major cause of the ungulate population decline;
(D) Why wolf removal is a warranted solution to help restore the ungulate herd to management objectives;
(E) The level and duration of wolf removal being proposed;
(F) How ungulate population response to wolf removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for effectiveness; and
(G) Demonstration that attempts were and are being made to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population declines or of Tribal government commitment to implement possible remedies or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal. The proposal must be subjected to both public and peer review prior to it being finalized and submitted to the Service for review. At least three independent peer reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter that are not staff of the Tribe submitting the proposal must be used to review the proposal. Upon Service review, and before wolf removals can be authorized, the Service will evaluate the information provided by the requesting Tribe and provide a written determination to the requesting Tribal game and fish agency on whether such actions are scientifically based and warranted.
We will use the information described above to assess the effectiveness of control activities and develop means to reduce problems with livestock where depredation is a problem. Service recovery specialists use the information to determine the success of reintroductions in relation to established recovery plan goals for the threatened and endangered species involved.
Each reported incident is unique and those individuals responding generally are able to communicate details verbally via telephone, facsimile, or in writing. Due to limitations in funding and staff time, we do not have plan to create a system for electronic submission of reported incidents, or to make the information available to the public over the internet, which might actually take longer to use than a simple telephone call for most responders.
Requested information is not available from any other source. We work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/APHIS Division of Wildlife Damage Management, and other Federal agencies as necessary, when investigating or confirming information received regarding any of the experimental populations. There is some potential for duplication if someone contacts both the Service and another agency regarding an experimental animal, but generally there is sufficient information available to the public through interagency outreach efforts to make reporting well known. We work closely with cooperating agencies to minimize any duplication in reporting.
This collection will not have a significant impact on small entities. There are no required forms or formats for the information we collect. We collect only the minimum information necessary to describe the reported incident.
The current frequency and extent of information collection are necessary to collect sick, injured, or dead individuals where appropriate in order to aid sick or injured individuals or determine the cause of death and assess health of the individual and the status of the experimental populations that have been introduced to suitable habitat as part of the species’ recovery goals. The consequence of not collecting the information or reduced information collection would result in our inability to address the individuals’ needs and/or measure the implementation of these particular recovery goals. There is no information already available that can be used in lieu of that supplied by the respondent.
* requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
* requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
* requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
* requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;
* in connection with a statistical survey that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the universe of study;
* requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
* that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
* requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information, unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
We rely on prompt public reporting on the location
of sick, injured, or orphaned individuals in order to implement the
necessary animal husbandry and specimen collection activities. In
cooperation with the USDA/APHIS Division of Wildlife Damage
Management, or other cooperating Federal agencies, we rely on prompt
public reporting of depredation in order to
resolve
livestock-related problems. Therefore, a time sensitive requirement
for reporting problems (varies between 24 hours to 7 days, depending
on type of report) to the appropriate Service office is necessary.
On February 17, 2023, we published proposed regulations (RIN 1018-BF08; 88 FR 10258) to establish a nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the State of Colorado, under section 10(j) of the ESA. The proposed rule solicited public comment for a period of 60 days on the information collection requirements described in this supporting statement, ending on April 18, 2023. We received the following comments in response to several ICs identified in the proposed rule:
(1) Appointment of Designated Agent – We received a comment asking us to clarify the term designated agent, but no comments specifically regarding their appointment. For example: “The Proposed Rule defines “Designated agent” in two different ways.”
Agency Response to (1): The Service has revised the rule to ensure a single definition of “designated agent” As provided in the rule, a designated agent which is an employee of a Federal, state, or Tribal agency that is authorized or directed by the Service to conduct gray wolf management.
(2) Request for “Shoot-on-Sight” Written Take Authorization –
Issue #1: Commenters worried that regulations for shoot-on-sight in the rule are too vague and that key terms like harassing and molesting do not have clear definitions. They asked for more straightforward definitions to avoid confusion.
In addition, commenters expressed opposition to shoot-on-sight take authorizations and for permission to take wolves in the act of attacking. A commenter noted that wolves often chase or test prey without the chase resulting in an attack. One commenter noted that the 1994 rule governing wolf reintroduction in the northern Rocky Mountains does not include shoot-on-sight authorizations for private landowners and said that the allowance would not be necessary.
Also, commenters requested that take authorization permits be extended for a period longer than 45 days. A commenter asked for the shoot-on-sight requirements to be changed to specify that the predation event was confirmed within the last 30 days, rather than the predation event occurring within the last 30 days. The commenter noted that grazing allotments are often large and remote, and that it is impractical to expect all depredations to be discovered and confirmed within 30 days.
Issue #2: Commenters worried that the regulations for repeated depredation (formerly shoot-on-sight), and opportunistic and intentional harassment in the rule are too vague and that key terms like harassing and molesting do not have clear definitions. They asked for more straightforward definitions to avoid confusion.
Agency Response to (2): In response to comments, we removed the term shoot-on-sight, and replaced with repeated depredation (see pg. 2). The Service also added examples to the rule to guide harassment activities and clarified the definition of “in the act of attacking.” The precise requirements to qualify for issuance of a repeated depredation (formerly "shoot-on-sight") authorization are provided in the final rule. The terms used to describe wolves in the act of attacking are consistent with section 3 of the Act and previous 10(j) rules. The term “take” is also defined in section 3 of the Act. The terms “harm” and “harass” are defined by regulation and are not repeated in the rule. See 50 CFR § 17.3.
(3) Reporting Requirement – Lethal Take – Commenters expressed support for lethal take allowances in the rule and in the FEIS, and said that lethal take is a necessary management strategy to have available. Commenters were in favor of the management flexibility provided in the rule and under alternative 1 of the FEIS. Commenters noted that the previous reintroductions in the northern Rocky Mountains have succeeded with the management flexibility of a 10(j) rule. Commenters noted that lethal take is necessary protect the livestock industry and other wildlife, and requested that the permitting process for lethal take be liberal and streamlined to prevent livestock losses. Some commenters were specifically supportive of take provisions for solves caught in the act of predating on pets and working dogs. Commenters said that lethal take would be important to prevent extreme growth of wolf populations in Colorado and impacts on livestock, big game, and other wildlife species. Some commenters said they appreciated the greater flexibility allowed in the Service’s rule compared to the State Plan, specifically in relation to taking wolves “in the act of attacking” and the reporting requirements. Commenters said that lethal take would be the only feasible option in many cases and asserted that nonlethal measures like relocation and livestock guardian dogs are ineffective.
Additionally, a commenter said reporting of lethal take or harassment should be permitted through a phone call or website, in addition to mail or email.
Agency Response to (3): The reporting requirements, as defined by the rule, are appropriate for assessing the success of the reintroduced populations and management actions authorized by the 10(j) rule. In response to the comment that reporting of lethal take within 24 hours may be impractical, we have added language to this requirement to give additional time for reporting of lethal take, when necessary.
(5) Annual Report – A commenter requested that annual reporting should only be required for five 5 years post-reintroduction.
Agency Response to (5): The regulatory requirements for designation of a nonessential population require annual reporting, as specified in the rule, for as long as the species is federally listed.
(6) PRA Language in Rule Document – Commenters requested that in the section of the rule related to the PRA, text be edited to read “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 up until 5-years post reintroduction.”
Agency Response to (6): The response provided in the PRA section of the rulemaking document related to the annual report requirement is considered appropriate. No action taken.
The State of Colorado requested the Service establish an NEP in conjunction with their State-led gray wolf reintroduction effort. Establishment of this NEP will 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.
We do not provide payments or gifts to respondents.
We do not provide any assurances of confidentiality. This collection does not constitute a system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974 because the records are not retrieved by a unique identifier assigned to an individual. We will maintain the information in a secure System of Records – Interior/FWS-27, Correspondence Control System (May 28, 1999; 64 FR 29055 – modified June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31877) and March 16, 2023 (88 FR 16277)).
FWS handles all Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in accordance with the Federal Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) on which the Privacy Act is based, and as described in the Privacy Impact Assessment for FWS’ Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). A copy of the PIA is provided to OMB as a supplementary document via ROCIS.
We do not ask questions of a sensitive nature.
* Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
* If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.
* Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here.
We anticipate receiving approximately 25 responses annually, totaling 25 annual burden hours (rounded). We estimate the total dollar value of the annual burden hours for this collection to be $1,194 (rounded).
We used Table 1 in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) News Release USDL-23-1305, June 16, 2023, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—March 2023, to calculate the total annual burden.
Individuals – the hourly rate for all workers $43.07, including benefits.
Private Sector – the hourly rate for all workers as $40.79, including benefits.
Government – the hourly rate for all workers as $58.08, including benefits.
This is a new experimental population; therefore, we do not have actual burden estimates at this time. We are reporting a placeholder of 1 response per requirement and will update these burden estimates with the accurate response rates with the first renewal of this collection.
$ Value
Number of Number of Total Average of Annual
Annual Responses Annual Completion Total Annual Burden
Respondents Each Responses Time (Hours) Burden Hours* Hours
Appointment of Designated Agent
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Request for Written Take Authorization
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Request for “Shoot-on-Sight” Written Take Authorization
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Reporting Requirement – Lethal Take
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Reporting Requirement – Opportunistic or Intentional Harassment
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Reporting Requirement – Captivity for Care or to be Euthanized
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Annual Report
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Notification – Recovery or Reporting of Dead Specimen and Specimen Collection
Individuals 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 $ 43.07
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Private Sector 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 40.79
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
State/Local/Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
Proposal – Take of Gray Wolfes on Tribal Lands
Tribal Govt 1 1 1 30 mins (Reporting) 1 58.08
30 mins (Recordkeeping)
TOTALS: 25 25 25 $ 1,193.60
*Rounded to match ROCIS
* The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life) and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information (including filing fees paid for form processing). Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.
* If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of purchasing or contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
* Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
The only foreseeable nonhour burden cost to respondents would be a small cost for making a telephone call or sending a facsimile. However, we do not expect that this would occur often, and any costs would be negligible.
We estimate that the total cost to the Federal Government for receiving and processing the notifications as a result of this collection of information is $7,769 (rounded). We multiplied the hourly weighted salary rate ($69.06) x total hours for Federal Government review (25 responses x 4.5 hours = 112.5 hours) which results in an estimated cost to the Federal Government of $7,251.30. We increased the total hours for Federal Government review based on the addition of the new IC for submission of Tribal proposals for take of gray wolves on Tribal lands.
These costs are primarily for staff time to receive the notifications via phone calls or facsimiles, and to process the information contained in the notification. For each telephone call, we will write up a record of the telephone conversation. We will then process the information received in the facsimile or telephone call, and analyze the information to determine whether or not it has any significant impact on the affected experimental population. The time required for Federal Government employees to process and analyze the information contained in the notification will vary, but we estimate it will take an average of 4.5 hours per response (25 responses).
Depending upon their geographic location, some employees are paid under a Federal salary table that includes locality pay. We used the Office of Personnel Management’s Salary Table 2023-DCB as an average wage rate for employees Nationwide. To calculate benefits, we multiplied the hourly rate by 1.61 in accordance with the BLS News Release USDL-23-1305.
Hourly Hourly Rate, Incl. Time Spent On Weighted Position/Grade Rate Benefits (x 1.61) Collection Average
Clerical (GS-07/05) $ 28.84 $ 46.43 5% $ 2.32
Professional/technical (GS-11/05) 42.68 68.71 90% 61.84
Management (GS-13/05) 60.83 97.94 5% 4.90
Weighted Average ($/hr) $ 69.06
This is a request for final approval of the new OMB control number assigned (1018-0189) in conjunction the information collections associated with our final rule (RIN 1018-BG79) as described in this Supporting Statement.
The information is only for internal tracking and use. No publication of information is anticipated.
This is a regulatory requirement. We will display the OMB Control Number and expiration date on appropriate documents.
There are no exceptions to the certification statement.
-
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission |
| Author | Anissa Craghead |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2023-11-21 |