Comment from State of Utah, Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office

The State of Utah (State), through the Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office, appreciates the opportunity to submit comments in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Request for Information (RFI) regarding the implementation and real-world efficacy of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(j) nonessential experimental population rule for gray wolves (Canis lupus) in Colorado. While the biological geography of this reintroduction is centered in Colorado, its ecological, economic, and jurisdictional impacts directly cross Utah’s shared border. Apex predators do not recognize state lines. Because Colorado’s wolf release zones sit in close proximity to Utah’s eastern border, the management vulnerabilities identified in your notice—particularly regarding livestock depredation, exhausted state compensation funds, and pressure on wild ungulates—pose an immediate, unmitigated threat to Utah. On behalf of Utah’s agricultural producers, rural communities, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), the State submits the following comments for your consideration. Introduction: At the end of 2022, there were over 2,700 gray wolves occupying Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, and California. That number continues to grow and gray wolves have expanded their range throughout the West, with wolves now occupying Colorado. The Great Lakes wolves are even more robust, with over 4,200 wolves occupying Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Both the Western United States and Great Lakes metapopulations are connected to nearly 30,000 wolves in Canada, meaning the wolves in the United States no longer exist in isolated populations. They are stable populations within a vast, interconnected network of gray wolves inhabiting North America. In short, the gray wolf and its constituent subspecies, excluding the Mexican wolf, are not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their respective ranges, and are not likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Additionally, the ESA does not require listed species to be restored to all habitat currently suitable before recovery is considered complete and delisting initiated. The plain language of the ESA states that a species/subspecies can be listed only when it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. It is also an incorrect interpretation of the ESA to expect that delisting of the gray wolf is contingent upon full recovery in all habitats which may currently be suitable. Despite these realities, gray wolves remain listed as endangered throughout most of Utah. The only exception to this listing is a very small piece of northeastern Utah, which is included with the currently delisted Northern Rocky Mountains Population. As a result, wolves in the southeast portion of Utah, which is closest to Colorado’s reintroduction zones, are managed by FWS pursuant to the mandates of the ESA. DWR therefore has no management authority over wolves that disperse from the reintroduction zones into Utah. This is problematic for several reasons, including those outlined below. The State therefore appreciates FWS’s effort to evaluate the efficacy of management under Colorado’s 10(j) and its effects inside and outside of Colorado. The Reality of Interstate “Border Spillover” and Transboundary Costs The RFI explicitly acknowledges that the frequency of verified livestock depredations and subsequent financial compensation claims has “vastly exceeded the funds currently available under Colorado’s existing livestock compensation scheme.” This admission confirms what Utah has long argued: federal reintroduction mandates impose immense, unbacked financial burdens on local economies. As Colorado's wolf population expands, territorial pressures and natural dispersal will continue to drive these apex predators across the border into eastern Utah (including Uintah, Daggett, Summit, Grand, and San Juan counties). Utah's agricultural sector and rural economies must not be forced to bear the collateral damages of a neighboring state’s federal project. If Colorado’s own state compensation funds are already depleted, Utah ranchers face a severe administrative vacuum when attempting to prove and recover damages caused by interstate wolves. FWS must expand its management metrics to account for transboundary migration. Any federal framework evaluating this 10(j) rule must include explicit financial and operational protections for adjacent states like Utah. Regulatory Ambiguity of “In the Act of Attacking” The RFI seeks data on the efficacy of allowable “take” provisions, specifically regarding the taking of wolves “in the act of attacking” livestock. Under the current federal framework, this definition is subjective and legally . . . PLEASE REFER TO THE ATTACHED LETTER FOR THE COMPLETE COMMENTS. THANK YOU