REINTRODUCTION OF THE
MEXICAN WOLF WITHIN
ITS HISTORIC RANGE
IN THE SOUTHWESTERN
UNITED STATES
FinalEnvironmental
REINTRODUCTION 0~ THE
MEXICAN WOLF WITHINITS HISTORIC RANGE
IN THE SOUTHWESTERN
UNITED STATES
FinalEnvironmental
ImpactStatement
Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Department of the Interior
November 1996
Prepared with the assistance of theCenter for Wildlife Law, Institute ofPublic Law, University of New Mexico. Cover illustration: Brian Cobble
Final Environmental Impact Statement on Reintroduction of theMexican Wolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States
Lead agency: United States Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cooperating agencies in preparation of the EIS:Arizona Game and Fish Dept; New Mexico Dep’t ofGame and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Dept ofAgriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control; U.S.Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Dep’t of theArmy, White Sands Missile Range.
States and counties where the Preferred Alternative islocated: Arizona: Apache and Greenlee Counties; NewMexico: Catron, *Dofia Ana, Grant, *Lincoln, *Otero,Sierra, and *Socorro Counties.(’ indicates counties thar are only in the PreferredAlternative if the back-up White Sands WolfRecover-y Area is used.)
Abstract: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)proposes to reintroduce a nonessential experimentalpopularion of Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baikyz]within part of the subspecies’ historic range in thesouthwestern United States. The endangered Mexicanwolf currently is known to exist only in captivity. Underthe Preferred Alternative, commencing in 1997 or assoon thereafter as practical, the FWS will graduallyrelease up to 15 pairs or family groups into the BlueRange area of east-central Arizona. If it is determined tobe both necessary and feasible, up to five pairs or familygroups may be released into the back-up area, the WhiteSands Missile Range of south-central New Mexico. Theobjective is ro re-establish 100 wild Mexican wolvesdistributed over 5,000 mi’ by about the year 2005. TheFWS and cooperating agencies will closely monitor,study, and evaluate the reintroduction. They will haveauthority under a Mexican Wolf Experimental Popula-tion Rule to actively manage the wolves, includingpreventing dispersal outside the designated wolf recoveryareas and moving or removing any wolves causingsignificant conflicts.
The key impacts of the Preferred Alternative analyzedin the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) areas follows. tier the wolf population grows to approxi-mately 100, it is projected to kill between one and 34cattle annually, mostly calves. A private livestock depreda-tion compensation fund exists. For the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area, the net long term effect on wild ungulatesis projected to be between 1,200 and 1,900 fewer elk, andbetween 4,800 and 10,000 fewer deer, than would occurif there were no wolves. If the back-up White Sands Wolf
Recovery Area is used, the net long term effect is pro-jected to be between 760 and 2,000 fewer deer thanwould occur if there were no wolves. Densities of coyotesand mountain lions probably will drop in occupied wolfrange. The major regional economic impacts will bereductions in the value of ungulate hunting and inhunting expenditures. Some regional economic benefitsare expected from increases in tourism and in non-hunting recreation associated with the wolf. Limitedminor land use restrictions may be imposed aroundoccupied release pens, dens, and rendezvous sites, onpublic lands only, as necessary to prevent disturbance ofthe wolves. The use of M-44s and choking neck snares inoccupied wolf range will be restricted. If the White SandsMissile Range is used, some inconvenience, but no majorconflicts with military or testing uses, are expected fromwolf reintroduction.
The FEIS also analyses potential impacts of threealternatives to the Preferred Alternative: 1) reintroductionof nonessential experimental wolves limited to signifi-cantly smaller recovery areas, 2) reintroduction of wolves,in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area only, with full“endangered” status under the Endangered Species Actand no restriction of wolf dispersal by managers, and 3) a“No Action” alternative that considers the speculativepossibility of natural recolonization of wolves fromMexico into southeastern Arizona, southwestern NewMexico, and Big Bend National Park in Texas.
The FEIS will be given to decision makers in theFWS and Department of Interior for a decision. A Noticeof Availability of the FEIS will be published in theFederal Register. A Record of Decision can be approved30 days afier publication of the Notice of Availability.Any decision on Mexican wolf recovery in the southwest-ern United States will be well publicized. Send informa-tion requests to: David R. Parsons, Mexican WolfRecovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PO.Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87 103.
(Date)
Nancy KaufmanRegional Director, Region 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement - Reintroduction of the MexicanWolf Within Its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States
Summary
Introduction
The United States Department of the Interior, Fishand Wildlife Service (FWS), proposes to reintroducea nonessential experimental population of Mexicangray wolves (Canis Lupus buikyi) within part of thesubspecies’ historic range in the southwestern UnitedStates. The endangered Mexican wolf currently isknown to exist only in captivity. The FWS hasprepared a final environmental impact statement(FEIS) on its reintroduction proposal and threealternative approaches to re-establishing the subspe-cies under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). ThisSummary outlines the full FEIS.
Cooperating Agencies inPreparation of the EIS
Arizona Game and Fish Dep’t; New Mexico Dep’t ofGame and Fish; San Carlos Apache Tribe; U.S. Deptof Agriculture, APHIS, Animal Damage Control;U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Deptof the Army, White Sands Missile Range.
States and Counties Where thePreferred Alternative is Located
Arizona: Apache and Greenlee Counties; NewMexico: Catron, *Dona Ana, Grant, *Lincoln,*Otero, Sierra, and *Socorro Counties.(* indicates counties that are potentially affected bythe Preferred Alternative only if the back-up WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area is used.)
Scoping, Public Review, andChanges to the Draft EIS
This FEIS is based on a lengthy period of scoping,preparation, review, and revision of a draft EIS(DEIS). Fo u r up blic scoping meetings were held in199 1 and 1992 to obtain public input regarding theFWS’s general proposal to reintroduce Mexicanwolves. A total of 838 people attended. In addition,
ii
public comment periods following the meetingsresulted in 1,324 written comments, which the FWScompiled and analyzed. The seven main areas ofpublic concern related to: 1) the FWS’s planning ofthe Proposed Action and the alternatives to it; 2)impacts of wolf depredation on livestock; 3) eco-nomic impacts; 4) ecological and biological impactsof wolf recovery; 5) the viability of the captiveMexican wolf population; 6) impacts on wildlifemanagement; and 7) philosophical and ethicalconcerns. The interagency Mexican Wolf EIS Inter-disciplinary Team, which oversaw the writing of theEIS, considered these issues as well as additionalissues.
The DEIS was prepared between 1993 and1995; it was released in June 1995. The publiccomment period on the DEIS ended more than fourmonths later, on October 3 1. Public review wasextensive, with participation by almost 18,000people or organizations, in a variety of ways. Four-teen public open house meetings were held through-out the potentially affected areas; total registeredattendance was 1,186. Three formal public hearingswere held in Austin, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; andSocorro, New Mexico; total registered attendancewas 95 1. Each written and transcribed oral commenthas been reviewed and considered in the preparationof the FEIS. The public comments are on file andavailable for inspection at the FWS Regional Of&ein Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Notable changes from the DEIS to this FEIS arelisted below; they largely are in response to com-ments received on the DEIS or to developmentssince the DEIS was written. Also, numerous minorcorrections, revisions, and updates have been made.
Alternatives
. Re-writing of the Proposed Action as thePreferred Alternative (Ah. A), now specifyinguse of the biologically preferable Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) first, with theWhite Sands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA)as a back-up, only to be used if necessary andfeasible and if additional information isavailable that the deer population cansupport a wolf population. The specific
decision criteria in the DEIS regardingwhether to use the BRWRA or WSWRAfirst have been deleted.
. Deletion of the provision for closingbackcountry roads.
. Support for a Citizen Advisory Committeeto advise on management.
. Alt. B now proposes reintroductions in boththe BRWRA and WSWRA primary recoveryzones at the same time.
. Alt. C now proposes fUll-endangered wolfreintroduction into the BRWRA only. TheWSWRA is deleted as a potential reintroduc-tion area under Ah. C, largely because thereintroduction objective could be met withreleases to just the BRWRA with subsequentunlimited expansion of the reintroducedpopulation. Related discussion of impacts tothe WSWRA and the adjacent potentialdispersal areas is deleted.
. Rewording of Alt. D to emphasize the “NoAction” aspect and that natural recoloniza-tion is very speculative. Costs of this alterna-tive are re-calculated. Less quantification isprovided in the impact discussion due togreater emphasis on uncertainty.
Clarifications/Corrections
. More discussion of historic informationabout wolf depredation on livestock, inChap. 1 under Reasons for Listing.
. New or more clear definitions of “problemwolves, ” “rendezvous sites,” and “distur-bance-causing land use activities” in theGlossary, Appendix G. The latter definitionincludes specific activities and types of publicaccess that may not be allowed within aradius of one mile or less around active pens,dens, and rendezvous sites, as well as exemp-tions, i.e., activities specifically allowed.
. Deletion of the provision for removingwolves when they are “conflicting with amajor land use”; addition of a provision forremoving them if they endanger themselves
Summary
by occurring when and where military ortesting activities are scheduled.
. Clarification that modification of wolfhabitat (outside the protection areas forpens, dens, and rendezvous sites) by landuses in the recovery areas would not beconsidered a “take” of nonessential experi-mental wolves under ESA sec. 9(a).
. Apportionment of potential impacts on deer,elk, hunting, and related economic impactsby whether they would occur in Arizona orNew Mexico.
. Discussion of potential impacts on bighornsheep in the BRWRA.
. More discussion of potential impacts on theSan Carlos Apache Reservation.
. Revision and more detailed explanation ofcost estimates for each alternative inAppendix B.
Updates
.
.
.
.
.
.,.111
Updated version of Appendix C, the Pro-posed Mexican Wolf Experimental Popula-tion Rule, as published in the FederalRegister.
Inclusion of the detailed Public CommentSummary and the Agency Comments on theDEIS, both as part of Chap. 5, and bothwith FWS responses to the comments.
A summary of the DEIS review process,compilation of the numbers of various typesof public comments received, and a listing ofpersonnel involved in the public reviewprocess.
New Mexico League of Women Voters wolfopinion survey results.
Impacts from wolf reintroduction inYellowstone and Central Idaho to date.
Summary
Drought and management impacts on deer,oryx, and feral horse populations on WhiteSands Missile Range.
Proposed reductions in permitted grazing toApache National Forest allotments inBRWRA.
Mexican spotted owl recovery in CumulativeImpacts section and discussion on impactson National Forest management.
Status of captive Mexican wolf populationand genetics, and revision of taxonomy andhistoric range sections.
More current information on investigationsof whether any Mexican wolves remain inthe wild in the U.S. or Mexico (noneconfirmed).
New Appendices
Appendix J - Update on Yellowstone and CentralIdaho Gray Wolf Reintroductions and EconomicBenefits of Wolf Recovery, and Appendix K -Response to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment onthe DEIS.
Future Decision Making
A Notice of Availability of this FEIS is being pub-lished in the Federal Register. The FEIS will be givento decision makers in the FWS and Department ofInterior. A Record of Decision can be approved 30days after publication of the Notice of Availability.Any decision on Mexican wolf recovery in thesouthwestern United States will be well publicized.Send information requests to: David R. Parsons,Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, PO. Box 1306, Albuquerque,NM 8 7 1 0 . 3 .
(I)are)
Nar~cy Kaufman
Regional Director, Region 2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mexican Gray Wolf Description
Background
The Mexican wolf is the southernmost and one ofthe smallest subspecies of the North American graywolf. Adults weigh 50 to 90 lbs., average 4’6” to 5’6”in total length, and reach 26” to 32” in height at theshoulder. Its pelt color varies. The “lobo”-itspopular name-is genetically distinct from otherwolves and no confirmed population exists outsidecaptivity. It is one of the rarest land mammals in theworld. International experts rate recovery of theMexican wolf subspecies as the highest priority of allgray wolf recovery programs.
Reasons for Listing
Many factors contributed to the Mexican wolf’sdemise, but the concerted federal eradication effortin the early 1900s was predominant. Other factorswere: commercial and recreational hunting andtrapping; kiliing of wolves by game managers on thetheory that more game animals would be availablefor hunters; habitat alteration; and safety concerns,although no documentation exists of Mexican wolfattacks on humans.
Reintroduction Procedures
All Mexican wolves to be released under AlternativesA, B, and C, below, would come from the certifiedU.S. captive population of 114 animals (as of March1996) maintained in 24 zoos, wildlife parks, andother facilities located around the country. Thewolves have exhibited no major genetic, physical, orbehavioral problems affecting their fitness resultingfrom captivity. The FWS will move male/femalepairs identified as candidates for possible release toits captive wolf management facility on the SevilletaNational Wildlife Refuge, north of Socorro, NewMexico. In the event of a decision to proceed withreintroduction, the FWS would select release ani-mals from among the candidate pairs based onreproductive performance, behavioral compatibility,response to the adaptation process, and other factors.Only wolves that are genetically well-represented inthe remaining captive population would be used asrelease stock.
iv
Alternatives
Alternative A (the Preferred Alternative): TheU.S. Fish and wildlife Service proposes toreintroduce Mexican wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into the Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area. Wolves will be released intothe primary recovery zone and allowed to dis-perse into the secondary recovery zone. If fea-sible and necessary to achieve the recoveryobjective of 100 wolves, a subsequent reintroduc-tion of wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recov-ery Area will be conducted.
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into theprimary recovery zone of the BRWRA (Fig. 1). TheFWS will gradually release up to 15 family groupsinto the BRWRA and later, if necessary and feasible,up to five family groups into the back-up WSWRA(Fig. 1). Reproduction in the wild would increasethe populations to approximately the recoveryobjective. Wolves will be released into the primaryrecovery zone and allowed to disperse into thesecondary recovery zone.
The recovery objective of the Preferred Alterna-tive is to re-establish 100 wild wolves distributedover more than 5,000 mi2 by about the year 2005,consistent with the 1982 Mexican Wolf RecoveryPlan. The FWS projects that the population willeventually fluctuate near this level as result of naturalprocesses, such as intra-specific aggression andchanges in prey abundance and vulnerability, andmanagement actions, such as problem wolf controland translocation. The FWS and its cooperators willmonitor, research, evaluate, and actively manage thewolves, including translocating or removing wolvesthat disperse outside the wolf recovery areas or thatcause significant conflicts.
A federal regulation will designate the popula-tion to be released as experimental and nonessentialto the continued existence of the subspecies. ThisMexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule willdelineate the precise geographic boundaries (see Box1) and prescribe the protective measures andmanagement authority that apply. No formal ESASection 7 consultation would be required regardingpotential impacts of land uses on nonessentialexperimental Mexican wolves, except on NationalWildlife Refuges and National Park Service areas.
V
Summary
Reintroduction will occur under managementplans that allow dispersal by the new wolf popula-tions from the immediate release areas (“primaryrecovery zones”) into designated adjacent areas(“secondary recovery zones”) (Fig. 1). However, theFWS and cooperating agencies will not allow thewolves to establish territories outside these wolfrecovery area boundaries unless this occurs onprivate or tribal lands and the land manager does notobject. The FWS would attempt to enter intocooperative management agreements with suchlandowners regarding control of the wolves. If theland manager objects to the presence of wolves onprivate or tribal lands, field personnel would recap-ture and relocate the wolves.
The FWS and the cooperating agencies will usea flexible “adaptive management” approach based oncareful monitoring, research, and evaluationthroughout the release phase. This will includeadjusting the numbers actually released according tothe needs and circumstances at the time. Initially, toreduce the likelihood of wolf dispersal onto theWhite Mountain Apache and San Carlos Apachereservations to the west, the wolf releases will occuron the eastern side of the BRYVRA primary recoveryzone, close to the Arizona/New Mexico border. TheFWS will encourage and support the formation of aCitizen Advisory Committee, or similar manage-ment oversight body, to assist the FWS and cooper-ating agencies in responding to citizen concerns.
The following future circumstances will beconsidered in decision-making about using theWSVURA subsequent to initial releases in theBRWRA:
. whether using the WSWRA, in combinationwith the BRWRA, is necessary to achieve therecovery objective of re-establishing 100wolves; that is, it would be used if it appearsthat the initial introduction in the BRWRAwill not achieve a total population of 100wolves,
. whether, based on future research, it appearsthat the WSWRA deer herd could support awolf population that would contribute tomeeting the recovery objective, and
. other future circumstances that could affectthe feasibility of using the WSWRA, such as
Figure 1, Mexican Wolf Geographic Boundaries.
1 ARIZONA
SCALE Ii -MILES
ALBUQUERQUE
yy--JJ PRIMARY RECOVEKY LCII;I’ES
E\m SECONOARY RECOVERY ZONES
EjPOTENTIAL NATURAL RECOLONIZATION AREAS(Alternative D Only)
BIG BEND
.\NATIONAL PARK
\ h
-EXPERIMENTAL
- POPULATIONAREA BOUNDARY
‘5
TEXAS
--l‘--I ..:::.a
//-------//
Summary
Box 1. Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction (see Fig. 1).
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area: all of the Apache National Forest and all of the Gila National Forest.
BRWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the Apache National Forest bounded on the north by theApache-Greenlee County line; on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico State line; on the south by the SanFrancisco River (eastern half) and the southern boundary of the Apache National Forest (western half); and onthe west by the Greenlee-Graham County line (San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary).
BRWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the BRWRA not in the primary recovery zone.
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area: all of the White Sands Missile Range, the White Sands National Monu-ment, and the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and the area adjacent and to the west of the Missile Rangebounded on the south by the southerly boundary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Jornada ExperimentalRange and the northern boundary of the New Mexico State University Animal Science Ranch; on the west bythe New Mexico Principal Meridian; on the north by the Pedro Armendaris Grant boundary and the Sierra-Socorro County line; and on the east by the western boundary of the Missile Range.
WSWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the White Sands Missile Range bounded on the north bythe road from former Cain Ranch Headquarters to Range Road 16, Range Road 16 to its intersection withRange Road 13, Range Road 13 to its intersection with Range Road 7; on the east by Range Road 7; on thesouth by U.S. Highway 70; and on the west by the Missile Range boundary.
WSWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the WSVVRA not within the primary recovery zone.
Mexican wolf experimental population area: the portion of Arizona lying north of Interstate Highway 10
and south of Interstate Highway 40; the portion of New Mexico lying north of Interstate Highway 10 in thewest, north of the New Mexico-Texas boundary in the east, and south of Interstate Highway 40; and thatportion of Texas lying north of US Highway 621180 and south of the Texas-New Mexico boundary.
the wolf program budget, managementconcerns, future military uses of the missilerange, and so on.
The Proposed Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Rule was published in the FederalRegister on May 1, 1996 (pp. 19237-19248). Insummary, the Proposed Rule provides:
. No one will be in violation of the ESA forunavoidable and unintentional take of a wolfwithin the Mexican wolf experimentalpopulation area when the take is incidentalto a legal activity, such as driving, trapping,and military testing or training activities, andis promptly reported. Anyone may take awolf in defense of human life.
. No private or tribal land use restrictions willbe imposed for wolf recovery without theconcurrence of the private owner or tribalgovernment. On public lands, public accessand disturbance-causing land use activitiesmay be temporarily restricted within a one-mile radius around release pens, and aroundactive dens between March 1 and June 30and around active wolf rendezvous sitesbetween June 1 and September 30.
. On public lands allotted for grazing, livestockowners and their designated agents: (1) mayharass wolves for purposes of scaring themaway from livestock provided the harassmentis promptly reported, and (2) may be al-lowed to take wolves actually engaged inattacking livestock.
vii
. Permission for private parties to take wolveson public grazing lands must meet all ofthese conditions: 1) six or more breedingwolf pairs occur in the BRWRA, or three ormore breeding wolf pairs occur in theWSWRA (if used); 2) previous livestock lossor injury by wolves has been documented byan authorized FWS, ADC, or state employeeand efforts to control the offending wolveshave been undertaken but have not succeed-ed; 3) physical evidence exists that an attackoccurred at the time of the take; and 4) thetake is promptly reported.
. On private or tribally-owned land, regardlessof location, property owners and livestockowners and their designated agents mayharass wolves near livestock, people, build-ings, facilities, pets, or other domesticanimals at any time and may take wolvesattacking livestock under more liberalconditions than those applicable to publicgrazing lands. That is, such take can occurregardless of the number of recovered wolfpairs in the area and no requirement existsfor government agencies to have completedtheir efforts to take the depredating wolves.However, physical evidence that an attackoccurred at the time of the take must bepresent and the take must be promptlyreported.
. Any FWS-authorized person may captureand remove or translocate reintroducedwolves consistent with a FWS-approvedmanagement plan or special managementmeasure. These may include wolves that: (1)prey on livestock, (2) attack domestic ani-mals other than livestock on private land, (3)impact game populations in ways which mayinhibit further wolf recovery, (4) prey onstate-endangered desert bighorn sheep onthe White Sands Missile Range (if used), (5)are considered problem wolves, are a nui-sance, or endanger themselves by theirpresence in a military impact area, or (6) arenecessary for research.
. The FWS does not intend to change the“nonessential experimental” designation to
Summary
“‘essential experimental” or “endangered” andthe FWS does not intend to designatecritical habitat for the Mexican wolf.
. Any taking of a wolf contrary to the experi-mental population rule may be referred tothe appropriate authorities for prosecution.
Post-release management will follow an inter-agency cooperative management plan. This willinclude working with the Arizona Game and FishDepartment to meet the requirements of itsCooperative Reintroduction Plan and working withthe New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Awolf management team representing the FWS, theState Game and Fish departments, and othercooperating agencies will determine whether particu-lar actions are necessary. The interagency manage-ment plan will cover issues such as release pen siting,veterinary management, depredation control,capture and relocation, research, radio tracking,aerial overflights, prey monitoring, and prey habitatmanagement. Field staffwill conduct monitoringand research, trapping, depredation investigation,mortality investigation, control, and other on-the-ground actions.
Alternative B: Reintroduction of Mexicanwolves, classified as nonessential experimental,into both the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Areaand the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area pri-mary recovery zones. Wolves dispersing from theprimary recovery zones will be captured andreturned to the primary zones or captivity.
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into boththe BRWRA and the WSWRA primary recoveryzones and actively prevent the populations fromexpanding beyond these zones (Fig. 1). In theBRYVRA primary recovery zone the FWS will releaseabout eight family groups over four years with thegoal of reaching a population of 20 wild wolves by200 1. In the WSWRA primary recovery zone theFWS will release about four family groups over twoyears with the goal of reaching a population of 14wild wolves by 1999. The total recovery objectivewill be 34 wolves.
. .VII1
Summary
be takings to protect human life or by special permit“for scientific purposes or to enhance the propaga-tion or survival of the affected species,” 16 USC sec.1539(a)(l)(A).
Land use restrictions could be imposed underthis alternative. Restrictions could include limitingthe use of predator control methods that might killor injure wolves, closing roads, modifying livestockgrazing, and imposing other protections to limit anyjeopardy resulting from human activities. Otherfederal agencies would be expected to pursue theirresponsibilities under the ESA to conserve, and notharm, a recolonizing population. This would includemanaging to maintain and create high qualityungulate and wolf habitat.
The FWS will designate the population asnonessential experimental under the ESA. The FWSwill adopt basically the same Mexican Wolf Experi-mental Population Rule as under Ah. A, but itwould apply to the smaller areas. The FWS and itscooperators will follow the same release, monitoring,and management procedures as under Ah. A, but ona smaller scale due to the smaller areas involved.Control will be accomplished through a combi-nation of aggressive monitoring and managementmethods to promptly recapture wolves that leave theprimary recovery zones. Wolves could be translo-cated between the two areas as needed.
Alternative C: Reintroduction of Mexicanwolves, classified as endangered, into the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area only. Wolves will bereleased into the primary recovery zone andunlimited dispersal will be allowed. Wolves willreceive full protection under the EndangeredSpecies Act.
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves under theircurrent full-endangered status into the primaryrecovery zone of the BRWRA in east-central Ari-zona, following the same release procedures as underAlt.s A and B. The FWS will gradually release up to15 family groups into the BRWRA. No releases willoccur in the WSWRA. The recovery objective of thealternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolves dis-tributed over more than 5,000 mi2 by about the year2002, consistent with the Mexican Wolf RecoveryPlan. The FWS and its cooperators will monitor andconduct research on the wolves, but they will notactively manage them.
The ESA allows unrestricted dispersal; that is,the FWS will not restrict the population to thedesignated wolf recovery areas, as under AlternativeA, or to the smaller primary recovery zones, as underAlternative B. No attempts will be made to recaptureor return wolves with the possible exception ofindividual depredators.
The wolves will have the full protection against“take” by humans provided by the ESA. Anyonewho would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt toengage in any such conduct” against a Mexican wolfwill be violating the ESA. The only exceptions will
Alternative D: No Action
Under the No Action alternative, the FWS will takeno action other than continuing its present course. Itwill neither release wolves nor take any other steps todirectly ensure Mexican wolf recovery. The FWS willneither adopt an experimental population rule nordesignate any wolf recovery areas. The agency willcontinue to support the captive population objec-tives established in the SSP Master Plan, but theagency will not support breeding for maximumgrowth.
Based on its current ESA obligations, the FWSwould still encourage protection and expansion ofwild wolf populations under this alternative, if anywere discovered. No evidence exists to indicate alikelihood of natural recolonization in U.S. portionsof the historic Mexican wolf range, but the FWS willsupport continued research on this possibility. Natu-ral recolonization is considered extremely specula-tive. Based on historical wolf abundance, recentsighting reports alleged to be wolves, proximity toMexico, and other factors, the most suitable areas forpotential natural recolonization by wild wolvesprobably would be the mountainous parts of south-eastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, andBig Bend National Park in southern Texas. Thisalternative analyzes these three areas. No confirmedsighting reports have come from these areas or fromMexico in recent years.
Any wolves that did naturally recolonize wouldbe fully protected as an endangered species in theUnited States. It would be illegal to harm or harass
ix
them except under very narrow circumstancesauthorized by an ESA permit.
Land use restrictions could be imposed underthis alternative depending on if, and where, wolvesoccurred. Restrictions could include limiting the useof predator control methods that might kill or injurewolves, closing roads, modifying livestock grazing,and imposing other protections to limit any jeopar-dy resulting from human activities. Other federalagencies would be expected to pursue theirresponsibilities under the ESA to conserve, and notharm, a recolonizing population. This would include
Summary
managing to maintain and create high qualityungulate and wolf habitat.
Impacts
Table 1 summarizes the features of the four alterna-tives. Table 2 outlines their projected environmentalconsequences. The FEIS provides detailed explana-tions of the impacts, descriptions of the methods ofimpact analysis, and supporting references.
Summary
Table 1. Summary of Mexican wolf re-establishment alternatives.
I&Y: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
Description Areas Analyzed
DefiniteBoundaries
AroundRecovery
Areas?
Endangered
Species ActProtection
Status
Area WolfPopulation Goal
Estimated Area tobe Occupied
by Wolves(square miles)
Alternative
Nonessential experi-mental releases allow-
ing dispersal intoqccondary r0zovek-y
zones; BR first,
WS back-up
BR and WSprimary and
secondary
recovery zones
Nonessential experi-
mental releases
preventing dispersal
froni primary zones
BR and WS pri-
mary recover)
zones only
li&dscs under full BR only plus likely
ESA protection dispersal areas
No releases; research
and support possible
nau1ral recolonization
Southeastern
Arizona, South-
western New
Mexico, and Big
Bend National
Park, Texas
YCS Per cxperi-
mental popu-
lation rule
RR and WS
(if used):
Total - 100
HR and WS
(if used):
Total - 5,000A
(PreferredAlternative)
Yes Per experi-
mental popu-
larioli rule
w s - 1 4
HR - 20‘l‘oral - 34
ws 72.0
13R - 1,000
Total 1 , 7 2 0
N o Endangered BR - 100-1 BR - >5,000
N o Endangered
(if wolves
discovered)
(speculative)
SE. Ariz. - 30
S W N M - 2 0
Big Bend NP - 5
Total - 55
(speculative)
.\E Ariz. - 1,500
SW NM - 1,000 Big
Bend
N P - 250l’otal 2 . 7 5 0
Meets 1982Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan’sPopulationObjective?
EstimatedYears to
Reach AreaPopulation
Goal
(continued below)(continued below)
Estimated AnnualPercentage of Major
Intensity TotalTotal
Established Population Land Useof Wolf EstimatedEstimated
Lost to Control and RestrictionsManagement ImplementationImplementation
Other Factors ’and Control costs2costs2
Alternative
B R Yes
W S - N o
‘fogerher Y e s
WS N o
BR - No
I‘ogether - No
BR-9
ws-3
ws-3B R - 5
BR - 35%
ws -250/o
ws-30%BR - 40%
N o n e
None
Medium
High
$7,247x000(over 14 years)
$5,890,000(over 10 years)
A
(PreferredAlternative)
B
B R Y e s B R - 6 RR - 25% Some
possible
Low $5,692,000(over 10 years)
S E Aria. N o
SW NM - No
Big Bend NP - No
Together - No
Decades
(speculative)
No estimates Some
possible
(if wolves
discovered)
Low $150,000 to
$217,000 per
year (period
indeterminate)
c:
D
’ In addition, .tbout one-third of rhe captive-raised wolves thar are released annually are expected to quickly die, disappear,
disperse from the recovery area, or to require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and not to become part of the established population.
‘See Appendix B for cost accounting.
xi
Summary
Table 2. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative.
Notes: Chap. 4 provides background for all information summarized here. All impacts in the back-up White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under Alt. A
depend on wherhrr the area IL used. ‘I&is table emphasizes quantifiable adverse impacts and is nor a cost-benefit summary. Monetary lo~scs are 111 1994
dollars.
Key: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
Alternative
Net impact of wolfrecovery on wildprey populations
(low to high range)’
Impact on annual Annual lost valuehunter take in area of hunting(low to high range)’ (low to high range)l
Annual lost hunter Number of cattleexpenditures in region killed annually (low
(low to high range)l to high range)
131~: 4,x00- I (J,OOO
fewi:I- deer;
1 ,LOO- 1 ,‘)OO fewer elk
w s : 1.200-3,000fewer deer
RR: 17(1- 1.9OrI fewer
Bdeer; 230. .I50 fewer elk
w s : 760-2,000
fewer deer
13K: 300-560 fewer
deer; i 2O-2OO‘fewer elk
WS: 1 O-24 fewer deer
11R: 57- 1 10 fewer deer:
24-3.5 fewer elk
WS: 5-1 1 fewer deer
BR: $716,800- BK: $579 lOO- UK: l-.34
$ I ,336,600 51,079.;00
w s : $3,000-$7.100 WS: 52,900-$7,000 ws: 0.0 l-O.3
RR: $123,100- BK: $58,200- 131~: 0.0.3-I$214,800 PlOl,iOO
w s : $1,500-$3,300 WS: $1,500-$3,200 ws: 0
r BK: 3,700-8,800 fewerLI
deer: X70-1.700
fewer elk
BR: 240-480 fewer
deer; 90-l 50 fewer elk
BR: $582,800- RR: $470,700- 1SK: 1 .)4
$1,119,200 $902.700
II; / not modelled not modelled
(none 111 Big Bend NI’)
not modelled not modclled ,101 csrlnlmxi (no11c
(none in Big Bend N I’) (none in Big Bend Nl’) 111 Big Bend X 1’)
’ 1,igurcs give11 compare p~cy populatlorls under the wolf reintroduction scenario, at a point 111 rime five years after the wolf population goal fc>r the
uea 1s dchievcd, io whdt rhe prey populations .trc projected to he if wolves are nor reintroduced,
‘l‘hese figure> likely overstate the actual losses. Hunterc may not actually hunt less overall because of fewer deer and elk in the wolf recovery areas,
but instead rum their .i[tention to \ubstitutc areas or hpccies. Further, deer and elk hunting in Arizona and NKW Mexico are dominaccd by resident
hunters. Most octhe mane)’ not spenr by residents as hunrcr expenditures in rhe region probably will be spent in some other sector of rhc state
economy.
’ All projected impacts in the porenrl.J natural recolonization areas are speculative.
(continued on next page)
xii
Table 2. Continued.
Summary
Value of cattle
killed annually
(low to high
range)*
Economicbenefits
Impacts on
A D C
activities
Impacts on Impacts on landi
government use and militarympacts o n
rccreatlonpolicies and plans activitiesAlternative
BK: $640.
$21,61)0HR: increased
recreational use
value and
expenditures
BR: M-44 and
neck snare
resrrictions;
limits on
other tools
WS: little
impact
BR: conflict with
local ordinances
BR: mmor ~CCCSS
rcsrrictions near
pens, dens. and
rendezvous sites
BK: Increabcd
visitation
A
(Preferred Ah.) WS:
B 1 O-$200WS: little
impact
WS: limited con-
flict with local
ordinances
WS: very limited
access restrictions;
inconvenience
I& xcurlt)
admlnisrration
BR: minor access
restrictions near
pfm, dens, a n d
rendezvous sites
WS: little
impact
BR:
$20-$600BR: limited in-
creased
rccrcational use
value and
expenditures
BR: limited
M-44 and
neck snare
rest]-ictions;
limits 011 other
rools
WS: no impact
UK: 110 conflict BR: limited
Ilrcl-cxd
visiration
B
ws: $0 WS: no impact w s : I10 c011f11ct WS: very limited
access restrictions;
inconvenience for
security admu-
isr TatIon
BR: access restric-
tions near pens,
den&, and rendez-
vous sites; restric-
tions on grazing
and other activities
WS: 110 Impact
BR: $640.
$21,600BR: increased
recreational use
value and
expenditures
RR: M-44 and
neck snare
restrictions;
limits on
other tools
BR: conflict with
local ordinances;
potential conflict
with San Carlos
and White Moun-
tain Apaches’ tribal
sovereignty
All 3 areas: no
conflict
BK: Increased
visitation
C
not estimated
(none in Big
Bend N I’)
All 3 areas:
increased
recreational use
value and
expenditures
All 3 areas: M-
44 and neck
snare restric-
tions; limits on
orher tools
All 3 areas: access
restrictions near
ptm, dens, and
rcndezvons sites;
rc,trictions o n
grazing and other
activities
All 3 areas:
irlcl-ca5cd
\,lsir;IlioIl
D’
’ Livestock losses may be compensated by a private depredation compensation fund.
. .Xl11
Table of Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~......................... IXSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.......................................................................~......................... x
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ l - l
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ l - l
Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. l - l
Overview of the Mexican Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 2
Environmental Impact Statement Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... l - 7
Alternatives and Impact Questions Raised in Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7
Alternatives and Impact Questions Addressed in this FEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 7
Alternatives and Impact Questions not Addressed in this FEIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l- 10
Permits and Clearances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 1 2
Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed ActionIntroduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 - I
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program ............................................................................................... 2 - l
The Soft Release Approach ................................................................................................................. 2 - l
Selection of Potential Areas for Releasing Mexican Wolves .............................................................. 2 -2
Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................................. 2 -5
Actions Associated with the Alternative ........................................................................................... 2 -5
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 2- 16
Summary of Alternative A .............................................................................................................. 2 - 1 7
Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................... 2 - 1 8
Actions Associated with the Alternative ......................................................................................... 2 - 1 6
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 2-21
Summary of Alternative B .............................................................................................................. 2-21
Alternative C ......................................................................................................................................... 2 -21
Actions Associated with the Alternative ......................................................................................... 2- 18
Mitigation Measures ....................................................................................................................... 2 - 2 3
Summary o f Alternative C .............................................................................................................. 2 - 2 3
Alternative D ......................................................................................................................................... 2 - 2 4
Actions Associated with the Alternative ........................................................................................... 2 -21
Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................................... 2 - 2 7
Summary of Alternative D ................................................................................................................ 2 - 2 7
Comparison o f the Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 2 - 2 7
Chapter 3: Affected EnvironmentsIntroduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3 - l
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... 3 - l
Geography ......................................................................................................................................... 3 - l
Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 3 - l
Water.. ................................................................................................................................................ 3 - 4
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 3 - 4
xiv
Table of Contents
Animals .............................................................................................................................................. 3 - 4Land ownership and management ...................................................................................................... 3 - 8Agency and local government plans and policies ............................................................................... 3 - 9Land development ............................................................................................................................. 3 - 1 0Livestock grazing ............................................................................................................................... 3 - l 1Forestry .............................................................................................................................................. 3-l 1Mining and other natural resource extraction .................................................................................. 3 - 1 2Public access and recreation .............................................................................................................. 3 - 1 3Regional economy, employment and population ............................................................................. 3 - 1 3
Likely Dispersal Areas Associated with the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ..................................... 3 - 1 4San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Reservations ................................................................... 3 - 1 4
History of wolves ............................................................................................................................ 3 - 1 4San Carlos Apache Reservation ........................................................................................................ 3 - 1 6White Mountain Apache Reservation .............................................................................................. 3 - 1 9Lakeside Ranger District, Sitgreaves National Forest ...................................................................... 3 - 2 4San Mateo Mountains Unit o f Cibola National Forest.. ................................................................. 3-25
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... 3 -25Geography ........................................................................................................................................... 3 - 2 5Climate ................................................................................................................................................ 3 - 2 7Water ................................................................................................................................................... 3 - 2 7Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 3 - 2 9Animals ................................................................................................................................................ 3 - 2 9Land ownership and management ...................................................................................................... 3 - 3 3Land development ............................................................................................................................... 3 - 3 3Livestock grazing ................................................................................................................................. 3 - 3 5Mining and other natural resource extraction.. .................................................................................. 3 -35Military activities ................................................................................................................................ 3-3 5Public access and recreation ................................................................................................................ 3-36Regional economy, employment and population ............................................................................... 3 - 3 6
White Sands National Monument ....................................................................................................... 3 - 3 6Jornada Experimental Range ................................................................................................................ 3 - 3 7The Potential Natural Recolonization Areas ........................................................................................ 3 - 3 8
Southeastern Arizona ........................................................................................................................ 3 - 3 8Coronado National Forest South of Interstate 10 ......................................................................... 3 - 3 8Coronado National Memorial ........................................................................................................ 3 - 4 5Chiricahua National Monument .................................................................................................... 3 - 4 5Fort Huachuca ................................................................................................................................. 3 - 4 6
Southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................................................... 3 - 4 7Big Bend National Park .................................................................................................................... 3 - 5 0
Chapter 4: Environmental ConsequencesIntroduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 - l
Consequences of Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) ....................................................................... 4 - 2Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area ......................................................................................................... 4 - 2
Impacts on wild prey of wolves ....................................................................................................... 4 - 2Impacts on hunting .......................................................................................................................... 4 - 4
Impacts on livestock ........................................................................................................................ 4 - 4
Impacts on predator control programs ......................................................................................... 4 - 1 0Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans ........................................... 4 - 1 0
Table of Contents
Impacts on land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..................................................................................................~... 4 - 1 2Impacts on recreation .,...........~..................................................................................................~... 4 - 1 2
Regional economic impacts ..I.I.......................,..........................................................................~... 4 - 1 2White Sands Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -15
Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 15Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 15Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...................................................................................................... 4 - 1 5Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-I 7Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17Impacts on military activities and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1 7Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . ..~..~...................................................................................................... 4 - 1 8Regional economic impacts ..* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 18
Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative A in the BRWRA and the WSWRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19Short-term and Long-term Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1 9Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments o f Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 0
Consequences of Alternative B . . ..~...................................................................................................... 4 - 2 3Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area Primary Recovery Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 3
Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 3Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.~...................................................................................................... 4 - 2 3Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . ..~........................................................................................................ 4 - 2 3Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -25Impacts on agency and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 5Impacts on land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -25Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . ..‘.~...................................................................................................... 4 - 2 5Regional economic impacts . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 5
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area Primary Recovery Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 7Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 7Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8Impacts on agency and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8Impacts on military activities and land use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8Regional economic impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8
Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative B in theBRWRA and WSWRA Primary Recovery Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 8
Short-term and Long-term Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.............. 4 - 2 9Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 2 9Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3 0
Consequences o f Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3 0Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3 0Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3 0
Impacts on wild prey of wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 3 0Impacts on hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~............. 4 -31Impacts on livestock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -31Impacts on predator control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~............. 4 -31Impacts on agency, tribal, and local government policies and plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..“.............4 -31Impacts on land use . . . . . . . .._............................................................................................... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-33Impacts on recreation . . . . . . . . . . . ..~...................................................................................................... 4 - 3 3
Table of Contents
Regional economic impacts ........................................................................................................... 4 - 3 4Impacts in Likely Dispersal Areas ................................................................................................. 4 - 3 4Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative C .............................................................................. 4 - 3 7Short-term and Long-term Effects ............................................................................................... 4 - 3 7Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ........................................................... 4 - 3 8Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................................ 4 - 3 8
Consequences o f Alternative D ........................................................................................................... 4 - 3 9Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4 - 3 9The Potential Natural Recolonization Areas .................................................................................... 4 - 3 9
Southeastern Arizona ..................................................................................................................... 4 - 3 9Southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................................................ 4 -41Big Bend National Park ................................................................................................................. 4 - 4 2
Summary of Adverse Effects of Alternative D in the Three PotentialNatural Recolonization Areas ......................................................................................................... 4 - 4 3
Short-term and Long-term Effects ................................................................................................... 4 - 4 3Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .............................................................. 4 - 4 3Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................................ 4 - 4 4
Chapter 5: Consultation and CoordinationDevelopment of the Proposal and Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements ................... .5-lAgencies, Organizations, and Persons Sent the DEIS for Review ....................................................... 5 - 2List o f Preparers .................................................................................................................................... 5 - 6Agency, Government, Tribal, and Legislator Comments on the DEIS
with Fish and Wildlife Service Responses ........................................................................................ 5 - l 1Public Comment Summary with Fish and Wildlife Service Responses ............................................ 5 -80
AppendicesAppendix A: Mexican Gray Wolf Life History and Ecology.. .......................................................... A - lAppendix B: Projected Costs of Implementing the Alternatives ...................................................... B - lAppendix C: Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule ............................................ c - 1Appendix D: Section 7 Consultation on Proposed Action ............................................................... D - lAppendix E: Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Twelve-Step
Procedure for Reestablishment of Nongame and Endangered Species ........................................... E - lAppendix F: Background Information on Livestock Depredation Projections ............................... F - lAppendix G: Glossary ........................................................................................................................ G - lAppendix H: Literature Cited.. .......................................................................................................... H - lAppendix I: List of Scientific Names ................................................................................................. I - lAppendix J: Update on Yellowstone and Central Idaho Gray Wolf
Reintroductions and Economic Benefits of Wolf Recovery.. ......................................................... J - lAppendix K: Response to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on the DEIS .......................................... K - l
xvii
List of Tables and Boxes
Table l-l. Most common questions raised during public scopingand their treatment in this final environmental impact statement ..I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 8
Table 2- 1. Suitability rankings of candidate areas for releasingMexican wolves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I.~.I...........................*.................................................................................. 2 - 4
Box 2 - l . Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Table 2-2. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goalafter releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area undernonessential experimental classification (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 8
Table 2-3. Projected wolf population growth to recovery areagoals after releases into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Areaunder nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-l 0
Table 2-4. Projected wolf population growth to recovery areagoal after releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Areaunder nonessential experimental classification with restricteddispersal (Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1 9
Table 2-5. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goalafter releases into the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area undernonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal(Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..L.............................................................................................................. 2 - 2 0
Table 2-6. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goalafter releases into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area with fullEndangered Species Act protection (Alternative C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 2
Table 2-7. Summary of Mexican wolf re-establishment alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 8Table 2-8. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 2 9
Table 3-l. Average harvests, numbers of hunters, and success ratesin the general BRWRA area, 1988-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 8
Table 3-2. Approximate predator densities, 1993-94, and totalpredators taken by ADC, 1987-9 1, in Arizona portion of ApacheNational Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 3-9
Box 3-l. General description of southwestern cattle ranching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Table 3-3. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Blue Rangewolf recovery area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 3-l 5
Table 3-4. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Blue Rangewolf recovery area, primary recovery zone only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Table 3-5. Game densities on San Carlos Apache Reservation,1993-94 estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ D.. 3-18
Table 3-6. San Carlos game permits, harvest, and hunter successfor tribal members and non-members, and fee revenue for non-member permit sales, 1993-94 hunt year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ~..3-18
Table 3-7. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for the SanCarlos Apache Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..........0.. 3 - 2 0
Table 3-8. Population estimates, densities, and estimated habitatareas of potential wolf prey species on the White MountainApache Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~..0.......~.. 3-21
. . .xv111
List of Tables and Boxes
Table 3-9. White Mountain Apache Reservation non-member huntingrevenues for 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n a........... 0 . . . . n . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..r.. I .,....................... I . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 - 2 2
Table 3-10. White Mountain Apache Reservation livestock lossesreported to APHIS-ADC, 1990-92 ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...=..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Table 3-l 1. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for the WhiteMountain Apache Reservation . . . . . . . ..“.....................................................~............................................... 3 - 2 4
Table 3-12. Average annual temperatures for White Sands MissileRange, New Mexico ~.......“................~...,................................................................................................. 3 - 2 9
Table 3-13. Population estimates of ungulate prey species for theWSWRA, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=..................................................................................................... 3 - 3 0
Table 3-14. Oryx population estimates for the WSWRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31
Table 3-15. Average annual mule deer harvest, White Sands MissileRange, 1989-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 3-32
Table 3- 16. Average annual pronghorn and oryx harvest, WhiteSands Missile Range, 1986-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...“.... 3-33
Table 3-17. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for White Sandswolf recovery area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 3 - 3 7
Table 3-l 8. Number and density of potential wild prey of wolvesin Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43
Table 3-19. Predator population estimates and densities inArizona Game and Fish Department management units correspondingto Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44
Table 3-20. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for southeasternArizona potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46
Table 3-21. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for southwesternN e w M e x i c o potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5 1
Table 3-22. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Big BendNational Park potential natural recolonization area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54
Box 4-l. Modelling Mexican wolf impacts on prey populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Table 4- 1. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA underAlternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................4-5
Box 4-2. Calculating Mexican wolf impacts on hunting and associatedeconomic values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 4 - 6
Box 4-3. Projecting rates of Mexican wolf livestock depredation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
Table 4-2. Mean livestock depredation rates from northernstudy areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................4-8
Table 4-3. Number and percentage of cattle available projectedto be killed annually by Mexican wolves after achievementof recovery area goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4-9
Table 4-4. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRAunder Ah. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................4-9
Table 4-5. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economicvalue and expenditures in region five years after achievementof recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 13
Table 4-6. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years afterachievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA underAlternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ............. 4-16
xix
List of Tables and Boxes
Table 4-7. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs afterachievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA under Ah. A. ..~.......‘....,.......................................... 4 - 1 6
Table 4-8. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economicvalue and expenditures in region five years after achievementof recovery area goals in the WSW’RA under Alternative A . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 19
Table 4-9. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primaryrecovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
Table 4-10. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primaryrecovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
Table 4-l 1. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economicvalue and expenditures in region ftve years after achievementof recovery area goals in the BRWRA primary recovery zoneunder Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 4-26
Table 4-12. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five yearsafter achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA primaryrecovery zone under Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-27
Table 4-13. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economicvalue and expenditures in region five years after achievementof recovery area goals in the WSWRA primary recovery zoneunder Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 4-29
Table 4-14. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWXA underAlternative C .,.......................................................................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
Table 4-15. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs afterachievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Ah. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32
Table 4-16. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economicvalue and expenditures in region five years after achievementof recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alt. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34
Table 5-L. How people commented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-83
Table F-l. Low range of estimated annual number of cattle killedafter Mexican wolf re-establishment based on comparisonwith Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-4
Table F-2. High range of estimated annual number of cattle killedafter Mexican wolf re-establishment based on comparisonwith Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5
xx
List of Figures
Fig. 1. Mexican Wolf Geographic Boundaries . ..*. _ . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘.... -.< . . . . . . . . . . L. . ..< . . . . . . . . . vi
Fig. l - l . Approximate historic range of the Mexican wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l - 4Fig. l-2. Wolves reported taken by federal and state cooperative
hunters in Arizona and New Mexico, fiscal years 1916through 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~.O.........................................................................~................................ l - 6
Fig. 2-l. Five candidate areas for releasing Mexican wolves ........................................................................ 2-3Fig. 2-2. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.. ................................................................................................. 2-5Fig. 2-3. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area ................................................................................................. 2-9Fig. 2-4. Mexican wolf geographic boundaries ......................................................................................... 2- 13Fig. 2-5. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas,
southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico ............................................................................. 2-25Fig. 2-6. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization area,
Big Bend National Park, Texas ............................................................................................................... 2-26
Fig. 3-l. Affected areas under Alternatives A, B, and C in theBRWRA region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -..(.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......3-2
Fig. 3-2. Affected areas under Alternatives A and B in theWSWRA region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 3-3
Fig. 3-3. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Fig. 3-4. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27Fig. 3-5. White Sands Missile Range extension areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Fig. 3-6. Impact areas and range centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34Fig. 3-7. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas,
southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Fig. 3-8. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization area,Big Bend National Park, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
xxi
Chapter 1
Purpose and Need for Action
CHAPTER 1Pumose and Need For Action
Introduction
This final environmental impact statement (FEIS)addresses the reintroduction of the endangeredMexican gray wolf (Ciznis lupus baileyz], a subspecies ofthe gray wolf, within part of its historic range in thesouthwestern United States. Formerly found inmany of the mountainous areas of the Southwestand Mexico, the Mexican wolf has been extirpatedfrom the United States and may have been extirpat-ed from Mexico, where it has not been confirmed toexist since the early 1980’s. The only known Mexi-can wolves reside in captivity in a breeding programoverseen by the United States Department of Inte-rior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Region 2,headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, incooperation with Mexican authorities.
This chapter begins with a discussion of thepurpose and need for the reintroduction actionproposed by the FWS. Then, an overview descrip-tion of the Mexican wolf is provided. The publicscoping process that helped define the issues to becovered in the draft environmental impact statement(DEIS), then in this FEIS, is then reviewed. Chap. 1
concludes with a list of the various permits andapprovals that may be needed to implement adecision arising out of this federal environmentalimpact assessment process.
Purpose
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, adoptedunder rhe authority of the Endangered Species Act(ESA), has two prime recovery objectives: maintain-ing a captive population and re-establishing at least100 wild wolves in a 5,000 mi’ area within thesubspecies’ historic range (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team1982).‘Th p pe ur ose of the proposed action (Alter-
native A, now designated as the Preferred Alternative)in this FEIS is to begin implementing the re-estab-lishment objective of the Recovery Plan by releasingMexican wolves from the captive population into thewild.
Commencing in 1997, or as soon thereafter aspractical, the FWS will gradually release up to 15pairs or family groups into the Blue Range area ofeast-central Arizona. Also, if it is determined to benecessary and feasible, up to five pairs or familygroups may be released into the back-up area, theWhite Sands Missile Range of south-central NewMexico. The objective is to re-establish 100 wildMexican wolves distributed over 5,000 mi’ by theyear 2005. The FWS and cooperating agencies willclosely monitor and study the reintroduced wolves.Management of the reintroduction will be constantlyevaluated and adapted as new circumstances arise.
This proposal represents the beginning of recoveryfor the Mexican wolf in the wild within a small part ofits former range and the proposal contributes toconservation of the gray wolf species as a whole. Fullrecovery of the Mexican wolf subspecies likely willrequire additional reintroduction projects elsewhereand may take several decades to accomplish.2 Fullrecovery is beyond the scope of this EIS.
Need
The FWS is acting under the ESA, which directs theSecretary of Interior to develop and implementrecovery plans for species and subspecies such as theMexican wolf that are in danger of human-causedextinction, 16 USC sec. 1533(f). The FWS alsoagreed to make “expeditious” progress toward Mexi-can wolf recovery under a 1993 settlement of alawsuit filed by several private groups that advocatewolf recovery.3
‘Written materials relied on in this EIS are cited by the author’s last name and the year of publication. Full citations are pro-vided alphabetically in Appendix H.
‘Downlisting and delisting would occur after meeting population and other recovery criteria to be defined in a revised MexicanWolf Recovery Plan, currently in the revision process. Complete restoration throughout the subspecies’ former range is neitherrequired nor planned.
3 WolfAction Group, et al. u United States, et aL, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Civil Action No. CIV-90-0390-HB.
l - l
Other federal agencies are required by the ESA totake actions within their authority to conserve threat-ened and endangered species, 16 USC sec. 153 1 (c) ( 1).
This is to be done in consultation with the FWS, 16USC sec. 1536(a)( 1). States that have entered intocooperative agreements with the Secretary of Interior,which include Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, alsohave responsibilities to conserve threatened andendangered species, 16 USC sec. 1535. The State ofNew Mexico has its own endangered wildlife law thatprovides for conservation of listed species includingthe gray wolf, the Wildlife Conservation Act (Sets.17-2-37 through 17-2-46, NMSA 1978) and StateGame Commission Regulation No. 682 (Amendingthe Listing of Endangered Species and Subspecies ofNew Mexico 1990). Arizona’s Game and Fish Depart-ment also has a policy supporting endangered speciesrecovery (AGFD 1987). The Department has drafteda “Cooperative Reintroduction Plan for the MexicanWolf in Arizona” that calls for a joint reintroductioneffort with the FWS in the Blue Range area (Groebneret al. 1995).
Additional duties to recover the Mexican wolfarise from international law. Both Mexico and theUnited States signed the Convention on NatureProtection and Wildlife Preservation in the WesternHemisphere, which took effect in 1942. Its preamblestates the parties desire “to protect and preserve intheir natural habitat representatives of all species andgenera of their native flora and fauna.” Mexican wolfrecovery would serve to implement this convention(anon. 1985).
Recovery programs for the gray wolf are underwayelsewhere in the United States; however, they involveless rare subspecies. Experts have rated recovery of theMexican wolf subspecies as the highest priority of allsuch programs.4 The subspecies is genetically distinctfrom other wolves (Wayne et al. 1992), and noconfirmed population exists outside captivity. It is oneof the rarest land mammals in the world.
Purpose and Need for Action
Overview of the Mexican Wolf
Description
The Mexican wolf is among the smallest of the NorthAmerican gray wolves. Adults weigh 50 to 90 Ibs.,average 4’6” to 5’6” in total length, and reach 26” to32” in height at the shoulder (Young and Goldman1944, Brown 1983). Its pelt color varies. The“lobe”-its popular name-is the southernmostsubspecies of what once was the most wide-rangingspecies of the North American mammals (Paradisoand Nowak 1982).
Appendix A summarizes what is known aboutMexican wolf life history and ecology. However,little scientific research was done while the animalexisted in the wild. The only field data came from aperiod of rapidly dwindling numbers when humanactivities had disrupted pack structures and naturalprey populations.
Taxonomy
Hall and Kelson (1959), relying heavily on the priorwork of Young and Goldman (1944), described 24subspecies of gray wolves (Cdnis lupus) in NorthAmerica, five of which occurred in the southwesternUnited States and Mexico: C’. 1. buif$yi, C. 1.mogollonensis, C. 1. monstrabilis, C. 1. nub&, and C.1. youngi. A taxonomic revision proposed by Boganand Mehlhop (1980 and 1983), and adopted by theMexican Wolf Recovery Team and the FWS (Mex.Wolf Rec. Team 1982, USFWS 1984), lumped C. 1.mogoiionensis and C. 1. monstrabiiis into C. 1. baikty’.In a recent reclassification of North American graywolves, Nowak (1995) proposed reducing theoriginal 24 named subspecies to five, of which C. 1.baileyi is one. However, Nowak’s reclassificationdiffers from that proposed by Bogan and Mehlhopin that Nowak includes C. 1. mogoffonensis and C. 1.monstrabilis with C. 1. nub&s rather than with C. 1.baileyi. It should be noted that no individual taxono-mist or publication has official or ruling status onquestions of mammalian taxonomy.
*The Wolf Specialist Group, a worldwide body of experts on wolves organized under the International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature (the World Conservation Union), Species Survival Commission, has endorsed Mexican wolf recovery “as its highestpriority project” (Mech 1990).
1-2
The classifications proposed by Hall and Kelson(1959), Bogan and Mehlhop (1980), and Nowak(I 995) were based on comparisons of morphologicalcharacteristics, primarily skull measurements. Theyall concluded that C 1. badqi is a morphologicallydistinct subspecies of gray wolf. Molecular geneticanalyses have identified distinct attributes of Mexicanwolves (Garcia-Moreno 1995, Hedrick 1995, seeAppendix K). Thus, consensus exists among expertsthat C. 1. baifqi is a distinct gray wolf subspecies.However, the lingering question of which of theformerly recognized subspecies (Hall and Kelson1959) belong to C. 1. bailqi continues to confuse thedelineation of the Mexican wolf’s historic distribu-tion.
Historic Distribution
As indicated above, the drafters of the originalMexican Wolf Recovery Plan accepted therecommendations of Bogan and Mehlhop (1980)
and included the ranges of the former C. 1.mogollonensis and C 1. monstrabilis in the range of C.1. badeyi (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). However, inNowak’s (1995) opinion, the original core geo-graphic range of C. 1. bailqi extended just north ofthe Gila River, which bisects the Gila NationalForest. This brings into question the taxonomicaffinity of specimens collected from the Gila Na-tional Forest area (Nowak 1995). Nowak does notdescribe the limits of the northeastern portion of hisproposed range for the Mexican wolf, but the line onhis map appears to bisect White Sands Missile Rangethen turns southeast through western Texas andenters Mexico just east of Big Bend National Park.Nowak (1995) speculates that individuals from thecore geographic range of C. 1. baileyi regularlydispersed into the range of populations to the north.He found that, following the large-scale extermina-tion of wolves in the southwestern U.S., the lateroccurrence of wolves in these areas was attributableto C. 1. baileyi dispersing from Mexico (Nowak
1995).In reality, the boundaries between ranges of
adjacent gray wolf subspecies were wide zones ofintergradation where genetic mixing between subspe-cies occurred, rather than distinct lines on a map
Purpose and Need for Action
(Mech 1970, Brewster and Fritts 1994). The width ofthese zones relates to the ability of wolves to disperse.They are capable of dispersing hundreds of miles, withthe longest known dispersal exceeding 550 miles(Fritts 1983). Thus for gray wolves, these zones ofsubspecies intergradation were likely hundreds of mileswide.
In light of these considerations, the MexicanWolf Recovery Team has determined that the prob-able historic range of the Mexican wolf included thecore geographic range of C. 1. baifqi, plus anapproximately 200-mile extension to the north andnorthwest of that area (Fig. l-l) (D. Parsons,USFWS, pers. comm.). This range delineationincludes the core range of C. 1. builqi as describedby Young and Goldman (1944), Hall and Kelson(1959), and Nowak (1995); includes much of theexpanded range resulting from the consolidation ofsubspecies proposed by Bogan and Mehlhop (1980);accommodates the range expansion of C. 1. baiLeyifollowing extermination of adjacent wolf populationsdescribed by Nowak (1995); and is consistent withthe dispersal capability of gray wolves. Fig. l- 1delineates the probable historic range of C. 1. baifqifor purposes of reintroducing the subspecies into thewild with experimental status, 50 CFR 17.81(a).Chap. 3 on the Affected Environment summarizesthe historical evidence of wolves for each of therecovery areas under consideration.
The last 100 years have seen the Mexican wolf’srange, which in the past may have sustained apopulation of many thousands, shrink very severely.Not all habitat types within the area in Fig. l-l wereoccupied by these wide-ranging predators, however.Historic reports refer to the Mexican wolf as prima-rily associated with forested mountainous terrain(Bednarz 1988). While it does not require particularvegetation, it reportedly most often occurred above4,500 feet elevation in or near woodlands of pine5,oak, or pinon-juniper, interspersed with grasslands(Brown 1983).
5Appendix I provides a List of Scientific Names for all species mentioned.
l - 3
Purpose and Need for Action
“The gray wolfwas abundant in northernMexico (present day New Mexico), where ‘theysometimes make dreadful havoc among thecattle, frequently killing and devouring evenmules and horses”’ (Gregg, quoted in Youngand Goldman 1994).
Reasons for Listing
Many factors contributed to the Mexican wolf’sdemise, but its reputation as a livestock killer, whichled to concerted federal eradication efforts, waspredominant (Brown 1983, McBride 1980). Otherless important factors were: commercial and recre-ational hunting and trapping; killing of wolves bygame managers on the theory that more gameanimals would be available for hunters (Leopold1944); habitat alteration; and human safety concerns(although no documentation exists of Mexican wolfattacks on humans).
Fig. 1-2 illustrates the subspecies’ rapid declinein New Mexico and Arizona following initiation offederal eradication efforts in 1915. After about 15years of‘ trapping, shooting, and poisoning of adults,and “denning” of pups (digging them out of densand killing them), very few Mexican wolves re-mained. The last killings by control agents occurredaround 1960. A similar decline occurred in Texas(Scudday 1977). Eradication efforts were stimulatedby bounties offered by federal, state, and localgovernments, as well as livestock associations andindividual ranchers (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982).
It is difficult now to assess the accuracy ofreports regarding the Mexican wolf’s historic impacton livestock (see Appendix A, Livestock Depredationsection). Some representative quotes from commen-tators illustrate the animal’s reputation as a livestockkiller:
“In my opinion, the lobo is the cruelest, mostwanton killer of all our Southwestern predators.Bears and lions do sometimes become stockkillers, and both do sometimes kill wantonly,beyond the need for food. But such animals arethe exceptions to the rule: whereas the oppositeis true, in my opinion of the lobo.... A favoritemethod of killing large animals is to hamstringthe animal, breaking him down and makinghim completely helpless.... A few incidents likethis will teach anyone to hate wolves.... TheFish and Wildlife Service (formerly The Bio-logical Survey) has rendered an invaluableservice to the livestock and game interests ofthe Southwest by the determined warfare theyhave carried on against the lobo.” (Evans195 1).
“Wolves’ hunting techniques changed whenranchers began to settle the West and bring inlivestock. Deer, always difficult for canids toobtain, became increasingly scarce under thepressure of subsistence hunting by homestead-ers, miners, and cowboys. More importantly,livestock were easy picking everywhere. Onceset, this table was too easy to resist.... theadaptable wolves readily abandoned theirnatural prey and turned almost entirely tocattle.” (D.E. Brown 1983).
“The big wolves, the worst predatory enemy ofcattle, have been brought under control.... Weare concerned merely to the extent of prevent-ing reinfestation from Mexico.” (Ligon 1927).
The apparently high historical depredation ratesare inconsistent with the situation now in other areaswhere gray wolves and cattle co-exist, such as thenorthern Rocky Mountains and northern Minneso-ta, where depredation is quite uncommon relative tolivestock numbers available (range: 0.004% to0.09% of available cattle killed by wolves annually;Mack et al. 1992). Gipson (quoted in McIntyre1994) questions the validity of historic accounts ofwolf depredation rates.
Status
The subspecies is now considered extirpated fromthe southwestern United States because no wild wolfhas been confirmed to exist since 1970. Occasionalsightings of “wolves” continue to be reported fromU.S. locations but, to date, none have been con-firmed through clear evidence, despite continuinginvestigation (Girmendonk 1994a, Whitaker et al.1995, Wolok 1994).
Survival of the animal in the wild in Mexico alsoremains unconfirmed. Based on field surveys in1977-1978, McBride (1980) estimated that “some50 wolves may still inhabit Mexico.” Computer
1-5
Purpose and Need for Action
F i g u r e l - 2 . W 1o ves reported taken by federal and state cooperative hunters in Arizona and New
Mexico, fiscal years 1916 through 1960.
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1 0
0
ARIZONA NEW MEXICO/ARIZONA ez NEW MEXICO
Notes: Based on annual reports of Arizona and New Mexico districts of the Predatory Animal and Rodent Control(PARC) bureau. May include some wolves not discussed in PARC reports and some animals that were not wolves.
*Estimates
SOURCE: Brown (1983)
simulations by Ardura (1992), based on McBride’sestimate, indicated a high probability that this sug-gested population of 50 remnant wolves would beextinct by 1994 (although the simulations relied onunverifiable assumptions). Recent field research hasrevealed few reports, and no confirmation, of wolvesremaining in Mexico (Carrera 1994). Investigation iscontinuing.
The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangeredsubspecies in 1976 (41 FR 17736). In 1978, thegray wolf species in North America south of Canadawas listed as endangered, except in Minnesota where itwas listed as threatened (43 FR 9607). This listing ofthe species as a whole continued to recognize validbiological subspecies for purposes of research andconservation (43 FR 96 10). The Directors of theFWS and the Mexican Direction General de la Fauna
Silvestre approved the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in1982 (Mex. Wolf Rec. Team 1982). The Plan recog-nizes that the subspecies’ recovery depends on re-establishment in suitable habitats within its historicrange.
Two males and one pregnant female captured inthe wild in Mexico from 1977 to 1980 and theuncaptured mate of the pregnant female founded thecertified captive population of Mexican wolves. In1995, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team approvedthe addition of two other captive Mexican wolflineages, representing four additional founders, intothe certified population, based on state-of-the-artgenetic analysis. One is known as the Ghost Ranchlineage, some of which were kept and bred at theGhost Ranch Living Museum in northern NewMexico; the other is the Aragon lineage based at the
l - 6
Aragon Zoo in Mexico City. As of March, 1996, thetotal certified captive population in the three lin-eages stood at 139 animals; 114 are held at 24 facili-ties, mostly zoos and wildlife sanctuaries, in theUnited States and 25 are held at five facilities inMexico. The FWS also has a captive populationmanagement facility on the Sevilleta National WildlifeRefuge in central New Mexico to hold surplus wolvesfrom the other facilities (USFWS 1994a). Thesesurplus animals would be the potential release stock ifthe FWS undertakes the proposed reintroductioneffort.
Environmental Impact
Statement Scoping
Public Involvement
The FWS has involved the public, pursuant to 40CFR sec. 150 1.7, in determining the significantquestions that this EIS should address. At the timeof the public scoping in 1991 and 1992, five candi-date areas for releasing Mexican wolves were underconsideration. These five areas had been identifiedby the FWS and the Arizona, New Mexico, andTexas state wildlife agencies as potentially suitable forwolf release (USFWS 1992). The areas were cen-tered on: 1) the Blue Range, 2) the ChiricahuaMountains, 3) the Galiuro and Pinaleno Mountains,and 4) the Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains, all inArizona; and 5) the White Sands Missile Range inNew Mexico.
The FWS held four public meetings, two inTucson, Arizona, one in Las Cruces, New Mexico,and one in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Writtencomment periods followed each meeting and fol-lowed publication of the FWS’s Notice of Intent toPrepare an Environmental Impact Statement(USFWS 1992). 0ver 838 people attended themeetings and the FWS received a total of 1,324written comments during the comment periods(Jenkins 1993). These consisted of individual letters,form letters, responses to opinion questionnaires sent
Purpose and Need for Action
out by private groups, and petitions. All commentswere tabulated. The 65 oral comments made duringthe three recorded public meetings were transcribedand tabulated. Also, numerous other agencies andexperts have been consulted (see Chapter 5 -Coordination and Consultation).’
Alternatives and ImpactQuestions Raised in Scoping
The public raised approximately 112 definablequestions in eight general categories (Jenkins 1993).Some questions related to the alternative actions tobe considered; most related to the potential impactsof wolf releases. Table l-l identifies the most com-mon questions and the alternatives or environmentalimpacts to which the questions relate.
The Mexican Wolf EIS Interdisciplinary Team,charged with overseeing the writing of this docu-ment, determined which of the questions raised inthe public scoping process represented reasonablealternatives or potentially significant impacts merit-ing treatment in the FEIS, pursuant to 40 CFR sec.150 1.7(a) (2).’ Table 1 - 1 indicates the Interdiscipli-nary Team’s determinations for the most commonquestions.
Alternatives and ImpactQuestions Addressed in this FEIS
Alternatives
The Notice of Intent to Prepare an EnvironmentalImpact Statement (USFWS 1992) preliminarilyidentified three alternative actions under consid-eration for the candidate areas:
. reintroduction of captive-raised Mexicanwolves classified as a nonessential experi-mental population,
. reintroduction under full protection of the
“The scoping process occurred prior to the issuance of President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order, No. 12898, entitled “FederalActions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. ” Environmental justice issues
were not commonly raised in the scoping process. Based on the analysis in this FEIS, the proposed action is not expected tosignificantly impact minority or low-income populations.
‘Members of the Interdisciplinary Team are identified in the List of Preparers in Chapter 5.
1-7
Purpose and Need for Action
Table l-l. Most common questions raised during public scoping and their treatment in this final
environmental impact statement.
Key: I = addressed in Chap. 1 on purpose, need, and Mexican wolf overview,
2 = addressed in Chap. 2 on alternatives
3 = addressed in Chap. 3 on affected environment
4 = addressed in Chap. 4 on consequences
A = addressed in Appendix A on Mexican wolf life history and ecology
X = alternative or impact question not addressed directly in FEIS, see text for explanation
Treatment
Questions Related to Alternatives or Planning
X A: Should release sites in Mexico be considered?
X B: Should release sites in Texas be considered!
2 C: Should reintroduced Mexican wolves be designated as experimental and non-essential
to the continued existence of the species?
2 D: Should reintroduced Mexican wolves retain full endangered species status and related
protection?
2 E: Should additional areas be considered as release sites?
2 F: Should more than one initial release site be considered?
2 G: Should wolves that disperse off of target recovery areas be controlled?
Questions Related to Potential Impacts
1. Livestock Deprdation Impacts
4 A: Will wolves prey on domestic livestock?
4 B: Will livestock depredation impacts be significant?
LA C: (Zould changes in livestock management practices reduce the depredation impacts?
2. Economic Impacts
2 A: Should livestock owners be compensated for wolf-caused losses?
2,4 B: Will compensation programs be effective?
4 C: Will hunting license sales be impacted by wolf reintroduction?
x D: Should states be compensated for game losses?
4 E: Will wolf reintroduction adversely impact local economies in New Mexico and
Arizona?
X F: C:an costs of Mexican wolf recovery be justified?
1-8
Table 1- 1. Continued.
Purpose and Need for Action
3. EcoiogicalJBioiogical Impacts
X A: Does maintenance of ecosystem health require the presence of native predators and a
balanced predator-prey relationship?
4,A B: Will wolf predation adversely impact other wildlife populations?
3.4 c: Are prey populations in the potential recovery areas adequate to support wolf
populations?
4,A D: Do wolves perform an important evolutionary service to prey species by removingunfit animals from their populations?
3 E: Is White Sands Missile Range within the historic range of Cam’s lupus baileyi?2 F: Has life in c-aptivity caused Mexican wolves to lose their fear of humans?
2 G: Has life in captivity impacted the Mexican wolfs ability to survive in the wild?
X H: Are wolves an essential component of the ecosystem?
4. Population Viability Considerations
1,2 A: Does recovery and long-term survival of the Mexican wolf require its reintroduction to
the wild?
2 B: Is inbreeding depression evident in the captive population?
5. Wikilife Management Impacts
4 A: Will wolves compete with human hunters for the same prey?
A B: Do wolves pose a threat to human safety?
A C: Will reintroduction of the Mexican wolf pose any significant disease-related impacts?
6. Pbilosophical/Ethicai Considerations
X A: Do wolves have a right to exist?
X B: Do wolves have a right to exist in a natural environment/ecosystem?
X C: Should wild lands be restored and conserved?
7. Other Impacts/Considerations
4 A: Will existing land uses or land use plans be impacted by wolf reintroduction?
A B: Will wolves kill pets?
I,3 C: Do Mexican wolves still exist in the wild?
4 D: Will wolf reintroduction on White Sands Missile Range impact the operations there?
1 E: Is the wolf an endangered species?
X F: If the wolf is released in Arizona, what will be the impact if it disperses into Mexico?
l-9
ESA, and
. no action, in which Mexican wolves are notreintroduced.
The second and third of these alternatives havenot changed fundamentally in this FEIS (see Chap-ter 2 - Alternatives Including the Proposed Action,which describes the alternatives in detail). However,public input and further scoping by the Interdisci-plinary Team led to dividing the first-listed alternat-ive, above, into two alternatives, as follows:
. reintroduction of captive-raised Mexicanwolves, classified as nonessential experimen-tal, under management plans to allow dis-persal from the primary recovery zones intosecondary recovery zones (the PreferredAlternative), and
. reintroduction as nonessential experimentalunder management plans to prevent dispersalfrom the primary recovery zones.
This change reflects that a key distinction amongthe alternatives is the degree of control the FWSwould exert over the movements of the population.The first alternative allows the released wolves andtheir progeny to establish territories well away fromthe release areas (or “primary recovery zones”), whilethe latter alternative calls for the FWS to prevent thewolves from dispersing beyond the primary recoveryzones.
The alternatives scoping process also includedthe selection of two of the five candidate areaswithin the subspecies’ former range as the mostsuitable for releasing Mexican wolves. This involvedcomparing and ranking all the candidates based onkey suitability attributes (see Chapter 2 - Selection ofPotential Areas for Releasing Mexican Wolves). Thetwo candidates selected were the Blue Range area ineast-central Arizona and the White Sands MissileRange in south-central New Mexico. Largely inresponse to comments on the DEIS, the Interdisci-plinary Team and the FWS have decided that thePreferred Alternative (Ah. A) should focus on theBlue Range area for the initial releases and treat theWhite Sands area as a back-up, to be used only ifnecessary and feasible. In summary, the wolf recov-ery areas selected-and the alternative actions for
Purpose and Need for Action
these areas considered in this FEIS-reflect agency,expert, and public input.Impacts
This FEIS addresses most of the major impactquestions raised by other agencies, outside experts,and the public. Those impacts judged to be poten-tially significant receive detailed, alternative-by-alternative, analysis in Chapter 4 - EnvironmentalConsequences. The Interdisciplinary Team deter-mined that alternative-by-alternative analysis wasappropriate for six of the impacts most stressed bythe public and for three additional potentiallysignificant impacts that released wolves could cause.The three additional impact topics were impacts on:1) predator control activities, especially of USDA’sAnimal Damage Control division, 2) agency, tribal,and local government policies and plans, and 3)recreational uses in the areas involved. In sum, thenine potentially significant impact topics are:
Impacts on wild prey of wolvesImpacts on huntingImpacts on livestockImpacts on predator control programsImpacts on agency, tribal, and local
government policies and plansImpacts on land useImpacts on military activitiesImpacts on recreationImpacts on regional economies
Chapter 4 describes the scope of these topics indetail.
Alternatives and Impact QuestionsNot Addressed in this FEIS
Alternatives
The following questions that relate to alternatives orplanning were considered but dropped from detailedanalysis in this EIS because they were determinednot to raise reasonable alternatives meriting consid-eration (see Table l-l regarding the treatment of allalternative or planning issues):
l-10
Should release sites in Mexico be considered? This is notaddressed because the FWS lacks any authority overrecovery actions in Mexico. Further, the FWS lacksinformation on potential impacts there. Obtainingthis information for purposes of analyzing such analternative would present major logistical and diplo-matic difficulties. Mexican wildlife authorities mayconsider wolf reintroductions in the future.
Should release sites in Texas be considered?This is notaddressed here because suitable areas to support areintroduced wolf population have not been identi-fied or designated in Texas. However, this FEIS doesconsider Big Bend National Park, Texas, as a poten-tial natural recolonization area that could support avery small wolf population that would not be inde-pendently viable (see Chapter 2 - Alternative D).Release sites adjacent to the Mexican border aregenerally undesirable, absent further cooperationwith Mexico, because of the likelihood that wolveswould then disperse into Mexico beyond the protec-tion of the ESA and beyond the control of U.S.agencies.
Should wolves be captured in Mexico and released inthe United States? This is not addressed because noevidence of a viable wild population exists fromwhich suitable release stock could be drawn. (How-ever, the original breeding stock of the captivepopulation proposed here for release was captured inMexico.) Further, the FWS would lack any author-ity to undertake such actions in Mexico even ifsufftcient numbers of wolves were found and it isuncertain whether the Mexican government wouldapprove such actions.
Should captive-raised wolves be released as an essentialexperimental population, under section 100) of theESA, 16 USCsec. 1533This is not addressedbecause the FWS determined that the nonessentialexperimental classification fits the Mexican wolf’sstatus. Only wolves surplus to the captive breedingprogram will be released. (See Appendix C - Pro-posed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule,section on Findings Regarding Reintroduction, andAppendix D - Section 7 Consultation on ProposedAction, section on Effects on Mexican Gray Wolf,regarding definition of “surplus” wolves and signifi-cance of their removal from the captive population.)Their loss would not jeopardize the continued
Purpose and Need for Action
survival of the subspecies. The nonessentialexperimental classification allows for managementflexibility deemed vital to successful wolf recovery(USFWS 1993a). The essential experimental classifica-tion in many ways could be similar to the alternativeof releasing wolves classified as fully endangered,which this FEIS does address (Chap. 2 - AlternativeC). Alternatively, if a very flexible experimentalpopulation rule was adopted, then the essentialexperimental classification could be similar to thenonessential experimental approach, analyzed here asAlternative A. Detailed analysis of the essentialexperimental classification would be redundant.
Impacts
The following questions relating to impacts wereconsidered but dropped from detailed analysisbecause they were determined either to lie outsidethe reasonable scope of this EIS or not to raisepotentially significant impacts (see Table l-l regard-ing the treatment of all impact issues):
Should any game Losses to stategovernments be compen-sated? This is a policy choice rather than an environ-mental impact. There is no objective answer. Never-theless, Chap. 4 does estimate the hunting-relatedeconomic losses in Arizona and New Mexico.
Can impacts to taxpayers because of costs of Mexicanwolf recovery be just;fied? This also is a policy choicewithout an objective answer. However, Chap. 2,Table 2-8, and Appendix B do provide cost estimatesfor the four alternatives.
Impacts involving long-term evolutionary orpbilo-sopbical concerns. These include “are wolves anessential component of the ecosystem?“, “shouldwild lands be restored and conserved?“, and “dowolves have a right to exist?” These are policyquestions involving value judgments rather thanenvironmental impacts. Their consideration is eithernot required by the National Environmental PolicyAct or would be beyond the reasonable coverage ofthis EIS.
Are there possible impacts in Mexico zywolves werereleased in the United States?This question is notaddressed because the two areas considered forreleasing wolves are well north of the border and the
l-11
proposal calls for retrieval ofwolves that disperse outof the designated recovery areas. Impacts in Mexico,while remotely conceivable, are not likely. It shouldbe noted that if wolves did naturally recolonize borderareas from further south in Mexico under AlternativeD-that is, without a release ofcaptive-raisedwolves-then associated impacts in Mexico would beanticipated. The probability of natural recolonizationactually occurring is consideredvery low.
Permits and Clearances
The following regulatory approvals and cooperativearrangements may be necessary prior to releasingcaptive Mexican wolves:
a> NEPA required the FWS to submit a draftEIS, subject to an agency and public reviewperiod. The draft EIS was approved onJune 8, 1995, and the comment period onthe draft ended October 31 (see Chapter 5for further information on the public inputon the draft). The revision of the draft haslead to this FEIS, which is to be followed bya decision on which action to take, 42 USCsec. 4321 et seq. The Record of Decisionwill follow issuance of the FEIS by at least 30days, 40 CFR sec.s 1505.2 and 1506.10.Also, before construction of the proposedrelease pens, the agencies involved wouldneed to cooperatively decide on precise penlocations within the primary recovery zoneor zones and then prepare one or moreenvironmental assessments under NEPA ofthe potential site-specific impacts.
b) The FWS would need to promulgate anexperimental population rule describingprotection and management of the proposednonessential experimental population, 16LJSC sec. 1539(j). The provisions of theFWS’s Proposed Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Rule are summarized inChapter 2 and provided in full in AppendixC. This version was officially published inthe Federal Register on May 1, 1996, pages19237- 19248. Various changes have beenmade to the proposed action between the
c>
4
4
Purpose and Need for Action
DEIS and this FEIS that are not reflected yetin the proposed experimental populationrule re-printed in Appendix C. A decision toproceed with the proposed action, or anyalternative that involves experimental reintro-duction, would need to be followed byissuance of a final experimental populationrule. Pursuant to 50 CFR sec. 17.8 1 (d), therule is being developed in consultation withappropriate state fish and wildlife agencies,local governmental entities, affected agencies,landowners, and others. The EIS process hasprovided the opportunity for such consulta-tions to occur (see Chap. 5 for additionalinformation on consultation and coordina-tion). In addition, a consultation and publichearing process specific to the proposed rulehas been undertaken.
The FWS would need an internally-issuedendangered species permit authorizingmovement of captive wolves for purposes ofrelease, 16 USC sec. 1539(a). Also, the FWSwould need an internal Section 7 consulta-tion regarding potential impacts of theproposal on federally-listed threatened andendangered species, 16 USC sec. 1536. Thishas been undertaken and no adverse effectsare anticipated (Appendix D). A similarconsultation has been provided by the NewMexico Game and Fish Department regard-ing state-listed species (Hubbard 1994),under New Mexico’s Wildlife ConservationAct, NMSA 17-2-37 to -46.
Action by the Arizona Game and FishDepartment will follow its process forapproving endangered species releases(AGFD 1987) (Appendix E). The Depart-ment has drafted a “Cooperative Reintroduc-tion Plan for the Mexican Wolf in Arizona”that calls for a joint reintroduction effortwith the FWS in the Blue Range area(Groebner et al. 1995). It sets forth mini-mum criteria to be considered in evaluatingimplementation of the plan.
Various agencies, tribes, and local govern-ments have policies and plans that could beaffected by the final decision. The FWS has
1-12
attempted to cooperate with these parties inthe EIS process through meetings andsharing information. They may need tofollow their own decision making proceduresregarding their participation in future wolfrecovery actions.
Other arrangements with federal, state, andtribal agencies covering such matters asaccess, trapping, research, radio-tracking,and airplane overflights would need to beformalized through one or more interagencycooperative management plans or agree-ments. These would follow the Record ofDecision.
Purpose and Need for Action
1-13
Chapter 2
Alternativesincluding the Proposed Action
CHAP’Alternatives I
Proposed
Introduction
This chapter begins with an overview of the Mexicangray wolf recovery program and the “soft release”approach to wolf reintroduction, followed by anoutline of the selection process for potential areas forreleasing wolves in the Southwest. These backgroundsections are important for understanding why, how,and where the alternative actions would occur.
The chapter then describes the Fish and WildlifeService’s (FWS) Proposed Action (Ah. A), nowdesignated as the “Preferred Alternative.” Thisincorporates a cooperative reintroduction planproposed by the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-ment. The Preferred Alternative is followed by twoother approaches to reintroducing the Mexican wolf(Alt.s B and C) and a “No Action” approach (Alt.D). Numbers of animals proposed for release,population growth scenarios, foreseeably affectedareas, and impact mitigation measures are given foreach alternative. The chapter concludes with sum-mary tables comparing the features of the fouralternatrves and comparing their environmentalconsequences.
The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program
All Mexican wolves to be released will come fromthe captive population, which now numbers 114
animals maintained in 24 zoos and wildlife sanctuar-ies in the United States. The Mexican Wolf SpeciesSurvival Plan (SSP) Management Group, made upof representatives from those facilities, coordinatesthe population’s management. Cooperation alsooccurs with the managers of a smaller population inMexican zoos. The wolves have exhibited no majorgenetic, physical, or behavioral problems affectingtheir fitness resulting from captivity (Siminski1994a, see Appendix K - Fish and Wildlife ServiceResponse to Dennis Parker’s Comment on theDEIS).
The SSP Management Group has paired thecertified population for maximum breeding poten-tial every breeding season since 1990 (Siminski1994b). Also, the FWS has undertaken genetic
:ER 2xluding theAction
analysis of two other captive lineages. In 1995, theMexican Wolf Recovery Team found these other twolineages to be pure Mexican wolves and recom-mended that they be added to the certified Mexicanwolf population, to enhance its genetic diversity aswell as its size. The SSP Management Group’s goalof having at least 100 certified animals in the U.S.captive population prior to a reintroduction efforthas been exceeded. The population is ready tosupport a reintroduction effort.
The FWS will move male/female pairs identifiedas candidates for possible release to its captive wolfmanagement facility on the Sevilleta NationalWildlife Refuge, north of Socorro, New Mexico.Native prey recognition, predatory skill trials,aversive conditioning to livestock and humans, andother measures to improve adaptation of the wolvesto life in the wild may be initiated at this facility. Inthe event of a decision to proceed with reintroduc-tion, the FWS would select from among the candi-date pairs based on reproductive performance,behavioral compatibility, response to the adaptationprocess, and other factors. Only those individualwolves that are genetically well-represented in theremaining captive population would be used asrelease stock. The actual releases under each of thereintroduction alternatives described below (Alt.s A,B, and C) would be “soft releases.”
The Sok Release Approach
Experts developed the soft release approach to wolfreintroduction in order to reduce the likelihood ofquick dispersal away from the release area (USFWS1993a, Fritts 1992; see Appendix A - Wolf Move-ments section). This involves a holding period of upto several months in secure, temporary pens at therelease sites, where exposure to humans is mini-mized. Following adaptation to local conditions thewolves-wearing standard telemetry collars-areallowed to leave the pens. Field managers may leavecarcasses of native prey nearby until the wolves beginhunting on their own. Movements of initial groupsof released wolves provide valuable informationguiding future releases (Phillips 1992). Annual
2 - l
releases are made this way until it appears that therecovery goals will be met through reproduction inthe wild.
No soft release of captive-raised gray wolves hasoccurred previously; however, the FWS is currentlyundertaking a series of annual soft releases of wild-caught gray wolves from Canada into YellowstoneNational Park (USFWS 1993a, see Appendix J -Update on Yellowstone and Central Idaho GrayWolf Reintroductions).
Also, the reintroduction of the red wolf (Canisrufis) in eastern North Carolina was largely by softreleases of captive-raised animals (Phillips 1992).Both of these release programs, conducted undernonessential experimental population rules, havelargely succeeded to date. The Mexican WolfRecovery Program will apply knowledge gainedfrom these experiences.
Selection of Potential Areas forReleasing Mexican Wolves
Identification of potential areas for releasing Mexi-can wolves began in 1986 when the FWS, pursuantto the 1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, solicitedcandidates from the wildlife management agenciesof New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. This led toevaluation of five areas for their relative suitability.These areas were centered on: 1) the Blue Range, 2)the Chiricahua Mountains, 3) the Galiuro andPinaleno Mountains, and 4) the Atascosa andPatagonia Mountains, all in Arizona; and 5) theWhite Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in NewMexico (Fig. 2-l). Arizona’s Game and Fish Depart-ment analyzed the four Arizona candidates (Johnsonet al. 1992). Bednarz (1989), under a contract withthe FWS, analyzed the WSMR.
The FWS compared and ranked the five candi-dates based on the following attributes: area ofvegetation associated with typical Mexican wolfhabitat, wild ungulate density, water availability,livestock density, potential effects on other threat-ened or endangered species, human populationdensity, and road density (USFWS 1993e) (Table 2-1). The ranking did not attempt to consider everypossible facet of the long-term suitability of theseareas for wolf recovery. Long-term suitability will tosome extent depend on future ecological changesand management actions.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Overall, the WSMR ranked highest followedclosely by the Blue Range area. However, theWSMR ranked lowest of all five candidates in totalarea of vegetation associated with typical Mexicanwolf habitat. Bednarz (1989) estimated that 1,000mi2 of such vegetation (mostly pinon-juniper wood-land) exists on and adjacent to WSMR. Bednarzpredicted the entire WSMR area could supportabout 30 wolves. The FWS’s current estimate of thenumber of wolves the area could support, basedlargely on prey availability and computer modellingof deer population dynamics (Green-Hammond1994), is less: only 20. Neither estimate-30 or2O-represents an independently viable population(Bednarz 1989, Shaf%er 1987). Nevertheless, apopulation in this size range likely could be main-tained through supplemental releases or, possibly, bynatural immigration of wolves from other nearbypopulations if other populations were present.
The WSMR is unique among the five candidateareas in that it is closed to public access and livestockgrazing, although livestock are grazed on adjacentlands. It is largely isolated, except to the northeast,by 25 to 40 mile-wide desert basins that couldinhibit wolf movements. These features, particularlythe low likelihood that wolves would prey on live-stock, offer advantages as an area to conduct arelatively low-conflict, experimental reintroduction.However, the predicted wolf numbers the WSMRcould support fall far short of the Mexican WolfRecovery Plan’s objective of re-establishing at least100 wolves in an area of 5,000 mi2 (Mex. Wolf Rec.Team 1982). At least one additional area would beneeded to achieve the objective. The WSMR couldpossibly serve as a “wolf nursery” from which recap-tured wild wolves, rather than captive-raised wolves,might be used to stock another recovery area. Theuse of wild-raised wolves has been an importantfactor in the success of past reintroductions (Fritts1992).
The Blue Range of east-central Arizona was theother high-ranking candidate release area (Table2-l). It also received the highest ranking by theArizona Game and Fish Department in its analysisof the four Arizona candidate areas (Johnson et al.1992). This and contiguous parts of the ApacheNational Forest (ANF) lie adjacent to the larger GilaNational Forest (GNF) in New Mexico, whichprovides similar, forested, mountainous habitat.Together the ANF and GNF comprise more than
2 - 2
2-3
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-l. Suitability rankings of candidate areas for releasing Mexican wolves.
Key:APM = Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains, ArizonaBR = Blue Range, ArizonaCM = Chiricahua Mountains, ArizonaGPM = Galiuro and Pinaleno Mountains, ArizonaWSMR = White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico
Area Rank’
Attribute APM B R C M GPM W S M R
Habitat Area
Ungulate Density
Water Availability
Livestock Density
T&E2 Sp. Effects
Human Density
Road Density
T O T A L 2 1 27 1 7 15 30
‘The highest rank is 5 and the lowest rank is 1. Areas that were substantially equivalent on an attribute received the same r.ink for that
attribute.
’ “‘T&E Sp. Effects” refers to expected effects on other threatened and endangered species in the area
SOURCE: USFWS ( 1 9 9 3 e )
7,000 mi2 of federal land, most of which is suitablefor wolves. A wolf population reintroduced into theBlue Range area would likely eventually expandthroughout much of the ANF and GNF unlessmanagers prevented this from occurring.
Assuming an average pack territory size to beabout 250 mi’ (see Mech 1970), and average packsize to be five wolves (Bednarz 1988), the ANF andGNF combined could support 100 or more wolves.This accords roughly with Bailey’s (193 1) estimatethat 100 wolves occupied the GNF area in 1906.Successful reintroduction into the ANF and GNFarea would meet the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan’sobjective. However, unlike the WSMR, the ANFand GNF are open to public use and largely in cattle
grazing allotments. The potential for conflicts withranching and other uses is higher.
In addition, about 4,000 mi’ of similar, contig-uous, largely forested, montane habitat lies to thewest on the Fort Apache (or White MountainApache) and San Carlos Apache Reservations inArizona. However, the FWS has no agreement withthese tribes regarding their future involvement inwolf recovery and both have expressed opposition towolves on their reservations. The reservations,therefore, have not been considered as potentialrelease or recovery areas. Nevertheless, they could beaffected if wolves are released in the Blue Range areaand they are addressed as likely wolf dispersal areas
2-4
under the full endangered status alternative (Ah. C)in this FEIS.
In sum, the Blue Range and WSMR areas eachpossess distinct positive and negative features forwolf recovery. This FEIS analyzes reintroduction inboth areas. Since issuing the DEIS, the FWS hasdesignated the BRWRA as the preferred reintro-duction location, with the WSWRA as a back-up tobe used only if necessary and feasible. This focussingof the Preferred Alternative on the BRWRA isfundamentally due to the Interdisciplinary Team andthe FWS determining that a strong biologicalpreference exists for the BRWRA. It provides a large,multiple-species, native prey base (white-tailed deer,mule deer, elk, javelina), abundant well-distributedwater, and a large area for wolves to colonize follow-ing the initial release. It is also known to have beenprime wolf habitat historically. Only it is projectedto achieve the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan goal of100 wild wolves. While evidence exist of wolveshaving been on the WSWRA, it was probably notprime wolf habitat and could not now support anindependently viable population.
Alternatives
Alternative A (Preferred Alternative):The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposesto reintroduce Mexican wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area. Wolves will bereleased into the primary recovery zone andallowed to disperse into the secondary recov-ery zone. If feasible and necessary to achievethe recovery objective of 100 wolves, a subse-quent reintroduction of wolves into theWhite Sands Wolf Recovery Area will be
conducted.
Actions Associated with Alternative
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into theprimary recovery zone of the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area (BRWRA) (Fig. 2-2; areas definedprecisely in Box 2-1, Geographic Boundaries). TheFWS will gradually release up to 15 family groups
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
into the BRWRA (Table 2-2) and later, if necessaryand feasible, up to five family groups into the back-up WSWRA (Fig. 2-3; Table 2-3). Reproduction inthe wild would increase the populations toapproximately the recovery area goals under eachreintroduction alternative. Wolves will be releasedinto the primary recovery zone and allowed todisperse into the secondary recovery zone. Therecovery objective of the alternative is to re-establish100 wild wolves distributed over more than 5,000mi* by about the year 2005, consistent with the1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan. The FWSprojects that the population will eventually fluctuatenear this level as result of natural processes, such asintra-specific aggression and changes in prey abun-dance and vulnerability, and management actions,such as problem wolf control and translocation. TheFWS and its cooperators will monitor, research,evaluate, and actively manage the wolves, includingtranslocating or removing wolves that disperseoutside the wolf recovery areas or that cause signifi-cant conflicts.
The FWS will designate the released wolves andtheir progeny as one “nonessential experimental”population under the Endangered Species Act(ESA), 16 USC sec. 1539(j). Reintroduction will beaccomplished through “soft releases” (see the SoftRelease Approach section, above). This will be donein cooperation with various agencies. The U.S.Forest Service (for the BRWRA) and the U.S. Army(if the WSWRA is used) will be the primary landmanaging agencies involved.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department hasdeveloped a Cooperative Reintroduction Plan thatoutlines the Department’s potential involvement asjoint managers, with the FWS, of wolves on theArizona side of the BRWRA (Groebner et al. 1995).The plan is consistent with the FWS’s PreferredAlternative, with some additional ideas that arehighlighted herein. It will be considered as a subsetof this alternative pertaining just to the Arizona side.(It should be noted that future FWS cooperationwith the Arizona Game and Fish Department wouldnot preclude similar cooperation with other state,federal, tribal, and local agencies in Arizona or NewMexico.)
Reintroduction will occur under managementplans that allow dispersal by the new wolf popula-tions from the immediate release areas (“primaryrecovery zones”) into designated adjacent areas
2-5
Figure 2-2. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
% IGQUEMADO
7 DATI L
PRIMARY ’RECOVERYZONE
YTLC FTON
ILA
LORDSBURG
0c
I
SCALE IN MILES
2 - 6
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Box 2- 1. Geographic boundaries for Mexican wolf reintroduction.
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWlU): all of the Apache National Forest and all of the Gila NationalForest (Fig. 2-2).
BRWR4 primary recovery zone: the area within the Apache National Forest bounded on the north by theApache-Greenlee County line; on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico State line; on the south by the SanFrancisco River (eastern half) and the southern boundary of the Apache National Forest (western half); and onthe west by the Greenlee-Graham County line (San Carlos Apache Reservation boundary) (Fig. 2-2).
BRWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the BRYVRA not in the primary recovery zone(Fig. 2-2).
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA): all of the White Sands Missile Range, the White SandsNational Monument, and the San Andres National Wildlife Refuge, and the area adjacent and to the west ofthe Missile Range bounded on the south by the southerly boundary of the U.S. Department of AgricultureJornada Experimental Range and the northern boundary of the New Mexico State University Animal ScienceRanch; on the west by the New Mexico Principal Meridian; on the north by the Pedro Armendaris Grantboundary and the Sierra-Socorro County line; and on the east by the western boundary of the Missile Range(Fig. 2-3).
WSWRA primary recovery zone: the area within the White Sands Missile Range bounded on the north bythe road from former Cain Ranch Headquarters co Range Road 16, Range Road 16 to its intersection withRange Road 13, Range Road 13 to its intersection with Range Road 7; on the east by Range Road 7; on thesouth by U.S. Highway 70; and on the west by the Missile Range boundary (Fig. 2-3).
WSWRA secondary recovery zone: the remainder of the WSWRA not within the primary recovery zone(Fig. 2-3).
Mexican wolf experimental population area: the portion of Arizona lying north of Interstate Highway 10
and south of Interstate Highway 40; the portion of New Mexico lying north of Interstate Highway 10 in thewest, north of the New Mexico-Texas boundary in the east, and south of Interstate Highway 40; and thatportion of Texas lying north of US Highway 62/180 and south of the Texas-New Mexico boundary (Fig. 2-4).
2 - 7
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-2. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A).
Recovery area goal: 100 wolves occupying a total area of 5,000 mi’; based on Mexican Wolf Recovery -Team (1982).
1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1999 2 0 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2 0 0 5
No. released successfully”
No. surviving (from prev. year)
No. pups bomb
10% control loss
25% other lossesc
Total wolves (end of year)
No. packsd
No. breeding pairs’
Area occupied’ (100 mi2)
1 0 1 0 10 1 0 4 0 0 0 0
- - 7 14 23 35 45 55 68 83
0 5 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 75
1 2 3 5 7 9 I1 13 16
2 6 8 13 17 21 26 32 40
7 14 23 35 45 55 68 83 102
1 2 4 7 7 11 13 16 20
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 18
3 5 1 0 18 23 28 33 40 50
” Average of five pups per htter based on McBride (I 980)
‘ “0th lossrs” includes wolves that die, leave, disappear. or are removed from the recovery area for .~ny reasom hevdes control; adapted from rates m Phillips
(1992). i!SFWS (1993a). and Mcch (1970).
’ AXI agr pack sue of five based on Hednarz ( 1988).
’ MO&~ pack.5 contall, one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a successful breeding pair.
’ Average pack terrlrory size of 250 mi’ based 011 Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982) and Mech (1970). Not all land wthm a terrttory IS wltablc yrar-rou11~1
habitat.
SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (19 93a).
2-8
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Figure 2-3. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
\SWORRO CO \
\\\\\
/ \
SIERRA CO.---_-__
OONA ANA co.
S A N D S
LAS CRUCES
WOLFRECOVERY
- AREABOUNDARY
0 1 5
PRIMARY RECOVERY ZONE
2-9
I I
SCALE IN MILES
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-3. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the White Sands
Wolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification (Alternative A).
Recovery area goal: 20 wolves occupying the typical habitat area of approximately 1,000 mil, adapted from Bednarz
(1389).
No. released successfully
No. surviving (from prev. year)
No. pups bomb
5% control loss
20% other lossesc
Total wolves (end of year)
No. packsd
No. breeding pairse
Area occupiedf (100 mi2)
--
0
0
1
6
1
1
2 .5
7 3
6 13
5 10
1 1
4 5
13 2 0
2 4
2 4
5 . 0 1 0 . 0
” lnitnlly, about 10 captive-raised wolves annually will be released, but three of these are assumed CO quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area, or reqwre
re~aptunng for .I variety of reasons, and not to concribure to population growth. Fewer wolves will be released in 1999 CO minimize overshooting of rhe popularion goal.
‘I Awrage of five pups per littrr based on McBride (1980)
‘ “Orher kases” includes w&w that die, leave, disappear, or are removed from the recovery xca for any reasons bcsldrs control; adaptrd from TJCCS ln I’h11l1~~~
(1992), USFWS (19934, and Me& (1970).
” Average pack sin- of five based on Brdnarz (1988).
’ Mo\t packs contain one breeding par; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a succrssful breedmg par
'Average pack terntory sue of250 miL based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1782) and Mech (1970). Not all land within a territory LS suitable year
round habitat.
SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).
2-10
(“secondary recovery zones”) (Figs 2-2 and 2-3,above). However, the FWS and cooperating agencieswill not allow the wolves to establish territoriesoutside these wolf recovery area boundaries unlessthis occurs on private or tribal lands and the landmanager does not object. The FWS would attemptto enter into cooperative management agreementswith such landowners regarding control of thewolves. If the land manager objects to the presenceof wolves on private or tribal lands, field personnelwould recapture and relocate the wolves.
The FWS and the cooperating agencies will usea flexible “adaptive management” approach based oncareful monitoring, research, and evaluationthroughout the release phase. This will includeadjusting the numbers actually released according tothe needs and circumstances at the time. Initially, toreduce the likelihood of wolf dispersal onto theWhite Mountain Apache and San Carlos Apachereservations to the west, the wolf releases will occuron the eastern side of the BRW’RA primary recoveryzone, close to the Arizona/New Mexico border. TheFWS will encourage and support the formation of acitizen advisory committee, or similar managementoversight body, to assist the FWS and cooperatingagencies in responding to local concerns.
Initial release stock will be “surplus” Mexicanwolves designated by the SSP Management Groupfrom the U.S. captive population. A surplus wolf isone whose loss or removal will not significantlyadversely affect the genetic or demographic make-upof the population (Siminski 1994a). Thus, death ofone or more surplus wolves would not jeopardize thecontinued existence of the subspecies. Use of surpluswolves will allow the FWS to designate the wildpopulation as nonessential experimental. Thisprovides greater management flexibility than ifreleased wolves retain their endangered status andassociated ESA protections.
Prior to any releases, the FWS will determinewhether recolonization has occurred or appearslikely to occur within the U.S. portion of the sub-species’ former range. Depending on its extent,natural recolonization could contribute to meetingthe recovery objective and could, but would notnecessarily, eliminate the need for releases of captiveanimals into one or both of the designated wolfrecovery areas (see USFWS 1994~).
The following future circumstances will beconsidered in decision-making about using the
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
WSWRA subsequent to initial releases in theBRWRA:
. whether using the WSWRA, in combinationwith the BRWRA, is necessary to achieve therecovery objective of re-establishing 100wolves; that is, it would be used if it appearsthat the initial introduction in the BRWRAwill not achieve a total population of 100wolves,
. whether, based on future research, it appearsthat the WSWRA deer herd could support awolf population that would contribute tomeeting the recovery objective, and
. other future circumstances that could affectthe feasibility of using the WSWRA, such asthe FWS wolf program budget, managementconcerns, future military uses of the missilerange, and so on.
If both areas are eventually used, wolves could betranslocated between the two areas as needed tomaintain overall population viability and to accom-plish other management objectives. If feasible,recaptured wild wolves from one recovery area,rather than captive-raised wolves, could be used tostock the other area to increase the likelihood ofsuccess (Fritts 1992).
A key aspect of this proposal is the necessity ofadequate funding for monitoring and research tostudy the impacts of the action and to determinewhether the Mexican wolf can survive in the modernSouthwest (see Appendix B - Projected Implementa-tion Costs). Progress will be continuously evaluated.The FWS will prepare periodic progress reports,detailed annual reports, and full evaluations afterthree and five years. The full evaluations will includerecommendations regarding continuation ortermination of the reintroduction effort and wheth-er, and how, to use the WSWRA. Decision-makingcriteria that the FWS and cooperating agencies willconsider will include those recommended by theArizona Game and Fish Department in its Coopera-tive Reintroduction Plan, which also calls for fullevaluation of the initial “experimental” phase afterthree years (Groebner et al. 1995):
2-11
whether the wolves have successfully estab-lished home ranges within the designatedwolf recovery area,
whether the reintroduced wolves reproducesuccessfully in the wild,
whether the numbers and vulnerability ofprey are adequate to support wolves,
whether the livestock depredation controlprogram is effective,
whether significant threats to human safetyhave occurred,
whether wolf mortality is substantiallyhigher than expected, see Tables 2-2 and 2-3,
whether effective cooperation with otheragencies and the public is occurring, and
whether combined agency funds and staff areadequate to carry out needed management,monitoring, and research.
Monitoring and research efforts will assist indetermining the answers to these questions. Thecriteria may need to be updated in the light ofchanges in circumstances after the initial releases(Groebner et al. 1995). For example, concern hasbeen expressed that current forest and woodlandhealth and ecological trends in the BRWRA willresult in decreased viability of prey populationsneeded to support recovery levels of wolves (Hayes1995). If the initial releases fail, further releaseswould be inappropriate unless the cause of ftilure isidentified and remedied.
Projected Population Growth-In the BRWRA,three family groups will be released in the first year.(Arizona’s Reintroduction Plan calls for releasingonly two pairs annually in the BRWRA; the FWSproposes three pairs because dispersal into the NewMexico side of the BRWRA is anticipated.) Eachpair is projected to have, on average, three pupssurviving at the time of release (or following the firstwhelping season after release). Thus, the averagefamily group size will be five and the initial releaseswould amount to an average of 15 individuals.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Supplemental releases of similar numbers of wolveswill be conducted, if necessary, for the followingfour years; thereafter, only reproduction in the wildwill drive the population’s growth.
Growth projections are set forth in Tables 2-2and 2-3 (for the WSWRA, if used), above; theseprovide guidance but do not predict exact outcomes.The projections assume that about one-third of thewolves released each year quickly die, disappear,disperse from the recovery area, or otherwise requirerecapturing, and do not contribute to growth of thepopulation (USFWS 1993a, Phillips 1992). Thus,the average number of wolves successfully releasedannually is initially projected to be ten for theBRWRA (seven for the WSWRA). Fewer wolvesmay be released in later years to avoid overshootingthe recovery objective, depending on actual repro-duction and mortality rates.
The Preferred Alternative will be completedwhen the population reaches the recovery objectiveof 100 wolves over 5,000 mi*; this is projected totake nine years (Table 2-2). Moderately high annualcontrol losses and other losses-35% total-areexpected. The depredation control and other lossesare relatively high due to the presence of livestockand the public in the BRWRA.
The FWS or cooperating agencies will monitorthe wolves continually. The schedule and numbers ofwolves released will be adjusted in accordance withthe actual population growth. Upon achievement ofthe recovery objective, the FWS will develop andimplement detailed long-term plans for sustainablemanagement of the re-established wolves. Therecovery area goals approximate the expected num-ber of wolves that these areas can reasonably sup-port. The goals may need revision if field evidenceshows they are not realistic. The FWS projects thatthe wolf populations will eventually fluctuate aboveand below these goals through a combination ofnatural processes and management actions. TheFWS will actively manage against expansion of thepopulation beyond the designated wolf recoveryareas.
Geographic Boundaries.-The Preferred Alternativeinvolves the following geographic designations: wolfrecovery area, primary recovery zone, secondary recoveryzone, and experimentalpopulation area (Fig. 2-4).Box 2-l and Appendix C, the proposed MexicanWolf Experimental Population Rule, give precise
2-12
Figure 2-4. Mexican Wolf Geographic Boundaries.
ARIZONA
SCALE IN MILES
NEW MEXICO
ALBUQUERQUE
WHITE SANDSWOLF RECOVERYAREA
EXT'ERIMENTAL- POPULATION
AREA BOUNDARY
PRMARY RECOVERY ZONES \
SECONDARY RECOVERY ZONES
lAIIlz3 POTENTIAL NATURAL RECOLONlZATiON AREAS
(Alternative D Only)
boundaries of these areas and zones. These designa-tions carry no public or private land use restrictions,per se. Also, ESA critical habitat shall not be desig-nated within the experimental population area underthe FWS’s proposed nonessential experimental
classification, 16 USC sec. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
Wolf recovery will be supported only in thedesignated wolf recovery areaS (i.e., the BRWRA andpossibly the WSWR4). Within these recovery areas,wolves will be released only in the primary recoveryzones, but they will be allowed to disperse into theadjacent secondary recovery zones. The chief signifi-cance of the experimentalpopulation area is todistinguish the legal status of any wolves that mightbe found there; wolf recovery is not being proposedand will not be supported throughout the area. Anywolf in this large area will be considered to belong tothe nonessential experimental population. Theflexible management measures in the Mexican WolfExperimental Population Rule will apply throughoutthis area. Wolves found within the experimentalpopulation area, but outside of a designated wolfrecovery area, will be captured and returned for re-release or placement into the captive population.Wolves found outside the experimental populationarea will be presumed to be of wild origin with fullendangered status under the ESA unless evidencesuch as a radio-collar or identification mark estab-lishes that it is a member of the experimentalpopulation. In such a case the wolf would retain itsexperimental nonessential status pending recapture.
The southern boundary of the experimental areawas established to the north of the most suitableareas for possible natural recolonization fromMexico. Thus, if wolves actually did recolonize fromMexico--a very speculative possibility-they wouldretain their full endangered status unless they trav-elled north into the experimental population area(see Ah. D).
R&use Procedures,-The FWS will select releasestock from its captive wolf management facility onthe Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge or othercaptive management facilities. In the winter of1996-1997-or later if circumstances compel a delay-the FWS will place the selected pairs in separate
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
pens constructed within the BRVVRA primaryrecovery zone. These pens will be separated byseveral miles. Each pen will occupy less than one-half acre; field personnel will have temporary hous-ing nearby.’ Land managers will restrict public accessand “disturbance-causing land use activities” (de-fined in the Glossary, Appendix G, including somespecific exemptions), up to a one mile radius aroundthe release pens only while wolves are in the pens.Human contact will be further reduced and thewolves’ diet will be converted to natural prey items,such as road-killed deer, elk, javelina, jackrabbits,and cottontails. Wolves will remain in the pens forup to six months to acclimate to the area. Then, thefield managers will open the pens and allow thewolves to leave and return at will. Managers willplace carcasses (e.g., roadkills) of natural prey in thevicinity until they determine that the wolves havethe predatory skill to obtain an adequate food supplyon their own.
In the event that a wolf selected for release andplaced in the acclimation pens becomes unsuitableor dies, it may be replaced by another animal fromthe captive population. In this case the wolf may bereleased later, after sufficient acclimation time haselapsed. Releases conducted during subsequent yearswill follow procedures similar to those describedabove with refinements based on previous releaseexperiences. If wolves have established a territory inthe vicinity of a release pen, then the pen will bemoved to a location outside known wolf territoriesfor releases in subsequent years. If the WSWRA isused, release procedures will be similar to thosedescribed above.
Monitoring and Research.--Prior to placement inrelease pens the adult wolves will receive permanentidentification marks and radio collars. Pups willreceive surgically implanted transmitters prior torelease. Field managers will recapture them whenthey are large enough to be fitted with neck collars.Wild-born wolves will be captured, given a perma-nent identification mark, and radio-collared for atleast the first five years of the project.
The FWS and cooperating agencies will monitormovements, behavior, population status, and well-
‘The FWS and the Forest Service, for the BRWRA, and the U.S. Army, for the WSWRA if used, and other cooperating agencies,will jointly designate precise release pen sites within the primary recovery zones. The FWS and these agencies will prepare an environ-mental assessment under NEPA on potential site-specific impacts associated with these facilities.
2 - 1 4
being of released wolves through radio tracking(ground and aerial), field observations, obtainingsighting reports from the public, and other methods.Food habits, kill rates, pack size, litter size, territorysize, and other aspects of wild Mexican wolf life willbe studied. The FWS and cooperating agencies willbear the costs of this monitoring program at leastthrough five years beyond the achievement of therecovery objective; cooperative research agreementswith qualified institutions may be negotiated.
Management.-A federal regulation will designatethe population to be released as experimental andnonessential to the continued existence of thesubspecies. This Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Rule will delineate the precise geo-graphic boundaries (see Box 2- 1, above) and pre-scribe the protective measures and managementauthority that apply. No formal ESA Section 7consultation would be required regarding potentialimpacts of land uses on nonessential experimentalMexican wolves. Any harm to wolves resulting solelyfrom habitat modification caused by authorized usesof public lands, that is, not in violation of theclosure provisions or other provisions regarding takeor harassment, would be a legal take under theProposed Rule. Any habitat modification occurringon private or tribal lands would not constitute illegaltake. Based on evidence from other areas, the FWSdoes not believe that wolf recovery requires majorchanges to currently authorized land uses. The mainmanagement goals are to protect wolves fromdisturbance during vulnerable periods, minimizeillegal take, and remove individuals from the wildpopulation that depredate or otherwise cause signifi-cant problems.
The complete proposed experimental populationrule, as published in the Federal Register on May 1,
1996, is in Appendix C. In summary, the ProposedRule provides:
. No one will be in violation of the ESA forunavoidable and unintentional take of a wolfwithin the Mexican wolf experimentalpopulation area when the take is incidentalto a legal activity, such as driving, trapping,and military testing or training activities, andis promptly reported. Anyone may take awolf in defense of human life.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
. No private or tribal land use restrictions willbe imposed for wolf recovery without theconcurrence of the private owner or tribalgovernment. On public lands, public accessand disturbance-causing land use activities(defined in Appendix G) may be temporarilyrestricted within a one-mile radius aroundrelease pens, and around active dens betweenMarch 1 and June 30 and around active wolfrendezvous sites (defined in Appendix G)between June 1 and September 30.
. On public lands allotted for grazing, livestockowners and their designated agents: (1) mayharass wolves for purposes of scaring themaway from livestock provided the harassmentis promptly reported, and (2) may be al-lowed to take wolves actually engaged inattacking livestock.
. Permission for private parties to take wolveson public grazing lands must meet all ofthese conditions: 1) six or more breedingwolf pairs occur in the BRWRA, or three ormore breeding wolf pairs occur in theWSWRA (if used); 2) previous livestock lossor injury by wolves has been documented byan authorized FWS, ADC, or state employeeand efforts to control the offending wolveshave been undertaken but have not suc-ceeded; 3) physical evidence exists that anattack occurred at the time of the take; and4) the take is promptly reported.
. On private or tribally-owned land, regardlessof location, property owners and livestockowners and their designated agents mayharass wolves near livestock, people, build-ings, facilities, pets, or other domesticanimals at any time and may take wolvesattacking livestock under more liberalconditions than those applicable to publicgrazing lands. That is, such take can occurregardless of the number of recovered wolfpairs in the area and no requirement existsfor government agencies to have completedtheir efforts to take the depredating wolves.However, physical evidence that an attackoccurred at the time of the take must be
2-15
present and the take must be promptlyreported.
. Any FWS-authorized person may captureand remove or translocate reintroducedwolves consistent with a FWS-approvedmanagement plan or special managementmeasure. These may include wolves that: (1)prey on livestock, (2) attack domestic ani-mals other than livestock on private land, (3)impact game populations in ways which mayinhibit further wolf recovery (impact definedin Appendix G), (4) prey on state-endan-gered desert bighorn sheep on the WhiteSands Missile Range (if used), (5) are consid-ered problem wolves (defined in AppendixG), are a nuisance, or endanger themselvesby their presence in a military impact area,or (6) are necessary for research.
* The FWS does not intend to change the“nonessential experimental” designation to“essential experimental” or “endangered” andthe FWS does not intend to designatecritical habitat for the Mexican wolf.
. Any taking of a wolf contrary to the experi-mental population rule may be referred tothe appropriate authorities for prosecution.
The release process involves many uncertainties.Wolves may die, surviving mates may need to berecaptured and paired with another mate or returnedto the captive population, or wolves may disperseout of the recovery areas and need to be retrieved(Phillips 1992). Post-release management to addressthese uncertainties will follow an interagencycooperative management plan. This will includeworking with the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-ment to meet the requirements of its CooperativeReintroduction Plan and working with the NewMexico Department of Game and Fish. A wolfmanagement team representing the FWS, the Gameand Fish agencies, and other cooperating agencieswill determine whether particular actions are neces-sary. The interagency management plan will coverissues such as release pen siting, veterinary manage-ment, depredation control, capture and relocation,research, radio tracking, aerial overflights, preymonitoring, and prey habitat management. Field
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
staff will conduct monitoring and research, trapping,depredation investigation, mortality investigation,control, and other on-the-ground actions. A citizenadvisory committee, or similar body, could alsoparticipate in management decisions.
Mitigation Measures
Contiol of Problem Wolves-. The experimentalpopulation rule provisions, summarized above, arelargely measures to mitigate the potential impacts ofthe proposal by providing the greatest degree ofmanagement flexibility and the leasr impact onprivate activity consistent with wolf recovery. Onemitigation measure is the allowance of non-injuriousharassment of wolves and, in limited situations,killing them if they are observed attacking livestock,although the actual number of observed attacks isexpected to be small. The FWS or other authorizedagencies will respond to all incidents of wolf-causeddepredation with concerted efforts to preventadditional depredation. Captured problem ornuisance wolves will be returned to captivity or to adistant location in the wolf recovery area, pursuantto the cooperative management plan. If both recov-ery areas are in use, wolves from the BRWRA couldbe translocated to the WSWR4, and vice versa.
The FWS will permanently remove from thewild or, as a last resort, euthanize any wolves exhibit-ing a consistent pattern of livestock depredation(three or more confirmed kills within one year inprimary wolf recovery zones and two or more inother areas). A wolf would be euthanized only after adetermination by the FWS that it had no furthervalue to the recovery program; euthanasia would bedone in accordance with the guidelines of theAmerican Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA1993), when feasible. Resolving depredation prob-lems through changes in livestock husbandry will beexplored with ranchers.
On private property, after two confirmed inci-dents within one year of nuisance behavior or thekilling or injuring of pets or other domestic animalsby wolves, efforts will be undertaken to deter thisbehavior. The FWS will move captured offendingwolves to a distant location. The FWS will perma-nently remove from the wild or euthanize anywolves exhibiting a consistent pattern of nuisancebehavior (three or more incidents per year). Thismodel of active, professional, management of
2 - 1 6
depredation has proven feasible in Minnesota and inthe northern Rockies; it has demonstrably served inboth areas to expeditiously resolve wolf/livestockconflicts (Niemeyer et al. 1994; Paul 1995). Activemanagement in conjunction with public educationand information improves local tolerance of wolves.
The FWS will attempt to recapture and relocatemembers of the experimental population that gooutside the designated wolf recovery areas. However,the FWS will not routinely recapture and returnpack members that make occasional forays outsiderecovery areas nor will it attempt to do so for re-ported but unconfirmed lone wolves, except whenlivestock depredation occurs. Packs that establishterritories on public land outside the designated wolfrecovery areas will be captured and returned to arecovery area or to captivity. If wolves move ontoprivate or tribal lands outside the recovery areas theFWS will attempt to develop management actions incooperation with the land manager, includingrecapture and return if requested by the land owneror tribal government. Field staff will not work onprivate or tribal land without permission.
Other Mitigation.-As indicated, the FWS willcondition the captive wolves prior to release. Thiswill emphasize orienting them to native prey andhabitat and may include aversive conditioning toboth humans and livestock. The actual releases willoccur in remote portions of the recovery areas wherethe fewest potential conflicts with human uses willoccur.
A private depredation compensation fund existsto cover the costs of livestock losses. The Defendersof Wildlife, a national membership non-profitcorporation, has over $112,000 in a fund to beapplied to wolf depredation in both the northernRocky Mountains and the Southwest (Schlickeisen1993; Defenders of Wildlife 1994). The fund pays100% of the market value of livestock lost to con-firmed wolf kills as determined by a responsible wolfmanagement official. It also pays 50% for uncon-firmed losses of livestock when wolves are in the areaand evidence exists that a depredation occurred.From 1987 through 1994, a total of about$I 5,OOO-around $2,000 per year-was paid out ofthis fund to 17 ranchers in Montana. During thisperiod the wolf population there averaged 44 ani-mals. The FWS does not guarantee the future
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
existence of this private mitigation fund, but recog-nizes it has been a very valuable aid to wolf recovery.
The FWS will undertake a cooperative effort toimprove public understanding of the biology,ecology, history, management, and status of Mexicanwolves. In particular, residents of the primary andsecondary recovery zones will receive briefings andregular updates. Participation of a citizen advisorycommittee will be encouraged and supported. TheFWS and cooperating agencies will work withranchers to assess actual depredation impacts and todevelop methods to mitigate potential impactsthrough changes in livestock husbandry. These couldinclude: use of horned cattle, regular checks of herds,bull management so that calves are born at about thesame time, calving in confined pastures, herdconcentration methods, herd protection methods,and removal or burial of livestock carcasses (Bjorgeand Gunson 1985). Some of the suggested methodslikely would be impractical for open range situa-tions. In small pastures, the use of livestock guardingdogs or other guard animals may deter wolf attacks(Coppinger and Coppinger, in press).
The proposed Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Rule also provides for controlling wolvesto prevent unacceptable impacts on ungulate herdsthat might inhibit wolf recovery and to avoid im-pacts on New Mexico’s state-endangered desertbighorn sheep population on the WSWRA (if used).This herd merits special protection due to lowpopulation growth caused by long-standing diseaseproblems, although wolves likely will not take manyof these steep-terrain animals (Bednarz 1989).Unacceptable impacts on ungulate herds are definedin the Glossary (Appendix G) under “Impact ongame populations in ways which may inhibit furtherwolf recovery.”
Summary of Alternative A
In conclusion, the following actions are called for toimplement Alternative A:
. expand the captive Mexican wolf population,
. select and acclimate wolves for release,
. adopt the final rule designating the popula-tion as experimental nonessential and desig-nating the experimental population area,
. conduct public information and educationefforts and support a citizen advisory
2 - 1 7
committee,develop an interagency cooperativemanagement plan,set up release pens in the BRWRA and placewolves in them,implement field management, monitoring,research, and problem wolf control,conduct annual releases of adequate numbersof family groups of wolves to lead to achieve-ment of the recovery objective of 100wolves,recapture and return wolves that dispersebeyond the BRWRA boundary,consider the necessity and feasibility of usingthe WSWRA, andat three and five years, fully evaluate whetherthe reintroduction effort should continue orterminate.
Alternative B: Reintroduction of Mexicanwolves, classified as nonessential experimen-tal, into both the Blue Range Wolf RecoveryArea and the White Sands Wolf RecoveryArea primary recovery zones. Wolves dispers-ing from the primary recovery zones will becaptured and returned to the primary zonesor captivity.
Actions Associated With Alternative
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves into boththe BRWRA and the WSWRA primary recoveryzones and actively prevent the populations fromexpanding beyond these zones (Fig.s 2-2 and 2-3,above). In the BRWRA primary recovery zone theFWS will release about eight family groups over fouryears with the goal of reaching a population of 20wild wolves by 2001 (Table 2-4). In the WSWRAprimary recovery zone the FWS will release aboutfour family groups over two years with the goal ofreaching a population of 14 wild wolves by 1999(Table 2-5). The total recovery objective will be 34wolves. The BRWRA primary recovery zone repre-sents only about one-fifth of the area wolves wouldoccupy in the whole BRWRA under Ah. A. TheWSWRA primary recovery zone represents abouttwo-thirds of the area wolves would occupy in thewhole WSWRA under Alt. A.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
The FWS will designate the population asnonessential experimental under the ESA. The FWSwill adopt basically the same Mexican Wolf Experi-mental Population Rule as under Ah. A (AppendixC), but it would apply to the smaller areas. TheFWS and its cooperators will follow the samerelease, monitoring, and management procedures asunder Ah. A, but on a smaller scale due to thesmaller areas involved. Control will be accomplishedthrough a combination of aggressive monitoring andmanagement methods to promptly recapture wolvesthat leave the primary recovery zones. Wolves couldbe translocated between the two areas as needed.
In the BRWRA primary recovery zone, becauseof the smaller area involved (1,000 mi2), the FWSwill release only two family groups annually, total-ling approximately ten wolves (Table 2-4), ratherthan three family groups released annually underAh. A. High annual control mortality and otherlosses of wolves are expected due to the intensivemanagement required to prevent dispersal. Alterna-tive B in the BRWRA will be completed when 20wolves occupy the 1,000 mi* primary recovery zone.The population and area goals likely would be metafter five years, in 2001.
In the WSWRA primary recovery zone, annualmortality and other losses of wolves are expected tobe somewhat higher than under Ah. A due to theintensive management required to prevent dispersal.Alternative B in the WSWRA will be completedwhen 14 wolves occupy the roughly 720 mi* ofsuitable Mexican wolf habitat in the primary recov-ery zone (Bednarz 1989). The population and areagoals likely would be met after three years, in 1999.
These population projections provide guidancebut do not predict exact outcomes. Neithersubpopulation would be considered independentlyviable and neither would alone, nor combined, meetthe Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan objective.
2 - 1 8
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Ah. B).
Recovery area goal: 20 wolves occupying the primary recovery zone, area of approximately 1,000 mi’; adapted from
Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982).
1997 1998 1999 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
No. released successfully”
No. surviving (from prev. year)
No. pups bomb
10% control loss
30% other 1osseC
Total wolves (end of year)
No. packsd
No. breeding pairse
Area occuuied’ ( 100 mi2)
7 7 7 7 0
- - 4 7 1 1 1 7
0 0 5 1 0 1 5
1 1 2 3 3
2 3 6 8 9
4 7 11 17 2 0
- - 1 2 3 4
- - 1 2 3 4
- - 3 5 8 1 0
A Inirlally, abour ten c+ve-raised wolves annually ~111 be released, but three of these are assumed to quickly die, disappear, disperse from the recovery area.
or require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and nor to contribute to population growth.
’ Average of five pups per littrr bzsed on McBride (10X0)
’ “Other losses” Includes v.&rs thar die, leave, disappear. or are removed from the recovery area for any reasons besldrs control; adapted from races in Phillips (lW2),USFWS (19’)3a), and Me& (1970)
d Average pack sue of five based on Bednarz (1788)
’ Most p.~cks contain one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of pa& do not have a successful breeding pair,
fAveragt pack territory size of 250 mi’ based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1782) and Mech (1770). Not all land within a territory is suitable year
round habirat.
SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).
2 - 1 9
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-5. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the White SandsWolf Recovery Area under nonessential experimental classification with restricted dispersal (Ah. B).
Recovery area goal: 14 wolves occupying the primary recovery zone area of approximately 720 mi’; adapted from
Bednarz (1989).
1 9 9 7 1998 1999
No. released successfully”
No. surviving (from prev. year)
No. pups bomb
5% control loss
25% other lossesc
Total wolves (end of year)
No. paAd
No. breeding pairse
Area occupiedf (100 mi2)
7
--
0
0
2
5
1
1
2.5
7 0
5 12
5 10
1 1
4 6
12 15
2 3
2 3
5.0 7.5
‘I Inlcially, about ren captive-raised wolves annually will be released, but three of these ate assumed to quickly die, disappear. disperse from the recovery area,
or require recapturing for a variery of reasons, and not to contrlbute to populatlon growth.
” A~eragr of five pups per litter based on McBride (1980).
‘ “< )ther losses” Includes wolves chat die, leave, disappear, or are removed from the recovery area for any reasons besides control; adapted from rates in Phillips
(1992). USFWS (1993a). and Mech (1970).
” Average pack size of five habed on Bednarz (1988)
’ Most packs contain one breeding pair; assumed that 10% of packs do not have a successful breeding pair.
’ Average pack territory size of 250 mi’ based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982) and Mech (1970). Not all land within a territory is suitable year.
round habitar.
SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).
2 - 2 0
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation will be the same as under Ah. A. Thescale of the mitigation efforts will be reduced due tothe smaller areas involved. However, a high intensityof management will be needed to prevent wolvesfrom dispersing beyond the primary recovery zonesinto adjacent suitable habitat.
Summary of Alternative B
In conclusion, the following actions are called for toimplement Alternative B:
expand the captive Mexican wolf population,select and acclimate wolves for release,adopt the final rule designating the popula-tion as experimental nonessential and desig-nating the experimental population area,conduct public information and educationefforts and support a citizen advisorycommittee,develop an interagency cooperative wolfmanagement plan,designate release areas within the BRWRAand WSWRA primary recovery zones, set uprelease pens, and place wolves in them,conduct annual releases in both areas ofadequate numbers of family groups to leadto achievement of the total recovery objec-tive, that is, 34 wolves,implement intensive field management,monitoring, research, and problem wolfcontrol,recapture and return wolves that dispersebeyond designated primary recovery zones,andafter three and five years, fully evaluatewhether the reintroduction effort shouldcontinue or terminate.
Alternative C: Reintroduction of Mexicanwolves, classified as endangered, into theBlue Range Wolf Recovery Area only. Wolveswill be released into the primary recoveryzone and unlimited dispersal will be allowed.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Wolves will receive fhll protection under theEndangered Species Act.
Actions Association with Alternative
In 1997, the FWS will begin to reintroduce familygroups of captive-raised Mexican wolves under theircurrent full-endangered status into the primaryrecovery zone of the BRWRA in east-central Ari-zona, following the same release procedures as underAlt.s A and B. The FWS will gradually release up to15 family groups into the BRWRA. No releases willoccur in the WSWRA.2 The recovery objective ofthe alternative is to re-establish 100 wild wolvesdistributed over more than 5,000 mi* by about theyear 2002, consistent with the Mexican Wolf Recov-ery Plan (Table 2-6). The FWS and its cooperatorswill monitor and conduct research on the wolves,but they will not actively manage them.
The full-endangered status allows unrestricteddispersal; that is, the FWS will neither restrict thepopulation to the designated BRWRA, as under Alt.A, nor to the smaller primary recovery zone, asunder Ah. B. No attempts will be made to recaptureor return wolves with the possible exception ofindividual depredators.
The wolves will have the full protection against“take” by humans provided by the ESA. Anyonewho would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt toengage in any such conduct” against a Mexican wolfwill be violating the ESA, 16 USC sec.s 1532( 19)and 1538. The only exceptions will be takings toprotect human life or by special permit “for scientificpurposes or to enhance the propagation or survivalof the affected species,” 16 USC sec. 1539(a)(l)(A).This is the same “endangered” status that wildMexican wolves would have if they were to somehownaturally recolonize into the United States fromMexico under Ah. D.
The overall rates of mortality and other losses areprojected to be lower than under Alt. A in theBRWRA, at 25% (Table 2-6, above). As a result, thepopulation and area goals will be met after six years,three years sooner than under Alt. A. These popula-
‘In the DEIS, Alt. C included reintroduction into the WSWRA as well as into the BRWRA. The Interdisciplinary Team and theFWS decided to drop reintroduction into the WSWRA from Ah. C in this FEIS.
2-21
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-6. Projected wolf population growth to recovery area goal after releases into the Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area with full Endangered Species Act protection (Alternative C).
Recovery area goal: 100 wolves occupying a total area of 5,000 mi’; based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1382).
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
No. released successfulIf 10 10 10 10 4 0
No. surviving (from prev. year) -- 8 17 31 49 70
No. bombpups 0 5 15 25 40 65
25% all losses‘ 2 6 11 17 23 34
Total wolves (end of year) 8 17 31 43 70 101
No. packsd 1 3 6 9 14 20
No. breeding pairse 1 3 5 8 1.7 18
Area occupiedf (100 mi’) 3 8 15 23 33 50
” Axragr ot five pups per litter based UII McBride (1380)
’ “Orher louts” illcLudes wolves rhar die+ leave, disappear, or arc removed from the recovery arca for any reasons bcsldes control; adaprtld fr<,m r.i[cs 111 l)hlllll,
(1932). USFWS (199&x), and Mech (1970).
d Awrage pack SIX of five based on Bcdnarz (I 988)
’ Mopt packs contatn one breeding pair; asssumcd that 10% of packs do not have a 6ucccssfuI breeding pair
iAveragc pack rcrrirory size of250 ml’ based on Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (1982) and Mcch (1970). Nor all land within a territory IS suitable year-
round habitat
SOURCE: Adapted from USFWS (1993a).
2 - 2 2
tion projections provide guidance but do not predictexact outcomes.
It is more likely under Alternative C than underAlt.s A, B, or D that the wolf population couldeventually grow to far exceed the projections in thescenarios. The precise numbers and areas wherewolves could occur cannot be predicted with confi-dence, but they most likely would be forested,montane habitats near the BRWRA. Chap. 3 de-scribes the areas into which reintroduced wolvesforeseeably would disperse under this alternative.They are the San Carlos Apache and Fort Apachereservations, the Lakeside Ranger District of theSitgreaves National Forest, and the San MateoMountains unit of the Cibola National Forest.
The impacts will be less predictable than underthe nonessential experimental classification alterna-tives (A and B) because the impacts would occurover a broader region when the wolves disperseoutside the BRWRA, as they probably eventuallywould. A greater likelihood of land use restrictionswill exist under this alternative. Depending onwhere the wolves occur, these could include limitingpredator control methods that might kill or injurewolves, closing roads, modifying livestock grazingallotments, and imposing other protections to avoidjeopardizing the population’s survival. Federalagencies will be required to pursue their ESA Section7 responsibilities to conserve, and not to harm, theendangered population. This legal mandate couldtake precedence over other, more discretionary,activities of these land managers. This could includemanaging lands specifically to maintain and createhigh-quality habitat for wolf prey. Such managementcould include extensive vegetation manipulation tofavor ungulates, e.g., through timber harvesting,clearing, and prescribed burning if this is determinedto be necessary to fully support wolf recovery.
Mitigation Measures
Individual depredating wolves could be controlledonly pursuant to a permit so long as the actionenhanced the subspecies’ survival, 16 USC sec.
1539(a)(l)(A). Management for this fully-protectedpopulation will be less flexible than under theexperimental population rules for Alt.s A and B.There will be no experimental population rule, noboundaries on the wolf recovery area, no provisions
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
to control wolves that are impacting ungulate herds,and it will be illegal to harm or harass the wolvesanywhere except under very narrow circumstancesauthorized by an ESA permit. Taking by privateindividuals of wolves that attack livestock will beillegal. Taking wolves in defense of human lifewill still be allowed, 16 USC sec.s 1540(a)(3) and
1540(b)(3).The FWS will implement the other mitigation
measures listed under Ah. A. As indicated, the FWSwill condition the captive wolves prior to release.Conditioning will emphasize orienting the wolves tonative prey and habitat and may include aversiveconditioning to both humans and livestock. Theprivate depredation compensation fund sponsoredby the Defenders of Wildlife would apply. Again, theFWS does not guarantee the future existence of thisprivate mitigation fund, but recognizes it has been avaluable aid to wolf recovery in the northern Rockiessince 1987.
The FWS will undertake a cooperative effort toimprove public understanding of the biology,ecology, history, management, and the full-endan-gered status of the wolves under this alternative.In particular, residents of all areas where the rein-troduced wolves occur will receive briefings andregular updates. The FWS and cooperating agencieswill work with ranchers to assess actual depredationimpacts and to develop methods to mitigate poten-tial impacts through changes in livestock husbandry(Bjorge and Gunson 1985; Coppinger and Cop-pinger, in press).
An interagency management plan will beentered into with cooperating state, federal, andtribal agencies. This will cover issues such as releasepen siting, veterinary management, depredationcontrol, research, radio tracking, aerial overflights,land use restrictions, wolf and ungulate habitatenhancement, and p’ey monitoring and manage-ment. Mitigation will be necessary over a broaderarea when the population expands beyond theBRWRA. Even if the reintroduction was going badlyit is unlikely that the project could be terminatedand all the wolves recaptured consistent with theESA, as could occur under the nonessentialexperimental reintroduction alternatives.
2-23
Summary of Alternative C
In conclusion, the following actions are called for toimplement Alternative C:
. expand the captive Mexican wolf population,
. select and acclimate wolves for release,
. conduct public information and educationefforts in the BRWRA and likely dispersalareas,
. develop an interagency cooperative wolfmanagement plan,
. designate release areas in the BRWRAprimary recovery zone, set up release pens,and place wolves in them,
. conduct annual releases of adequate numbersof family groups of wolves to lead to achieve-ment of recovery objective of 100 wolves,
. implement field management, monitoring,research, and limited permitted problemwolf control, and
. after three and five years, fully evaluatewhether the reintroduction effort shouldcontinue.
Alternative D: No Action
Actions Associated with Alternative
Under the No Action alternative, the FWS will takeno action other than continuing its present course. Itwill neither release wolves nor take any other steps todirectly ensure Mexican wolf recovery. The FWS willneither adopt an experimental population rule nordesignate any wolf recovery areas. The agency willcontinue to support the captive population objec-tives established in the SSP Master Plan (Siminski1994b), but the agency will not support breeding formaximum growth.
Based on its current ESA obligations, the FWSwould still encourage protection and expansion ofwild wolf populations under this alternative, if anywere discovered. Natural recolonization of graywolves has occurred in recent years in some areasalong the northern U.S. border, such as northwest-ern Montana, northern Wisconsin, and northernMichigan, which are close to Canada or Minnesotawhere large sources of dispersing wolves exist (Lauferand Jenkins 1989, Ream et al. 1991, Thiel 1988).No evidence exists to indicate a likelihood of natural
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
recolonization in U.S. portions of the historicMexican wolf range (Girmendonk 1994a, Whitakeret al. 1995. Wolok 1994), but the FWS will supportcontinued research on this possibility.
Natural recolonization is considered extremelyspeculative. Based on historical wolf abundance,recent sighting reports alleged to be wolves, proxim-ity to Mexico, and other factors, the most suitableareas for potential natural recolonization by wildwolves probably would be the mountainous parts ofsoutheastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico(Fig. 2-5), and Big Bend National Park in southernTexas (Fig. 2-6). This alternative analyzes these threeareas. No confirmed sighting reports have comefrom these areas or from Mexico in recent years.
The WSW’RA and BRWRA-the most suitablecandidate areas for releases of captive-raisedwolves-are farther north and less likely to benaturally recolonized from Mexico (see Fig. 2-4,
above). They are not analyzed under this alternative.However, if natural recolonization were somehow tooccur in the BRWRA and WSWRA, the impactslikely would be comparable to those analyzed underthe reintroduction alternatives.
Any wolves that did naturally recolonize wouldbe fully protected as an endangered species in theUnited States. It would be illegal to harm or harassthem except under very narrow circumstancesauthorized by an ESA permit. Nevertheless, evidencefrom natural gray wolf recolonization along theU.S./Canada border suggests that, even whenadequate source populations exist, lone wolves orbreeding pairs may repeatedly appear in an area butthen die out or be accidentally or illegally killedwithout establishing a self-sustaining population(USFWS 1993a).
Assuming for analytical purposes that sourcepopulations exist in Mexico, natural recolonizationmight take on the order of 30 years, if it occurred atall (see USFWS 1993a). Under this time frame, andassuming a 250 mi2 average territory size (Mech1970) for the five-member average pack (Bednarz1988), speculative population scenarios for the threepotential natural recolonization areas analyzed are:
Southeastern Arizona: 30 wolves might recolonizeby the year 2023 over approximately 1,500 mi’,consisting of the Coronado National Forest unitssouth of Interstate 10, together with the ChiricahuaNational Monument, the Coronado National
2 - 2 4
Figure 2-5. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.
\rlTUCSON
SANTA CRUZCOUN’TY ,
CHlRlCAHtlANATlONAlMONUMENT
NOGALESr.OR0NALX-l NATiONAl MEMORIAL
///L//d
POTENTIAL NATURAL RECOLONIZATION AREAS
NOTE: Areas in southeastern Arizona consist of ait the Coronado National Foresttinjts south of Interstate 10, together with the separately labelled areas.
cl IO 20 30L I I ISCALE IN MILES
Figure 2-6.
mPOTENTIAL NATURAL RECOLONIZATION AREA
Memorial, and the Fort Huachuca Military Reserva-tion west of State Route 90 (Fig. 2-5, above).
Southwestern New Mexico: 20 wolves mightrecolonize by the year 2023 over approximately1,000 mi’, consisting of the mountainous areasof Hidalgo County south of State Route 9(Fig. 2-5, above).
Big Bend National Park: five wolves might recolo-nize by the year 2023 over approximately250 mi’, consisting of the Chisos Mountains andsurrounding land (Fig. 2-6, above).
These speculative scenarios provide guidancebut do not predict outcomes. Because of the greatuncertainty involved, year-by-year populationgrowth is not projected under this alternative as it isfor Alt.s A, B, and C. Even if wolf recovery weresomehow to occur in these three areas it might takeseveral decades and the most optimistic total popula-tion of 55 animals inhabiting 2,750 mi2 would notmeet the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan goal.
None of the potential natural recolonizationareas alone, nor all of them combined, would meetthe objective of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan ofat least 100 animals distributed over a 5,000 mi2area, unless they were linked with larger sourcepopulations in northern Mexico (Mex. Wolf Rec.Team 1982). Due to uncertainties about locationand timing, the impacts of natural recolonization,if it occurs, will be less predictable than in the caseof reintroduction of captive-raised animals.
Land use restrictions could be imposed underthis alternative depending on if, and where, wolvesoccurred. Restrictions could include limiting the useof predator control methods that might kill or injurewolves, closing roads, modifying livestock grazing,and imposing other protections to limit any jeopar-dy resulting from human activities. Other federalagencies would be expected to pursue theirresponsibilities under the ESA to conserve, and notharm, a recolonizing population. This would includemanaging to maintain and create high quality wolfand ungulate habitat.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Mitigation Measures
Under a natural recolonization scenario the FWSwould control only individual depredating wolves solong as the action enhanced the subspecies’ survivaland a permit to do so was issued, 16 USC sec.1539(a)(l)(A). Management of a small, fully-protected endangered population would be lessflexible than under the experimental population rulein Alt.s A and B. Management would be similar toAlt. C, the reintroduction of full-endangered wolves.
The other mitigation options under Ah. Awould be implemented if natural recolonizationoccurs, including providing public information anddeveloping an interagency cooperative managementplan. It is not certain that the current privatedepredation compensation fund would exist decadesinto the future to cover possible losses from a specu-lative natural recolonization.
Summary of Alternative D
In conclusion, the following are called for underAlternative D:
. maintain the captive Mexican wolf popula-tion, but take no action toward reintroduc-tion,
. in the event wolves were to recolonize,develop an interagency cooperative wolfmanagement plan,
. in the event wolves were to recolonize,conduct research and public information andeducation efforts in the recolonization areas,and
. in the event wolves were to recolonize,implement field management, monitoring,and limited problem wolf control.
Comparison of the Alternatives
Table 2-7 summarizes the features of the fouralternatives. Appendix B provides projected costestimates to complete each alternative. Table 2-8outlines the projected environmental consequences.See Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences forthe detailed analysis that Table 2-8 summarizes.
2 - 2 7
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-7. Summary of Mexican wolf re-establishment alternatives.
Kev: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
DefiniteBoundaries
Endangered Estimated Area to
Alternative Descr ip t ion Areas Analyzed AroundSpecies Act Area Wolf be Occupied
RecoveryProtection Population Goal by Wolves
Areas?Status (square miles)
A(Preferred
Alternative)
B
C
D
Nonessential experi-
mental releases allow-
ing dispersal into
secondary recovery
zones; BR first,
WS back-up
BR and WS
primary and
secondary
recovery zones
Nonessential experi-
mental releases
preventing dispersal
from primary zones
BR and WS pri-
mary recovery
zones only
Releases under full RR only plus likely
ESA protection dispersal areas
No releases; research
and support possible
natural recolonization
Southeastern
Arizona, South-
western New
Mexico, and Big
Bend National
Park, Texas
Yes Per experi-
mental popu-
lation rule
Yes Per experi-
mental popu-
lation rule
No Endangered
No Endangered
(if wolves
discovered)
BR and WS
(if used):
Total - 100
ws-14
R R - 2 0
Total - 34
BR - 100-1
(speculative)
SE Ariz. - 30
S W N M - 2 0
Big Bend NP - 5
Total - 55
BR and WS
(if used):
Total - 5,000
ws -720
BR - 1,000
T o t a l 1 , 7 2 0
BR - >5,000
(speculative)
SE Ariz. - 1,500
SW NM - 1,000 Big
Bend
N P - 250
Total - 2,750
(continued below)
Alternative
A(Preferred
Alternative)
B
Meets 1982Mexican Wolf
Recovery Plan’sPopulationObjective?
BR - Yes
W S - N o
Together - Yes
W S N o
B R - N o
Together - No
Estimated Estimated AnnualYears to Percentage of Major
IntensityTotal Estimated
Reach Area Established Population Land Useof Wolf
ImplementationPopulation Lost to Control and Restrictions
ManagementCostd
Goal Other Factors ’and Control
BR-9 BR - 35% $7,247,000
ws-3 WS - 25% N o n e Medium (over 14 years)
ws-3 ws -30% $5,890,000B R - 5 BR - 40% N o n e High (over 10 years)
BR - Ye\ B R - 6 BR - 25% Some Low $5,692,000possible (over 10 years)
SE Ariz. - No Decades No estimates Some Low 5 150,000 to
S W N M - N o (speculative) possible $217,000 per
Big Bend NP - No (if wolves year (period
Together - No discovered) indeterminate)
’ In addition, about one-third of the captive-raised wolves that are released annually are expected to quickly die, disappear, disperse from the
recovery area, or to require recapturing for a variety of reasons, and not to become part of the established popularion.
’ See Appendix B for cost accounting.
2-28
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-8. Summary of key projected impacts under each alternative.
Votes: Chap. 4 provides background for all information summarized here. All impacts in the back-up White Sands Wolf Recovery Area under Alt. A
depend on whether the area is L&. This table cmphasizcs quantifiable adverse impacts and is not a cost-benefit summary. Monetary lossc\ .IIK III I ‘)‘J-t
lollars.
Key: BR = Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area; WS = White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
13R: 4,Hor)- 1 O,(lOO BK: .%X-i60 fewer
A fewer tfcc~-: deer: 120-200 f&wer elk
(Preferred 1,2OO- 1,900 fewer elk
Alt.)K’S: 1.200-3.000 WS: 1 O-24 fewer decl
~CWL~I deer- -
HR: ‘970- I ,OUO fewer BR: 5?- 1 10 fewer deer; BR: $123,100- RR: $58.200- BR: 0.03-l
Bdcer; 230-150 fewer elk 24-33 fewer elk $214,800 $101,500
\-Q’S: 760-2.009 WS: 5 1 I fewer deet ws: $1,500-%3,300 WS: % 1.500-$3,200 ws: 0
tcwer dcct
C
-
RR, 3,70&8,X00 fewer BR: 140-480 fewer RR: $582,800- BR: $470,700- Pll<~ I (‘I
deer; H ‘O- I,7011 deer; 90- 150 fewer elk $1,119,200 X902,‘OO
fewer elk
I
L-
D’ lmt modellcd not modelled
(none in Big Bend NP)
Annual lost value Annual lost hunter Number of cattleof hunting expenditures in region killed annually (low
(low to high range)* (low to high range)* to high range)
HR: $716,800- HR: $579, IOU- f3R: I -i/i
$1,336,60(1 s 1,079,lOO
ws: $3,000-$7,100 ws: $2.900-57,000 WS: II.0 I -l)..i
Alternative
not modellcd not modelled not estimated (none
(none in Big Bend NP) (none in Big Bend NP) in Big Bend NP)
’ Figures given :-omp.trc pn’y popularions under the wolf reintroduction scenario, at a point in time five years after the wolf population goal for the
area is acllicved, to what the prey popularIons are projected to be if wolves ,ue not reintroduced,
L ‘I’l~esr figures likely overstate rhc nctd losses. Hunters may not actually hunt less overall because of fewer deer and elk in the woll‘r~cc~vt:~-~~ .I~YX.
but instead turn their attention to substlrutc areas or species. Further, deer .111d elk hunting in Arizona md New McxIco .lrc’ domin.~rcd I)\. IC\IJC.II~
hunters. hlost of rhc nloney Ilot spent b!, Iresidents as hunter expenditures 111 the region probably will bc spent III mI11c orhcl- \CCCOI ot 111~ \I.ITc
ec0110n1y.
’ All projected impacts in the potential natural rccolollization areas are spccuiativc
(continued on next page)
2-29
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-8. Continued.
Value of cattlekilled annually
(low to highrange)4
HR: $640.
$2 1,600
Impacts on Impacts on landgovernment use and military
policies and plans activities
Impacts onrecreation
Alternative
HK: increased
recreational use
vnluc and
expenditure5
BR: conflict with
local ordinance5
f3K: minor acce.55
restrictions near
Penn, dens, and
I.cndc7vous srtc\
HI<: hI-44 and
neck snare
rcstrlcrions;
limits on
other toolsA(Preferred Ah.) ws:
X10-$200
WS: little
i m p a c t
WS: little
it11pnct
W S : l i m i t e d con-
flier wirll loc.ll
ordinance5
WS: vcl-y limited
.iccc’\\ restricrlo,ls:
inconvenience
fY)r security
administration
RR:
Y20-$600
Bli: limited in-
creased
recreational use
vcduc and
cxpzriditurcs
RR: limited
M-44 and
neck snare
restrictions;
llrnits on other
tools
BR: minor access
restrictions near
pens, dens, and
rmdezvous s i r e s
EK: limited
increased
visitarton
HR: no conflicr
B
WS, vc’ty llmitcd
.ICCCSS lestI-actions;
incollvcnience for
security admin-
istration
WS: IIO coriilicrW'S: %(J WS: 110 impact WS: no impact
C
BR: $640-
$21,600
BR: increased
recreational use
value andexpenditures
BR: M-44 and
neck snare
restrictions;
limits on
other tools
UK: conflict with
local ordinances;
potenrial conflict
with San Carlos
and White Moun-
tdin hpachca’ tribal
5ovcrclgnty
All .3 are.ts: 110
conflict
BK: access restric-
tions near pens,
dens, and rendez-
vous s i t e s ; restric-
tions on grazing
.rrnd other accIvitlc\
BR: increased
visitation
All .3 areas: access
r-cstrictions near
pens, dens, and
rendezvous sites;
restrictions on
grazing and other
activities
All 3 areas:
increased
visitation
not estimated
(none in Big
Bend NI’)
All 3 areas:
increased
recreational use
value and
expenditures
All 3 areas: M-
44 and neck
snare restric-
tions; limits on
other tools
’ Livestock losses may be compensated by a private depredation compensation fund
2 - 3 0
Chapter 3
Affected Environments
CHAPTER 3Affected Environments
Introduction
Chapter 2 designated the areas in the Southwest inwhich the four alternative actions would take place.Chapter 3 will describe these areas geographically,biologically, and socially. This description will providethe framework for analyzing the potential impacts ofeach of the alternatives in Chapter 4.
Alternatives A, B and C are the alternatives underwhich the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) wouldactively reintroduce captive-raised Mexican wolvesinto the wild. The areas that would foreseeably beaffected by these alternatives overlap.
The affected areas under Alternative A couldinclude the entire the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area(BRWR4) and the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area(WSWRA) (Fig.s 3-l and 3-2); however, the use ofthe WSWRA as a back-up area is conditional. Theaffected areas under Alternative B are just the primaryrecovery zones within both the BRWRA andWSWRA. Under both Alternatives A and B, the FWSwould attempt to recapture and remove any wolvesthat established territories outside the designatedboundaries. Pending recapture, areas outside theseboundaries could also be affected, but to a relativelyminor degree.
Alternative C is limited initially to reintroductionin the BRWRA (reintroduction into the WSWRA hasbeen dropped since the DEIS). Nevertheless, thisalternative potentially affects the largest area of anyalternative. Impacts are not limited to the BRWRA.Impacts also may occur wherever the wolves disperse.Dispersal areas under Alternative C cannot be predict-ed with confidence; however, this chapter providesgeneral descriptions of the most likely, or foreseeable,dispersal areas.
The areas most likely affected if natural wolfrecolonization occurred at some point in the futureunder Alternative D, the “No Action” alternative, aredistinct from the areas affected by Alternatives A, B,and C. These “potential natural recolonization areas”are described at the end of this chapter.
Blue Range WolfRecovery Area (BRWRA)
Geography
The BRWRA includes all of the Apache and GilaNational Forests (NF) in east-central Arizona andwest-central New Mexico, encompassing 4,386,245acres, or 6,854 mi2 (Fig. 3-3). The BRWRA is locatedwithin southern Apache and northern Greenleecounties in Arizona, and southern Catron, northernGrant, and western Sierra Counties in New Mexico.Elevations range from under 4,000 feet in the semi-desert lowlands along the San Francisco River to11,000 feet on Mount Baldy, Escudilla Mountain,and the Mogollon Mountains. Lower elevations arecharacterized by rolling hills with moderately steepcanyons and sandy washes. Major drainages, such asthe Gila and San Francisco Rivers, have carved steep-walled canyons through the lower areas. Higherelevations are characterized by rugged slopes, deepcanyons, elevated mesas, and rock cliffs.
Climate
The BRWRA has relatively mild weather with coolsummers and moderate to cold winters over most ofthe higher elevations, and warm year-round tempera-tures in the lower elevations. Extremes range from -32°F to 101°F (Johnson et al. 1992). At Alpine,Arizona (elevation 8,050 feet), the average minimumtemperature is 27.9”F and the average maximum is58.7”F. At Clifton, Arizona (elevation 3,470 feet), theaverage minimum temperature is 5 1.5”F and theaverage maximum is 79.O”F. Annual precipitationvaries from seven to 12 inches in the southern wood-lands to 30 to 37 inches in the mixed conifer forestsand averages almost 2 1 inches in the area. Mostprecipitation falls during thunderstorms between mid-July and September. Snow falls in the higher eleva-tions from December through March (Allen 1993).
5 1
Affected Environments
Figure 3-2. Affected areas under Alternatives A and B in the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area Region.
0-5SCALE IN MILES
1 ALTERNATIVE B(Primary Recovery Zone)
ALTERNATIVE A(Primary and Secondary Recovery Zones)
3-3
Figure 3-3. Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. Affected Environmencs
RECOVERY \ i GR4NT COUNTY
+ \‘\.,_ (G I L A ,I’ ’
‘1:
--__a.-- ?“)‘-
\
LORDSBURG
SCALE IN MILES I
3 4
Water
Natural springs and streams supplemented withsources constructed for livestock and wildlife arewidely dispersed (Allen 1993). The BRWRA containsseveral major drainages, including the Little Colorado,Gila, San Francisco, Blue, and Black Rivers, EagleCreek, and the North and San Agustin Plains. A totalof almost 1,465 miles of permanent streams and about4,244 acres of lake surface area are present. The BlueRange Primitive Area, in the southern Apache NF, has22 perennial water sources and 730 developed sources.The Gila NF contains about 2,800 developed watersources for livestock. These are less common in theungrazed portions of the wilderness areas within theGila NF (Johnson et al. 1992; SW Region USFS1987a)
Vegetation
The most prevalent biotic communities in theBRWRA are: petran montane and great basin coniferforests, plains and great basin grasslands, Madreanevergreen woodland, and semidesert grasslands. Petranmontane conifer forests, occurring generally from6,650 feet to 8,050 feet elevation, are characterized byponderosa pine often interspersed with aspen or firstands. Great basin conifer forests, at 4,900 feet to7,550 feet, are dominated by juniper and pinon.Plains and great basin grasslands occur between 4,900feet and 7,550 feet and are comprised ofa variety ofgrasses; however, fire suppression and overgrazing havea;;ered some of this landscape so that mesquite,juniper, and forbs now are widespread within theBRWXA. In Madrean evergreen woodlands, at 3,950feet to 7,200 feet, evergreen oaks, juniper and p&ondominate. Occurring at 3,600 feet to 5,600 feet,semidesert grasslands consist of a variety of grass andscrub vegetation (Brown 1982).
Vegetation at the higher elevations of the BRWRAis dominated by mixed conifer stands (437,720 acres).As the terrain slopes toward the Black River, in theupper Blue River watershed, and throughout the GilaNF, ponderosa and white pine forests occur inter-spersed with undcrstories of oak, p&on, juniper,douglas and white fir, mountain mahogany, andceanothus (totalling approximately I,94 1,230 acres inthe BRWRA). Lower elevations support pifion-juniper woodlands and Madrean evergreen woodlands(2,352,430 acres).
Affected Environments
Grasslands are interspersed throughout all vegeta-tion types (484,480 acres). The northern portion ofthe Apache NF includes an extensive high altitudegrassland near the summit of the White Mountains.Some areas such as Four Bar Mesa in the southernApache NF have had extensive control ofwoodyvegetation to preserve the scarce grasslands. Moststreams support riparian plant communities, encom-passing 46,780 acres in the BRWRA. Fremont cotton-wood, sycamore, walnut, boxelder, ash, and hackberryare common at lower elevations; and narrowleafcottonwood, willows, alders, maples, red osier, andberry bushes are common along higher elevationstreams (Allen 1993; SW Region USFS 1987a; SWRegion USFS 1986a).
Historically, vegetation in the Apache NF wastypified by open-canopied forests and grassland areasinterspersed with forested areas. The trend has beenand is predicted to continue to be toward expansionof coniferous and woodland vegetation, resultingprimarily from decades of fire suppression and second-arily from reduced timber harvesting. The trend in allforest types below the Mogollon Rim follows thatexperienced above the Rim, especially in the pifion-juniper woodland type, where the shift is from open-canopy stands dominated by mature juniper trees,sparsely scattered pifion, and grey oak to a muchdenser woodland dominated by pifion (Hayes 1995a).Federally endangered, threatened, proposed, andcandidate plant:; are listed in Appendix D.
Animals
History of Wolves
Mexican wolves formerly ranged throughout centraland southeastern Arizona and southern New Mexico,including the Mogollon Rim, White Mountains,Black Range, and the Blue and Black River region(Brown 1983; Young and Goldman 1944). Bailey(193 1) estimated that 100 wolves occupied the GilaNF area in 1906. Through the 1940s occasionalreports ofwolves continued from the White Moun-tain Apache (or Fort Apache) Reservation and the SanCarlos Apache Reservation west of the Apache NE In1960 the last confirmed wolf in east central Arizonawas trapped on the Fort Apache Reservation. Nowolves have been confirmed to exist in or near theproposed BRWRA since (Brown 1983, Whitaker et al.1995). However, six unconfirmed reports alleged to
3 5
be “wolves” have come from the BRWRA since 1983(Girmendonk 1994a; Wolok 1994).
Species of Special Concern
Endangered species listed by the FWS as presently, orhistorically, occurring in the BRWRA include the Gilatrout, Gila topminnow, American peregrine falcon,whooping crane, northern aplomado falcon, baldeagle, southwestern willow flycatcher, and black-footed ferret. Federally threatened species include theChihuahua chub, beautiful shiner, spikedace, loachminnow, Apache trout, little Colorado spinedace, andMexican spotted owl (USFWS 1994a and 1993b).The proposed and candidate species for federal listingalso are found in Appendix D. The FWS is investi-gating the possibility of releasing a population offederally endangered California condors in the BlackRange of New Mexico (R. Marshall, USFWS, pers.comm.). The FWS also is proposing to extend protec-tion of the endangered jaguar throughout its range,including the southwestern U.S.
At present, approved critical habitat is associatedonly with the federally threatened Little Coloradospinedace, in the northern extreme of the Apache NFfor approximately five miles along Nutrioso Creek (52Fed. Reg. 35034, Sept. 16, 1987). Critical habitat hasalso been designated for the spikedace, loach minnow,and Mexican spotted owl by the FWS, but is in anuncertain legal status.
In addition, the State ofArizona has designatedthe water shrew and meadow jumping mouse asspecies of special concern in the BRWRA (AGFD, Inprep.), and New Mexico lists as endangered the Gilaspring snail, New Mexico hotspring snail, chlorideoreohelix, roundtail chub, lowland leopard frog, Gilamonster, green rat snake, narrowhead garter snake,Gila woodpecker, Bell’s vireo, gray vireo, commonblack-hawk, southwestern willow flycatcher, spottedbat, Arizona montane vole, and desert bighorn sheep(NM Natural Heritage Program 1994).
Potential Wild Prey of Wolves
Large ungulates include white-tailed and mule deer,elk, and, to lesser extents, javelina, pronghorn, andRocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Allen 1993). Annualungulate survivorship and reproduction in the South-west vary with precipitation levels, grazing quantityand quality, and management practices (Johnson et al.
A&ted Environments
1992). White-tailed deer in the BRWRA generallyinhabit steep-sloped woodlands featuring oak, juniper,and pifion. They also are found in ponderosa pineforests, desert scrub, deciduous forests, and occasion-ally spruce-fir communities. Mule deer are foundusually between 4,000 feet and 7,000 feet elevation inconiferous forests from p&on-juniper to spruce-fir,but they can inhabit chaparral, desert areas, and higherelevations. Mule deer and white-tailed deer rangesfrequently overlap. Elk are found in relatively highmountain areas in meadows and coniferous forests.They may move to lower elevations, living in pifion-juniper woodlands, mixed conifer forests, plainsgrassland, and occasionally in desert scrub. Elk cows,calves, and yearling males often winter in large groupsin different areas than adult males. Around the BlueRange Wilderness Area in the Gila NF some elk arebecoming year-round residents (E. Holloway, GilaNF, pers. comm.).
Javelina generally inhabit ponderosa pine wood-lands, p&on-juniper and oak woodlands interspersedwith grasslands, desert scrub, desert grasslands, andchaparral. They also occur on desert mountain rangesand in thickets along creeks and washes. Pronghorninhabit shortgrass plains and meadows ranging fromdesert areas to high plateaus. Bighorn sheep are foundin mountains, preferring precipitous ranges withbroken rock and steep gullies, along washes or creekbeds, or near natural water sources. Rocky Mountainbighorn sheep move between higher summer andlower winter ranges in the Apache NF, but remainyear-long residents at about 4,000 feet elevation in theGila NE (Desert bighorn sheep prefer areas between3,000 and 4,000 feet elevation in jojoba communitieswhere galleta is the dominant grass between shrubs)(AGFD 1994a; Hoffmeister 1986; E. Holloway, GilaNF, pers. comm.).
The BRWRA as a whole contains an estimated57,170 deer of both species (average density 8.3/m?).The deer population in the Gila NF generally appearsstable (Gonzales 1993), although deer in theGlenwood Ranger District appear to be declining(Baldwin 1995; E. Holloway, Gila NF, pers. comm.).The Apache NF is experiencing a decline in deer likelyrelated to low fawn crops and declining habitat qualityresulting from unfavorable vegetation successionlargely due to decades of fire suppression. Approxi-mately 15,800 elk (2.3/mi2) are found in the BRWRA(AGFD 1994a; G irmendonk 1994b; Gonzales 1993).This population has increased during recent years
3-6
Afkcted Environments
In the Arizona portion of the BRWRA huntingseasons for deer occur from late August to mid-September and from October through January, andinclude general firearm, muzzleloader, and archeryseasons (Girmendonk 1994b). Archery, generalfirearm, and muzzleloader seasons are held for elkhunting. Elk seasons are open during September,October, November, and early December. Generalfirearm and archery seasons for javelina run at varioustimes from January to early March. Pronghornhunting seasons are concentrated around August andSeptember, and include general firearm, muzzleloader,and archery. For Rocky Mountain and desert bighornsheep, October and December permits are issued totake any ram by firearm or bow. The black bearhunting season is from August through Septemberand March through April, during which time hunterscan take one animal per calendar year. Mountain lionhunters may take one animal per calendar year.
In the New Mexico portion of the BRWRAhunting occurs primarily in the fall and mid-winter.Two archery deer seasons usually are scheduled inSeptember and January, during which one fork-antlered deer can be harvested. Three rifle deer seasonsoccur in November, allowing one fork-antlered deer tobe taken. One archery elk season is scheduled inSeptember. One elk ofeither sex can be taken. Severallimited entry elk hunts are scheduled in Septemberand October, and one limited entry javelina hunt isscheduled in February. One limited entry, mature buckpronghorn season usually is scheduled for two days inlate September or early October. Two Rocky Moun-tain bighorn sheep hunts are scheduled in January(Gonzales 1993). The black bear hunting seasonoccurs September 1 through October 30 and islimited to one bear. Mountain lion hunting can occurfrom December 1 through March 3 1 with a bag limitof one lion. Dogs can be used to take bears and lions,but bear baiting is prohibited in New Mexico. About3% or less of resident New Mexican deer hunters usehunting guides, whereas 12% of deer hunters whocome from outside the state use guides (Zia Res.Assoc. 1990).
Existing Livestock Predators
The primary livestock predators are the coyote, lion,and bear (Phillips 1993). Coyotes are commonresidents of the BRWRA. Black bears are fairly com-
(Allen 1993). J ave ina are estimated at 2,380 (0.3/mi2)Iand are stable on the Gila NF and increasing on theApache NE Pronghorn number 750 (0.1 /mi’) and aredeclining, possibly due to consistently low fawnsurvival, habitat fragmentation, poor habitat quality,and inconsistent land management practices. RockyMountain bighorn sheep total about 520-620 (0.08/mi”) in the BRWRA (D. Cagle, AGFD, pers. comm.,Gonzales 1993). Herds are declining in the Gila NFand along the San Francisco River in Arizona, whilethe population in the Apache NF appears to be stableor slightly increasing through recent reintroductionsand expansion of some herds.
In the BRWRA primary recovery zone alone (thesouthern portion of the Apache NF), there are ap-proximately 3,400 white-tailed deer (3.3/mi2), 9,900mule deer (9.6/m?), 3,050 elk (3.0/mi2), 600 javelina(0.6/m?), 380 bighorn sheep (0.3/mi2), and 40pronghorn (Girmendonk 1994b; D. Cagle, AGFD,pers. comm.),
Jackrabbits are common in open woodlands atlower elevations (less than one-quarter of the wholeBRWRA area). Beavers, cottontails, skunks, varioustree and ground squirrels, chipmunks, rats, voles, andother small mammals are fairly common in theBRWRA (SW Region USFS 1992a; Hoffmeister1986). Porcupines occur irregularly. These animals, aswell as possibly Merriam’s turkeys, may be taken bywolves occasionally. Little trapping occurs in the area;a recent anti-trapping law passed in Arizona haseliminated any commercial and recreational trappingin the primary recovery zone.
Hunting
Arizona and New Mexico’s Departments of Game andFish manage public hunting in their respective por-tions of the BRWRA. In 1992 in the BRWRA,19,453 hunters harvested 4,426 deer (22.8% success)and 7,250 hunters took 2,767 elk (38.2% success).Seventy-five hunters took 32 pronghorn (42.7%success). Also in 1992, about 335 hunters harvested108 javelina (32.1% success), and six hunters tookfour Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (66% success)(Girmendonk 1994b; Gonzales 1993). Huntingtrends from 1988 through 1992 are presented in Table3-1. Deer harvests since 1983 have fluctuated slightly.Since 1983, the trend has been toward steadilyincreasing elk harvests.
3-7
Affected Environments
Table 3- 1. Average harvests, numbers of hunters, and success rates in the general BRWRA area,
1988-1992.
Average Harvest
AZ N M
Deer 1,322 2,874=
Elk 7 8 8 1,236
Javelina 106 71
Pronghorn’ 30 2.5
Bighorn sheep 4 6
‘I’ronghorn wcrc nor hunted in Nhl UIICII I’)‘) I‘Figuie is for 19X9-9.!
Average # Hunters %Hunter Success
A Z N M AZ NM
6 , 2 3 7 11,353= 2 1 . 2 25.3
! ,676 4 , 3 3 0 4 7 . 0 28.5
331 NA 3 2 . 0 NA
4 4 15 6 8 . 2 16.7
4 N A 100.0 NA
SOUKCES: Al,GF 1994a; G’Irmendonk 1994b; NM DGF 1994; Gonzales 1393.
mon (SW Region USFS 1992a). Predator numbersand densities for the Apache NF are depicted inTable 3-2. For the Gila NF, predator numbers are notavailable (J. Gonzales, NMDGF, pers. comm.).
From 1987 through 199 1, total estimated live-stock losses (all cattle) from existing predators aver-aged about 1% of permitted livestock on the ApacheNF (Myers and Baxter 1993). Comparable depreda-tion rates probably occurred on the Gila NF (S.Libby, Gila NE pers. comm.). The U.S. DepartmentOfAgriculture, Animal Damage Control Division(ADC) has depredation control agreements with 53ranches that graze 170,8 19 acres in the BRWRA,although no ADC control has occurred in the GilaNF in recent years (A. May, NM ADC, pers. comm.).From 1987 through 199 1, permittees on the ApacheNF reported that 628 head of livestock were killed bypredators, averaging approximately 126 head reportedkilled each year. Each year the number ofdepredationsconfirmed by ADC is much less than the numberreported (Phillips 1993). Of the 132 grazing permitt-ees on the Gila NF, 48 responded to a 1993 surveyconducted by the New Mexico office ofADC (May1993). Thirty- seven (77%) reported livestock depre-dation in 1993, involving 109 cattle and 234 calves.Forty-one permittees believed that coyotes were
/ responsible, 33 said that mountain lions were respon-sible, and 25 reported that bears were involved. Thehighest rate of depredation occurs from Marchthrough May.
Land Ownership andManagement
The LJ.S. Forest Service manages most of the landwithin the BRW boundaries; on the Arizona side
about 94% is National Forest while on the NewMexico side about 96% is National Forest. Theremaining land is primarily private or under state orBLM management. Each National Forest has devel-oped its own land and resource management plan. TheApache and Gila National Forest Management Plansguide federal goals and objectives in rhe BRWRA.The management emphasis for forested lands in theApache NF is “a combination of multiple uses includ-ing a sustained yield of timber and firewood prodtic-tion, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed, anddispersed recreation” (SW Region USFS 1987b). Forwoodland areas in the Apache NF, managementemphasizes fuelwood production, wildlife habitat,watershed condition, livestock grazing, and indicatorspecies such as mule deer and elk. The mission of theGila NF is “to provide multiple use and sustainedyield of goods and services in a way that maximizeslong-term net public benefits consistent with resourceintegration, environmental quality, and managementconsiderations” (SW Region USFS 1986b). Emphasisis placed on maintaining or increasing herbaceousforage for wildlife and managing coniferous woodlandsto provide high quality habitats.
The Forest Service manages just over one millionacres of designated wilderness in the BRWRA. Thegoals of wilderness management are to minimizehuman development, to maintain natural biologicaland physical features, and to provide quality recre-ation. The areas are the Blue Range Primitive Area(187,4 10 acres), and the Bear Wallow (11,080 acres),Escudilla (5,200 acres), Mount Baldy (7,097 acres),Gila (558,065 acres), Aldo Leopold (202,016 acres),and Blue Range (29,304 acres) Wilderness Areas. TwoWilderness Study Areas in the Gila NF total another
Affected Environments
Table 3-2. Approximate predator densitiesl, 1995-94, and total predators taken by ADC2, 1987-91, inArizona portion of Apache National Forest.
Predators present Predators taken(anima.ls/mi2 by ADC
Coyote3 1,950 (1.03) 68
Black bear 824-l ,283 (0.44-O-68) 13
Mountain lion 40-103 (0 .02-0 .05) 11
‘Assumes an coven distribution of populations.
‘All ADZ acrlvitu were conducted in rhc Alpine and Clifton Kangcr Districts
‘Numbrrs reflect all approximation of spring 1994 breeding population only.
SOURCES: USFWS 1993~; ACFD 1994b.
27,660 acres (SW Region USFS 1986b). The onlyNational Park Service unit in the BRWRA is the 533-acre Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument locatedwithin the Gila NE The monument preserves thehomes of Native Americans who lived within thiscanyon area from the 1280s through the early 1300s.
Agency and LocalGovernment Plans and Policies
U.S. Forest Service
Management in the BRWRA has focused on severalhuman-induced problems such as the loss of habitatdiversity and disproportionate levels of key succes-sional habitat stages, resulting from the control ofnatural disturbance regimes (fire, insects, and disease)and the effects of past timber and livestock grazingpractices. Current directions for wildlife managementinclude coordination ofwildlife needs with otherresource uses, direct habitat improvement work,protection of threatened and endangered species, andcooperative efforts with the Arizona and New MexicoDepartrnents of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (Hayes 1995b; SW Region USFS1987a; SW Region USFS 1986a).
The National Forest Plan 1993 amendments forthe Southwestern Region call for management offederally threatened and endangered species habitat “toachieve declassifying in a manner consistent with thegoals established by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService” and by the Arizona and New Mexico Gameand Fish Departments (SW Region USFS 1993b).Also, the guidelines and standards for management ofMexican spotted owls and northern goshawks (a
candidate for federal listing) emphasize three activities:surveying to identify the extent and location ofpopulations of the birds; protecting key habitat areas;and managing for long-term maintenance of suitablehabitat (SW Region USFS 1993b).
In addition, key elements of the Forest Servicereinvention plan are to promote sustainable ecosys-tems and to provide public service (USDA ForestService 1994). The Southwestern Region of the ForestService will continue implementing integrated re-source management to guide ecology-based multipleuse management (SW Region USFS 1993a). TheForest Plans for both the Apache and Gila NF estab-lish guidelines for integrated management and providestandards to manage for habitat diversity, riparian andstream values, and forest and rangeland health. Underthe Forest Plans, old-growth areas will be retained,and moving timber management away from even-agedto uneven-aged management is being emphasized(Hayes I995b; SW Region USFS 1987b, 1986b).
In addition, the application of prescribed naturalfire is expanding over much of the BRWRA. Most ofthe Gila NF is under revised prescribed fire plans thatprovide for the use of natural fire both within andoutside wilderness areas. Similar plans are in place inthe Apache NF within the BRWRA outside ofwilder-ness, but are limited in extent. Analysis is underway toexpand the use of prescribed natural fire for the BlueRange and 200,000 acres of the Clifton RangerDistrict, both in the Apache NF (Hayes 1995b).
The range management emphases on the ApacheNF are on high quality forage and improvements.These emphases are shifting through consideration forthe following, in order of priority: allotments thathave threatened and endangered species; coldwater
fisheries; allotments with no management plans;allotments with management plans that do notcomply with the overall Forest Plan; allotments withmanagement plans that have not been implemented;allotments where plan implementation is progressing;and allotments that have reached the objectives of theForest Plan (SW Region USFS 1987b).
In the Gila NF the emphasis is on increasinggrazing capacity to meet current and planned permit-ted use through intensive management. The rangegoals of the Gila NF Plan are to provide forage tolivestock, cooperate with other agencies and landown-ers to reduce impacts of grazing, and to manage forthreatened and endangered species (SW Region USFS1986b).
State of Arizona
Arizona does not have a statute specifically protectingendangered species. However, the state legislaturegranted the Game and Fish Commission broadauthority to regulate wildlife (ARS sec. 17-23 l), Inresponse, the Commission created Policy J. 10,amended in 199 1 as Policy A2 11. The policy statesthat the Department shall administer a nongame andendangered wildlife program, develop lists of state-threatened species, and implement a re-establishmentprogram with the goal of recovering listed species (seeAppendix E, Twelve-Step Procedure for Reestablish-ment of Non-game and Endangered Species (AGFD1987)). The Department has drafted a “CooperativeReintroduction Plan for the Mexican Wolf in Ari-zona” that calls for a reintroduction effort in the BlueRange Area in cooperation with the Fish and WildlifeService (Groebner et al. 1995).
In 1994 Arizona voters adopted an anti-trappinginitiative (amending ARS sec. 17-30 l), which makesthe use of several wildlife capture devices illegal,including leghold traps. However, the law does notprohibit “the use of snares, traps not designed to kill,or nets to take wildlife for scientific research projects,falconry, or for relocation of the wildlife as may bedefined or regulated by the Arizona Game and FishCommission and or the Government of the UnitedStates.”
State of New Mexico
Affected Environments
The New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act (NMSAsec.s 17-2-37 to -46) and regulations (NM StateGame Commission Reg. No. 682) list the Mexicanwolf as a state-endangered species. The statute prohib-its taking, possessing, transporting, exporting, process-ing, selling, or shipping a state-listed species, andauthorizes the New Mexico Department of Game andFish to establish management programs. State-listedspecies may, however, be taken to “alleviate or preventdamage to property or to protect human health”(NMSA sec. 17-2-42D).
Counties
Most of the National Forest land in the BRWRA fallsin Greenlee and Catron Counties, with smallerportions in southern Apache, northern Grant, andwestern Sierra Counties (Fig. 3-3). About 2/3rds ofboth Greenlee and Catron Counties are in theBRWRA.
Sierra and Catron Counties have land use ordi-nances establishing the counties’ environmentalplanning and review process. The ordinances seek toidentify federal agency legal obligations regardingdecisions affecting the environment (Sierra CountyOrd. No. 92-012; Catron County Ord. No. 002-93).These ordinances assert that federal decisions withinthese counties are subject to a local approval process.They also call for coordinated analyses that addressnumerous impact areas of local interest. Also, in 1995,Apache and Greenlee Counties adopted land use andresource policies with some goals similar to theordinances described above, although GreenleeCounty’s does not appear to assert authority as such(Apache Co. Bd. of S up. Res. No. 95-28; GreenleeCo Bd. of Sup. Res. of June 6, 1995). Catron andSierra Counties also have passed ordinances prohibit-ing release into the wild of any animal of the genusCanis (Catron County Ord. No. 002-92; SierraCounty Ord. No. 94-00 1).
Land Development
Although there are many proposals in the BRWRA,there are no major land developments in the construc-tion phase or with definite plans to proceed. TheForest Service and other agencies will continue presentmanagement, including limited timber harvesting,
grazing improvements, fire management, floodcontrol, and recreational improvements. No ski areasexist in the BRWRA; however, the potential fordownhill ski facilities exists at sites in the northernportion of the Apache NF near Alpine (SW RegionUSFS 1987a), and possibly in the Mogollon Range inthe Gila NE Geothermal potential exists on NationalForest land near Nutrioso. The Phelps-Dodge coppermines at Morenci in Greenlee County likely willcontinue to slowly expand in size, as will the othersmaller mines around the BRWRA in Grant and SierraCounties.
Vacation and retirement development in andaround the BRWRA is expected to continue at a briskrate in some areas, particularly in the Silver City area,where construction has been increasing at 5% annually(LX. Jones, Grant Co. Econ. Dev. Offrce, pers.comm.), and in the Lakeside-Pinetop area in thesoutheastern portion of the Sitgreaves NE Additionalpossible recreational developments include a proposeddude ranch in the Beaverhead area of the Apache NFand expansion of camping and fishing facilities at Joy’sFish Hatchery near Blue on the Blue River (L. Ruger,Greenlee Co. Econ. Dev. Offrice, pers. comm.).
Livestock Grazing
Before addressing livestock grazing in the BRWRAspecifically it is useful to understand the industry inthe Southwest. Box 3-l provides a general descrip-tion. It should be noted that the numbers below arebased on a 1993 compilation and that some reduc-tions in allowable livestock numbers, and changes ingrazing period for particular allotments, were requiredby the Forest Service in 1995. Many, but not all, ofthese reductions are under appeal, so their ultimateeffect on the total number of livestock permittedremains unclear (M. Rising, Apache-Sitgreaves NF,pers. comm.).
Domestic livestock graze on 3,047,960 acres(69%) of the BRWRA. Large areas closed to ordeferred from grazing include the 63,620-acreSandrock Allotment, located in the Apache NF in thesouthern portion of the primary recovery zone,approximately 394,000 acres of the Gila WildernessArea surrounding the Mogollon Mountains, and43,000 acres in the Black Range within the AldoLeopold Wilderness Area. The Sandrock Allotment,over half of which is located within the Blue RangePrimitive Area, has been closed since 1983 to improve
A&ted Environments
range and watershed conditions. The Forest Service isgoing through a planning process to determinewhether and how future livestock grazing may occurthere.
Approximately 82,600 cattle total are permittedto graze in the BRWRA. (This is the cumulativenumber of permitted bulls, cows, and calves; not allallottees actually graze their Iirll permitted numbers;also, the number should not be confused with AUMs,or Animal Unit Months). There are 208 allotments,averaging 397 cattle per allotment. Roughly 50% ofthe cattle are on year-round allotments while the restare seasonal. Numerous grazing allotments have hadmajor reductions in allowable cattle in recent years,largely for range improvement reasons. One flock of7,000 sheep grazes on one allotment near the north-ern periphery of the Apache NE Scattered grazing ofranch horses also occurs throughout the area (Allen1993) .
Within just the BRWR4 primary recovery zone,10,494 cattle are permitted to graze. There are 35allotments, averaging 300 cattle per allotment. Again,50% of the cattle are on year-round allotments andthe rest are seasonal. One dude ranch in the primaryrecovery zone is authorized to graze 47 horses.
Most of the cattle graze in remote, mountainousareas and are infrequently seen by their owners.Roughly 60% of the calves are born on the openrange, away from the ranch headquarters. Because thecattle are neither concentrated nor closely monitoredby their owners these calves may be more susceptibleto predation than calves of different cattle operations(Allen 1993).
Forestry
Timber harvesting and related activities such asplanting and thinning are planned by the ForestService to sustain forest health, forest products,threatened and endangered species habitats, otherwildlife habitat needs, biological diversity, ruralcommunity stability, and social values. Approximately15,000 acres per year are required to sustain an annualharvest of approximately 30 million board feet toregional sawmills. Forest products include sawtimber,pulpwood, salvage material, and fuelwood. Themajority of timber lands in the BRWRA are managedfor even-aged stands. Future harvests will be fromsmaller diameter trees to improve forest diversitythrough creation of small openings in large monotypic
3-11
Affected Environments
Box 3- 1. General description of southwestern cattle ranching.
Most of the ranches in the areas addressed in this EIS are cow/calf operations, which means the rancher has a basebreeding herd of mother cows and bulls. A typical size operation has about 170 mother cows. While the timing ofcalving varies with the rancher’s bull management, most calves are born in late winter and early spring. This is themost critical period for exposure to depredation. The rancher sells the annual calf crop for income at about tenmonths of age. Marketing can occur throughout the year but is concentrated in the fall. A small number ofyearling operations are present in which young cattle are held on a ranch for a period of growth until all are sold atabout 18 months of age. Yearlings tend to be less susceptible to predation than calves.
Most of the ranchers in the areas considered here rely on public land grazing allotments (the exception beingthe southwestern New Mexico potential natural recolonization area with its very large private ranches). Ten-yearpermits are issued to the owners of private tracts known as “base properties” within the allotments. Grazingseasons can range from year-long to as short as one month. Each allotment has a management plan specifying thenumber of animals allowed and other measures, such as rest and rotation, to prevent overgrazing and otherdamage. Public land grazing fees, which vary according to a formula that accounts for beef prices and other factors,are important in this cyclical business of marginal profitability. Fees are subject to an ongoing federal reformprocess that may lead to future increases. Another important factor in profitability is the rate of predator losses.Indeed, predator loss trends are one of the factors considered in calculating the grazing fee formula.
Economic returns from ranch sales vary with the market for beef, which has been depressed for several years.Typical livestock receipts on a large ranch in Arizona and New Mexico total about $130,000. A typical year for alarge ranch yields a return on total assets of 1.8% to 2.0%. Median net ranch income is around $17,000 annually.The average rancher spends close to $50,000 per year locally for goods, services, and employee wages.
Ranch returns may be negative, especially for smaller operations. In other words, many small ranchers exist ondepreciation. Many rely on other jobs to supplement their incomes. Because the rates of return do not attractcapital into the industry, few young people are attracted to it. Thus, the ranching population averages 55 years ofage. ?ypical ranchers in Arizona and New Mexico have been on the same ranch for a long time, i.e., about 3 1years. The employment outlook for ranch foremen and cowboys is negative, with employment losses for NewMexico projected at about 8% between levels in 1988 and the year 2000.
Sources: Allen (1993), Bur. Econ Res. and Analysis (199 l), U.S. BLM (1994), Fowler et al. (1993), New Mex.Coop. Exten. Serv. (1992), New Mex. Dep’t ofAgric. (undated).
stands (Allen 1993; SW Region USFS 1987a; SWRegion USFS 1986a).
Of the total National Forest acreage in theBRWRA, 1,242,890 acres (28.3%) are suitable fortimber harvesting. Another 958,688 acres (21.9%) areclassified as incapable of producing commercialtimber; these primarily consist of mixedponderosa pine-p&on-juniper stands at low eleva-tions. An additional 258,912 acres (5.9%) arephysically unsuitable for timber harvesting. Finally,1,202,019 (27.4%) acres of pifion and juniper arecurrently classified as unsuitable by the Forest Servicebecause it has inadequate information to determinesuitability (SW Region USFS 1987a; SW RegionUSFS 1986a).
Most future harvesting will use existing roads.Reconstruction of existing roads will be primarily oflow standard roads, averaging 30 miles per year. Much
3-12
of this reconstruction will involve moving roads awayfrom environmentally sensitive areas such as meadowsand riparian areas (Allen 1993). The Forest Servicecollected $9,35 1,449 in timber fees for the BRWRAin 1993 (S. Lee, Apache NF, pers. comm.; M. Boyles,Gila NF, pers. comm.). This amount has decreasedsubstantially due to logging restrictions.
Mining and Other NaturalResources Extraction
Several large open-pit copper mines are worked to thesouth of the BRWRA, including the South DodgeTyrone mines southwest of Silver City and the SantaRitalChino mine east of Bayard in Grant County.Morenci, in Greenlee County, is the site of a 1.8-milelong open-pit copper mine immediately south of the
primary recovery zone. Phelps Dodge owns the mineand nearby smelter. About 450 million pounds ofcopper are produced each year, making it the nation’slargest copper mine. On the Clifton Ranger District inthe Apache NF one active mine has produced smallamounts of gold (SW Region USFS 1987a).
Public Access and Recreation
Most of the BRWRA is adequately roaded formanagement activities, recreational access, transport offorest products, and livestock grazing (Allen 1993).Recreation is the fastest growing use of southwesternNational Forests. The Forest Service constructs andupgrades campgrounds and other recreational facilitiesto meet the growing demand. Common activitiesinclude hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, hunt-ing, fishing, snowmobiling, and driving for pleasure.The BRWRA contains 52 developed campgroundsand seven picnic areas. Several lakes offer fishing andboating. There are 2,320 miles of trails (Allen 1993).
Use is measured in Recreation Visitor Days(RVDs). Estimated use for 1992 in the BRWRA was2,190,580 RVDs, including 1,068,620 RVDs forcamping, 234,200 RVDs for hunting, 324,560 RvDsfor hiking/horseback riding, 229,440 RVDs forfishing, and 336,760 RVDs for nature study (Allen1993). Approximately 67 guides and outfittersprovide service in the BRWRA (SW Center for Res.Analysis 1994)) mostly for hunting. Average feescharged range from $75 for photography to $2,720for an elk hunt.
Regional Economy,Employment and Population
The highest median household income in the region,$28,570, is found.around Silver City in GrantCounty, New Mexico. The lowest, $18,460, is inCatron County, New Mexico, which also has theBRWRA’s highest unemployment rate at 12.9% andthe highest poverty rate at 25.6%. The central eco-nomic activities in the mostly rural BRWRA regionare logging, ranching, mining, tourism/recreation, andfarming (Catron County Commission 1992; 1990U.S. Census).
Apache County
Al&ted Environments
Coal-fired energy plants near St. Johns provide muchof the economic base in addition to timber, tourism,government, and agriculture. Southern ApacheCounty has relied heavily on economic activityassociated with timber, with some recreational andretirement development “spilling over” from theLakeside-Pinetop area to the west. Cattle ranching hasdeclined in importance.
A small sawmill operates in Nutrioso, north ofAlpine, a larger mill operates in Eager, and other woodprocessing facilities exist. Apache County recentlyopened an economic development office and is seekingto attract various businesses, including additionalforest products manufacturing and microwave relays.Slow to moderate economic growth is projected (Ariz.Dept. Econ. Sec. 1993).
Greenlee County
Phelps Dodge’s Morenci mine employs 2,100 people,about 80% of the county work force. Mine employ-ment is projected to climb slowly (Ariz. Dept. Econ.Sec. 1993). Unlike Apache County to the north,tourism and recreation have not contributed much tothe regional economy; however, they represent oppor-tunities for future economic development (Ariz. Dept.of Commerce, n.d.). Timber production has declinedin economic importance. Irrigated crop agriculture isimportant in the southern portion of GreenleeCounty. About 2/3rds of the cattle grazing in thecounty occurs in the northern portion in the ApacheNF (M. Schneider, Greenlee Co. Agric. Ext. Of&e,pers. comm.).
Catron County
Ranching is the most important business in CatronCounty, with 175 mostly small- to medium-sizedcattle ranches and 420 employees. Ranching is rela-tively more important to Catron County than to anyother county in the BRWRA, the county cattleindustry had more than $20 million in sales in 1992.Crop agriculture plays a minor role. Government is alarge employer, particularly with the county’s prepon-derance of National Forest land.
The timber industry in the county has declinedmarkedly. Reserve, the Catron County seat, formerlyrelied heavily on a Stone Container Corporation
3-13
sawmill for employment, which closed in 1992. Themill closure eliminated 140 to I60 jobs and also had amajor negative secondary impact on employment inother businesses in the area (Catron Co. Comm’n1992). The county has about 35 retail businessestablishments and no wholesalers (A. Thal, WesternNM Univ., pers. comm.). Guiding and outfittingcontribute more to Catron County’s economy than tothe economies of any other county in the BRWRA(SW Center for Res. Analysis 1994).
Grant County
Copper production represents the most importanteconomic sector, followed by livestock. The PhelpsDodge mines at Tyrone and Santa Rita and the smelterin Hurley provide over 1,600 jobs.
More beef cows graze in Grant County than inany other New Mexico county (R. Lamb, Grant Co.Agric. Ext. Office, pers. comm.). Tourism, construc-tion, light industry, and Western New Mexico Univer-sityare other important economic contributors.Timber has decreased substantially in economicimportance, reflected in the closing of area sawmills.
Sierra County
Retail trade (including recreation and tourism) andranching are the top economic contributors (SierraCo. Comm’n 1993). Most ranches are small, withfewer than 100 cows. However, two large ranches eastof the BRWRA (the Ladder Ranch and the PedroArmendariz Ranch), now in a single ownership,encompass about 800,000 acres. The owners haveremoved most cattle from these ranches and replacedthem with a smaller number of bison to the economicdetriment of the county due to reduced taxes (SierraCo. Comm’n 1993).
Both the BRKVRA as a whole and the primaryrecovery zone within the BRWRA have low popula-tion densities, averaging about one person per mi’(Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Silver City is the largest popula-tion center near the BRWRA, at about 11,000. Thesmaller population centers of Springerville/Eager(population 6, loo), Clifton/Morenci (population4,640), and Central/Bayard (population 4,400) liejust outside the borders of the BRWRA. The lattertwo population centers are associated with largecopper mining operations. Few towns occur within
Affected Environments
the BRWRA boundaries; the largest are Alpine(population 600) in Apache County and Reserve(population 3 10) in Catron County. Alpine is ori-ented toward tourism and recreation, while Reserve isthe center of commercial and government activity inCatron County. A few small, isolated ranchingcommunities exist in the BRW’RA. Two within theprimary recovery zone are Eagle Creek and Blue. Bothcommunities consist ofa dozen or so families, withtheir own schoolhouse but no commercial establish-ments within an hour’s drive.
Population growth through the year 2000 isprojected to be fairly high in the Springerville/Eagerarea in southern Apache County but low or negativein northern Greenlee County (Johnson et al. 1992).The population of Catron County is projected to bestable or to decrease through the year 2000, GrantCounty’s population is projected to increase by about4% above 1990 levels, and Sierra County’s popula-tion is projected to increase about 8% above 1990levels (Bur. of Bus. and Econ. Res. 199 1).
Likely Dispersal Areas
Associated with the Blue Range
Wolf Recovery Area
The following areas adjacent to the BRWRA areforeseeably affected under Alternative C, which givesfull Endangered Species Act protection to the reintro-duced wolves (Fig. 3-1, above). The Service would notattempt to prevent the dispersal of the wolves out ofthe BRWRA under this alternative. The areas dis-cussed are, in order: the San Carlos and White Moun-tain Apache reservations, the Lakeside Ranger Districtof the Sitgreaves NF, and the San Mateo Mountainsunit of the Cibola NE The largest areas are the twoIndian reservations to the west of the BRWRA; theseare addressed in the greatest detail.
San Carlos and White MountainApache Reservations
History of Wolves
Mexican wolves historically ranged across bothreservations. Wolves were sporadically reported orcaught on the reservations until 1960. In 1930, a packofwolves was reported in the San Carlos ApacheReservation along the Black River. A wolf was taken in
114
Afhcted Environments
Table 3-3. Summary of regional US. Census data for Blue Range wolf recovery area.’
Total population
Population density
Number in labor force
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries
Median household income
10,782
0.8/mi’
4,514
8.3%
16.3%
$21,612
Percent of population below poverty level 17.6%
SOURCES: 1990 U.S. Census for following census tracts in Arizona: Apache County 390 1 and
Greenlee County 9704. In New Mexico: all of Catron Country; Grant County 9841, 9842, and
9849; and Sierra County 7824.
Table 3-4. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Blue Range wolf recovery area, primaryrecovery zone only.’
Total population
Population density
Number in labor force
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries
Median household income
Percent of population below poverty level
1,371
1.1/m?
519
8.3%
10. 1 96
$23,355
17.2%
‘Regicjn covered by census tracts does not correspond exactly with primary recovery zone boundaries; census tract
include5 a small adjacent rural area to the southeast of the recovery zone.
SOURCES: 1990 U.S. Census for Greenlee County census tract 9901.
3-15
the same area in 1938 and again in 1945. Uncon-firmed wolf reports continued to surface on thereservations from 1945 through 1947. Two wolves
were caught on each the White Mountain and SanCarlos Apache Reservations in 1946. The last con-
firmed wolf kill in Arizona came in 1960 in the
Grasshopper District of the White Mountain ApacheReservation (Brown 1983). An unconfirmed “wolf”sighting was reported on the San Carlos Reservationin 1087 and another was reported in the Apache NFjust east of the northeast corner of that reservation in1992 (Girmendonk 1994a). There continue to bereports ofsightings on the White Mountain ApacheReservation. However, none of the sightings have beenconfirmed (White Mountain ApacheTribe 1995).
San Carlos Apache Reservation
Geography
The 1.8 million-acre San Carlos Apache Reservationoccupies a range of elevations and habitats in east-central Arizona. San Carlos Reservation lands formthe western boundary of the BRWRA (Fig. 3-l). Thesouthern portion is mostly high desert, with theexception of 8,000-foot Mount Turnbull. To thenorth, high ridges and plateaus occur with severallarge prairies interspersed. The northeastern sectionconsists ofsteep, densely forested terrain. The reserva-tion is bordered to the east and west by NationalForests, to the south by state, private, and BLM lands,and to the north by the White Mountain ApacheReservation.
Climate
At the town of San Carlos average low temperaturesrange from 32°F in January to 63°F in July. Averagehighs range from 55°F in January to 95°F in July.Annual average precipitation is 15.8 inches with 4.4inches of snowfall. Moving north and east on thereservation and higher in elevation, average tempera-tures decrease and precipitation and snowfall increase.
Water
The perennial streams are portions of the Gila, SanCarlos, Blue, Black, and Salt Rivers and Willow,Boni ta, Bear Wallow, and Eagle Creeks, totalling 2 15
AfFected Environments
miles. There are five main reservoirs, including TalkalaiLake, San Carlos Lake (the largest lake on the reserva-tion), Seneca Lake, Point of Pines Lake, and DryLake, totalling 20,800 acres. Three hundred and sixty-two stock tanks have been built on the reservation,but many are in disrepair and have gone dry or are atlow levels.
Vegetation
Vegetation types occurring on the reservation includepiiion-juniper (470,580 acres), ponderosa pine(175,000 acres), oak (103,380 acres), mesquite(84,260 acres), and riparian (7,350 acres). The condi-tion of the woodlands has never been classified.Overgrazing is causing soil erosion in many areas.
Animals
Species of Special Concern.-The Gila topminnow,razorback sucker, bald eagle, southwestern willowflycatcher, and American peregrine falcon are federallyendangered species, and the federally threatened loachminnow, Mexican spotted owl, and spikedace may befound. Nongame wildlife species are poorly docu-mented.
A portion of the critical habitat for the endan-gered razorback sucker is on the reservation. Activitieswhich may adversely affect the critical habitat includeconstruction and operation of hydroelectric facilities,irrigation, flood control, bank stabilization, oil andgas drilling, mining, grazing, introduction of nonna-tive fish, and resort facilities (59 Fed. Reg. 13374,Mar. 21, 1994).
Potential WildPrqy of Wolves.-Coues white-taileddeer, mule deer, elk, javelina, pronghorn, bighornsheep, turkeys, Abert’s squirrels, ground squirrels,cottontails, jackrabbits, and wood rats occur on thereservation. The deer occur in relatively low density,with an estimated 2,4 10 mule deer and 850 Coueswhite-tailed deer occupying approximately the easternone-fifth of the reservation. Migration of mule deerfrom the Apache-Sitgreaves NF is believed to occur,while the white-tailed deer are believed to be residentand nonmigratory.
The elk herds are dense. The resident Dry Lakeherd consists of about 700 elk. The northeastern partof the reservation east of the Black River holds aresident elk herd of 100 to 150 animals and 500 to
1 1 6
1,500 elk that migrate onto the reservation from thenorth and east during the winter months.
Javelina are common in the southern portion.Pronghorn, possibly the Chihuahuan subspecies,historically have occurred in the Big Prairie area, andthey currently number about 120. Pronghorn fromMontana recently were introduced to Ash Flats andnow number about 160. A population of RockyMountain bighorn sheep occupies an area south of theNatanes Mountains. Table 3-5 depicts potential wolfprey numbers and densities. These density figures werecalculated over the entire reservation, although muchof it is not suitable habitat.
Hunting.-‘The San Carlos Recreation and WildlifeDepartment, under the direction of the San CarlosGame and Fish Commission, is responsible for wildlifemanagement. The tribal council is ultimately respon-sible for wildlife policy decisions. Big game permit feesare paid by non-tribal members. Bag limits for biggame species usually are one animal per year, and smallgame season limits follow the Arizona state regula-tions. Bear permits are limited to keep hunter successhigh. Mountain lion harvest has been limited but isnow being encouraged. Small game permits areunlimited.
Table 3-6 depicts hunter revenue and harvest for1993. On the northeastern portion of the San CarlosApache Reservation an average of 150 deer, 225 elk,and 2 pronghorn are harvested by an average of 450(33.3% success), 435 (5 1.7% success), and 2 (100%success) hunters annually, respectively.
Trophy elk hunting by non-members has pro-duced several record animals and non-member hunt-ing represents a major tribal revenue source providingabout $500,000 in hunting revenues annually.Excluding mountain lion and turkey hunt revenues,the total fee income from non-member big gamehunting was $442,075 in 1993. During the 1994-1995 elk season, 18 non-member hunting permits forthe Malay Gap herd alone were sold for a total of$45,000. The tribe charges additional trophy fees of$1,000 to $3,000 for each elk that exceeds a certaintrophy quality, which amounts to roughly $5,000annually. An additional $25,000-30,000 is brought inannually from small game permits and another $7,000from trapping permits. About 35 licensed guides,mostly tribal members, receive varying amounts ofrevenue from guiding.
A&red Environments
About 50% of the tribal member deer huntershunt in the eastern one-fifth of the reservation. Themountains in the northeastern portion provide thebulk of elk hunting by tribal members, which addssignificant protein to their diets.
EGting Livestock Predators.-Coyote numbers rangelocally between low to very high densities. Black bearsnumber about 475, occurring most densely in theeastern one-fifth of the reservation. Mountain lionstotal approximately 200. Coyotes are controlledthrough aerial gunning, traps, and call-and-shoot. Apart-time federal ADC employee works on the reserva-tion. Between May and July 1993, the ADC trapped90 to 100 coyotes in or near the pronghorn range inthe eastern portion of the reservation. The tribe has apolicy against the use of poisons. Lion control isencouraged to reduce livestock depredation, includinga $500 bounty offered by one livestock association.
Tribal Policies and Plans
The San Carlos Overall Economic Development Planis being updated. The need for a comprehensivezoning plan has been identified. The primary docu-ment governing forest management policy is thetribe’s 1982- 199 1 Forest Management Plan. Multipleuse of the forests is a tribal objective, and managementpractices favor harvesting younger and smaller trees.Other forestry management concerns are the negativeimpact on pine regeneration caused by cattle concen-trations and the deterioration of range conditions dueto poor cattle management.
In 1995, theTribal Council adopted a resolutionopposing wolf recovery in the BRWRA The tribedoes not have a comprehensive policy for managingrecreational areas or threatened and endangeredspecies. Bear Wallow (2,620 acres) is the only desig-nated primitive area on the reservation. It was estab-lished to enhance wilderness recreation, to maintainbiological diversity, and to protect threatened andendangered species. Logging is prohibited there.
Land Development
Little industry or business occurs on the reservation.Highway 70 is the major commercial developmentcorridor. A small amount of agricultural land isirrigated. Some high elevation lands are suited for dryland farming but are not used. There are five major
3-17
A&ted Environments
Table 3-5. Game densities on San Carlos Apache Reservation, 1993-94 estimate.
NumberDensity
(animal/mi2)
Coues white-tail deer 2,350 0.8
Mule deer
ElkResident + migratoryResident
3,700 1.3
1,500* 0.5700+ 0.3
Javelina 3,950 1.4
Pronghorn (historic and introduced) 280 0.1
Desert bighorn sheep 15 0.0
Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep 30 0.0
Table 3-6. San Car OS game permits, harvest, and hunter success, for tribal members and non-members,1and fee revenue for non-member permit sales, 1993-94 hunt year.
Member Non-member
Mule deer
Coues deer
Elk
Javelina
Pronghorn
Black bear
Turkey
AnimalsTaken
260
65
250
80
2
10
265
Estimated Hunters(% success)
875 (37)
*
485 (52)
200 (40)
2 (100)
20 (50)
375 (70)
Animals Permits FeeTaken (% success) Revenue
35
16
360
1
4 6
193
Not permitted
100 (35) $ 99,750
21 (76) 179,500
800 (45) 120,OOO
1 (100) 2,500
94 (49) 40,325
225 (70) 39,600
*Member deer tages are not species-specific, but mule deer are preferred.
3 1 8
road projects scheduled, two ofwhich are underway.Approximately 35 miles of roads will be upgraded andover twelve miles will be graded and drained.
Livestock Grazing
Multiple-family and tribal cattle operations exist. Thereservation is divided into seven range units (totalling1,832,040 acres), with grazing controlled under aBureau of Indian Affairs system. In five of the unitsgrazing permits are issued to privately owned andoperated cattle associations; two ranches are triballyowned and operated. Four of the seven grazing areasare in poor range condition, two in fair condition, andone in good condition. Grazing now takes place in thesouthern portion of the reservation known as theMineral Strip. The area was previously ungrazed forabout 25 years, but the tribe is establishing ranchesthere.
The five cattle associations, consisting exclusivelyof tribal members, are managed by boards of directorselected from the association membership. For all theassociations and ranches a total of 18,500 animal units(cow and calf) are allotted, but actual numbers arelikely higher. Cows and bulls range freely with littleactive management. Cattle with different familyownership brands mix freely and many cattle are notbranded.
Six of the seven livestock operations employ year-round grazing with round-ups occurring largelythrough trapping in scattered corrals. Cattle carcassesresulting from winter kill are common in the highercountry. Moving herds toward calving pastures,limiting the amount of time that cows spend withbulls (to synchronize calving), and rotating cattle toless vulnerable pastures might reduce predation butare currently beyond the means of the cattle associa-tions.
Forestry
Approximately 55,000 acres (3 1%) of the pine forestsare suitable for timber harvesting. The annual allow-able cut is 2.87 million board feet. One sawmill atCutter has operated since 1990. Sustained yieldprinciples are followed.
Mining and Other NaturalResource Extraction
AfFected Environmenu,
Sand and gravel are mined commercially. Gypsum hasbeen mined for many years in the southwest corner ofthe reservation from a patented mining claim.Mineralized uranium also has been located in a one-half square mile area, and two basins have potential forlithium mining. A 1990 U.S. Geological Surveystudy found low oil, natural gas, and coal potential onthe reservation. Six kinds of decorative stone aremined, collected, or planned for mining includingperidot, agate, garnet, calcite, and sapphires.
Public Access and Recreation
The reservation contains 465 miles of roads. Outdoorrecreational opportunities for the public and tribalmembers include fishing, boating, camping, hunting,hiking, and wilderness experiences. Use fees are paidby non-members. Fishing, camping, and water sportscontributed $700,000 to $800,000 in non-memberfees to the tribe in fiscal year 1993. Several water-based recreational facilities exist. They include Seneca,San Carlos, Point of Pines, andTalk& Lakes and theBlack/Salt River area. The Black/Salt River recreationarea is jointly managed by the San Carlos and WhiteMountain Apache Tribes.
Regional Economy,Employment and Population
The major economic contributors are timber, cattle,and recreation revenues. Over 7,000 people live onthe reservation. Unemployment on the reservation ishigh. The reservation has one of the lowest medianhousehold incomes and highest percentage of peopleliving below the poverty level in the Southwest(Table 3-7). Most residents live in or near the commu-nities of San Carlos, Peridot, or Bylas.
White MountainApache Reservation
Geography
The 1.63-million acre White Mountain Apache (orFort Apache) Reservation is located immediately westof the BRWRA in the transition between the Colora-
119
AEecred Enviranmenrs
Table 3-7. Surnmary of regional U.S. Census data for the San Carlos Apache Reservation.
Total population 7,294
Population density 2.7lmi’
Number in civilian labor force 3,188
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed 30.0%
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries 6.6%
Median household income $8,743
Percent of population below poverty level 62.0%
SOURCE: 1990 U.S. Census for the San Carlos Apache reservation.
do Plateau and the Basin and Range physiographicprovinces (Fig. 3- 1). Erosion by streams has carveddeep canyons into strata underlying the area. TheMogollon Rim runs through the southwestern marginof the Plateau Province on the reservation. Elevationsrange from 2,600 feet on the extreme western end tothe 11,403-fool. crest of Mount Baldy in the east. Thereservation is bordered on the east and north by theApache-Sirgreaves NF, on the west by the Tonto NF,and on the south by the San Carlos Apache Reserva-tion.
Climate
Temperature extremes range from a high in thesummer of about 110°F at the low elevations of thefar western end to about -45°F on Baldy Peak in mid-winter. The average low temperature is 7.4”F inJanuary and the average high is 90.8”F in July. Averageannual precipitation ranges from 15 inches in thedesert regions on the western end to over 35 inches inthe Mount Baldy area.
Water
There are over 300 miles of perennial streams on thereservation. Among the major streams are Canyon,Cibecue, Carrizo, Ord, Big and Little Bonito, Reser-vation, Tonto, and Pacheta Creeks, and the NorthFork and East Fork of the Whiteriver. Numeroussprings exist, particularly below the Mogollon Rim.Over 30 artificial trout lakes and 60 stock tanks arelocated throughout the reservation.
Vegetation
Over 72 1,000 acres, or 44%, of the reservation isforested, mostly ponderosa pine. Vegetation zonesinclude spruce-alpine fir forest (about 27,000 acres inthe northeast), montane conifer forest featuringponderosa pine, with aspen stands intermixed (about694,000 acres), riparian deciduous forest, juniper-p&on woodland (about 640,000 acres), oak-pinewoodland, interior chaparral (about 24,000 acres),plains and desert grassland (about 50,000 acres),Sonoran desert scrub (about 7,000 acres), and moun-tain meadow grassland (about 7,000 acres).
Animals
Species of SpeciaC Concern.-The tribe has a culturaltradition of care and respect for all species ofwildlife.There are, however, several species that the tribe or theFWS has identified as endangered or threatened.Federally endangered wildlife which the FWS hasidentified as occurring on the reservation are therazorback sucker, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, andsouthwestern willow flycatcher. Federally threatenedspecies that the FWS lists as occurring are the Apachetrout, loach minnow, Little Colorado spinedace,spikedace, Mexican spotted owl, and possibly a re-established, nonessential experimental population ofColorado squawfish. (Activities which may adverselymodify critical habitat for the razorback sucker on thereservation are described in the San Carlos ApacheReservation section, above.)
3-20
Potential Wild Prey of Wolves.-Coues white-taileddeer, mule deer, elk, javelina, pronghorn, RockyMountain bighorn sheep, and desert bighorn sheepare found on the reservation. Table 3-8 shows theestimated population sizes, densities, and habitat areasof these species. Bands of feral horses also occur here.White-tailed deer inhabit oak-pine woodlands, whilemule deer are common in the montane conifer forests,interior chaparral, mountain grasslands, and Sonorandesert scrub. Elk were introduced into the WhiteMountains between 19 13 and 1934 and have spreadthroughout the forested areas. The highest concen-tration of elk is in the eastern portion of the reserva-tion. These elk move to and from the southeasternpart of the reservation, the San Carlos Apache Reser-vation, and the BRWRA. Introduced pronghorninhabit the plains and desert grasslands of the BonitoPrairie.
The deer population is low but stable. Elk herdsare slowly increasing. However, recent changes in elkhunting regulations both on and off the reservationmay slow or stop this increase. Desert and RockyMountain bighorn sheep each have a resident herd sizeof up to 10 animals. Small mammals include Arizonagray squirrels, Abert’s squirrels, golden-mantledground squirrels, cliff chipmunks, ringtails, raccoons,and cottontails.
Al&ted Environments
Hunting.-The tribe holds regular seasons for elk,mountain lion, javelina, and pronghorn. Hunting ofdeer and bighorn sheep by non-members is notpermitted. About $1 million was generated in non-member hunting revenues in 1995. Three trophy elkhunts are held annually, with a limit of one bull peryear per permit. Sixty-four non-member trophy elkpermits were available for the 1994- 1995 season at$11,000 each. Special auction and cow elk hunts alsoare permitted. Table 3-9 depicts non-member huntingrevenues for 1994. One hunting season for javelina,pronghorn, and bear are permitted. Mountain lionscan be hunted year-round. Guides are required formost non-member hunts. Nine non-member guidelicenses were issued in 1994 providing tribal revenueof $22,500.
Existing Livestock Predators.-Coyotes and moun-tain lions are common. Black bear are found inmontane conifer forests. Badgers and feral dogs alsooccur on the reservation. A tribal member is employedas the ADC specialist on the reservation workingunder a year-round cooperative agreement. Theprimary focus of the program is the prevention ofdepredation to cattle and horses. The specialist alsoworks with the tribal Game and Fish Departmentcontrolling coyotes on antelope fawning grounds and
Table 3-8. Population estimates, densities, and estimated habitat areas of potential wolf prey species onthe White Mountain Apache Reservation.’
Species Estimated Population Density (animal/mi2) Estimated Habitat (mi’)
White-tailed deer 1,700
Mule deer 2,300
ElkWinter 6,000Summer 11,500
Pronghorn 275
Desert bighorn 5
Rocky Mountain bighorn 8
‘Numbers for pelina arc not known.
SOURCE: White Mountain Apache Tribe 1995.
0.97 1 , ‘ 5 0
1.15 2,000
13.33 45010.95 1,050
2.60 105
0.13 75
0.16 50
3-21
Affected Environments
Table 3-9. White Mountain Apache Reservation non-member hunting revenues for 1994.
Species Number Permits Issued Total Revenues
Bull elk 75
Cow elk 100
Pronghorn 3
Mountain lion 20
Black bear (spring and fall) 58’
Atymxm1atc
SOURCE: White Mountain Apache Tribe 1995.
$ 940.000
30,000
10,500
3,000
5,800
helping to capture bears in campgrounds and popu-lated areas. Over the past three years, ADC has takenan annual average of 47 coyotes, 35 feral dogs, 1.3lion, and 3.7 bears (Table 3-10). Control toolsinclude leghold traps, M-44s, and calling and shoot-ing for coyotes and feral dogs, and foot snares andhunting with dogs for lions and bears (Phillips 1994).
Tribal Policies and Plans
and one tribal herd. The allocated animal units (cowand calf) total 15,230. The reservation isunderstocked due to low precipitation and fewassociation funds. Grazing is yearlong. Previously, theassociations held an annual fall sale of calves; however,because of low calf numbers, a regular sale has notbeen held for several years. Table 3- 10 depicts thereported livestock losses for 1990-92. Approximately3,500 head of horses also occur on the reservation.
The tribal economy is guided by the Overall Eco-nomic Plan (White Mountain ApacheTribe 1993).Tribal plans include upgrading and expanding timber-related activities such as increasing timber processingcapabilities, broadening the tourist base to includepassive activities such as the opening ofa walk-through historic park, and the development of retailand service businesses. The trend is toward internal-izing control over these economic and developmentventures (White Mountain ApacheTribe 1993).
Livestock ownership and grazing is not a majoreconomic base on the reservation. Individuals withinthe associations own varying numbers of animals,from one cow to over 200 animals. Livestock owner-ship was established and largely continues to be forsubsistence. Cattle are used for ceremonies, wakes,family consumption, etc.
Forestry
The Tribal Council adopted a resolution in 1995opposing Mexican wolf recovery in the BRYVRA(White Mountain ApacheTribe Res. No. 12-95-371).In 1994, the Council adopted a resolution prohibit-ing most access to the reservation by federal and stateagencies for scientific research or data collectionwithout the tribe’s express written consent (Res. No.02-94-060).
Forest management is governed by lo-year harvestplans. Commercial forestry occurs in the montaneconifer forest, mostly in the northeast section of thereservation. Up to 721,000 acres are active timberharvesting areas, with annual harvests of 75 to 80million board feet. Two sawmills exist, one at Cibecueand one at Whiteriver, for a total capacity of about 80
million board feet of lumber.
Livestock Grazing
Mining and Other NaturalResource Extraction
All areas within the reservation except the populated No mineral extraction is occurring on the reservation.areas and the wildlife area are grazed by livestock. Mineral deposits ranging from non-metalliferousThere are nine multiple-family livestock associations building materials to precious metals occur on the
Affected Environments
Table S-10. White Mountain Apache Reservation livestock losses reported to APHIS-ADC, 1990-92.
cows Calves Horses
1990: Bear 80 64 T
Feral dog 57 57
Lion 41 30
Coyote 71 97
Subtotal 249 248 2
1991: Bear 9 8
Feral dog 8 8
Lion 12 1 0 2
Coyote 3 20
Subtotal 32 46 2
1992: Bear 38 35 1
Feral dog 18 18
Lion 11 9 6
Coyote 15 69
Subtotal 82 131 7
Total 363 425 11
SOURCE: Phillips 1994.
reservation; however, potential for development islow. Large quantities of gypsum and limestone andsmall amounts of low-quality coal have been locatedbut nor extensively developed.
Public Access and Recreation
About 760 miles of roads exist on the reservation, ofwhich 128 miles are paved. The tribe requires all non-members to purchase outdoor recreation permits foractivities on the reservation. The tribe offers hiking,backpacking, fishing, hunting, camping, whitewaterrafting, boating, skiing, and gaming. The Sunrise Park
Ski Resort near Mount Baldy offers downhill skiingand related activities. The revenues from fishing,camping, rafting, and picnicking were expected tototal nearly $1.2 million in 1995. Skiing will addnearly $2 million and gaming nearly $5 million totribal revenue. The northeast corner near MountBaldy is closed to non-tribal members, and special usepermits are required for the areas bordering thesouthern boundary as well as the entire area west ofHighway 60.
3-23
Regional Economy,Employment and Population
The reservation is economically diverse, particularlynear Whiteriver, with an active sawmill, thrivingcommercial development, and many constructionprojects underway. Industrial and farming pursuits arelimited, although some irrigated farming occurs in theriver valleys. The economy is centered on naturalresources and recreation (BIA 1978). Five firms withinthe public administration, service, and manufacturingsectors account for 73.7% ofemployment. Tourism isa major employer, directly contributing more than14% of reservation employment. The Sunrise Park SkiResort and the Fort Apache Timber Company (em-ploying about 220 tribal members) are the largestemployers (White Mountain Apache Tribe 1993).According to the U.S. Census, the civilian labor forcewas 5,820 individuals in 1990 and the unemploymentrate was 32.8% (although the U.S. BIA reported a6 1% unemployment rate for 1990 (Waters 199 1)).
The median household income is $13,020 and50.8% of the people live below the poverty level(Table 3-l 1). The reservation is sparsely populated,with approximately I 0,390 residents according to theU.S. (Census. The BIA estimated the resident popula-tion at 11,000 tribal members and about 2,500 non-tribal residents (Waters 199 1). The residents areprimarily clustered around Whiteriver, McNary, andCibeque. The population has been growing steadilyby almost three percent annually since 1980 (WhiteMountain ApacheTribe 1993).
AfTected Environments
Lakeside Ranger District,Sitgreaves National Forest
The Lakeside Ranger District, which lies immediatelyto the north of the White Mountain Apache Reserva-tion and to the northwest of the BRWRA, comprisesrelatively gentle terrain sloping upward from north-west to southeast. The elevation ranges from 6,500feet to 8,800 feet. Volcanic cones, generally in theeastern po&on, rise 500 to 1,000 feet above the basetopography. The ranger district has several wetlands,streams, lakes, and artificial impoundments.
A mixture of pihon-juniper, ponderosa pine,mixed conifer, and aspen forest types occur here. Thenorthwest portion is predominantly pifion-juniperand dry rangeland. Planr cover is low, primarily due tolow rainfall and low elevations. Mixed conifer andaspen occur mostly in the eastern portion and areassociated with the volcanic cones. Approximately halfof the district consists of ponderosa pine.
The district is managed under the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Plan (SW Region USFS1987b). In the short term, management for consump-tive uses (which includes recreation such as huntingand fishing) will be emphasized (E.H. Klein,Sitgreaves NF, pers. comm.). However, as the areabecomes more urban, the demand for non-consump-tive uses increases, and a greater emphasis may beplaced on developing nonconsumptive recreationalopportunities in the future.
The ranger district permits a total of 2,460livestock. The entire district is open to grazing,
Table 3- 11. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for the White Mountain Apache Reservation.
Total population 10,394
Population density 4.2Jmi’
Number in civilian labor force 5,820
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed 32.8%
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries 5.7%
Median household income 513,020
Percent of population below poverty level 50.8%
SOURCE: 1390 L7.S. Census for the Fort Apache reservation.
3 2 4
although some areas have not been grazed recently.Grazing occurs in the majoriry of allotments fromJune to October; a few are year-round.
Recreation includes camping, picnicking, hiking,sight-seeing, cross country skiing, hunting, fishing,and birdwatching, for an average of 409,000 RVDsyearly. The district has three developed campgrounds,three primitive campgrounds, a large number ofundeveloped camp sites, and approximately 200 milesof trails used by horses, mountain bikes, and hikers.Most recreational activities occur in the southern andeastern parts of the district where pine vegetationpredominates.
Traditionally, this portion ofArizona has been arecreation and vacation area. Forty-thousand acres ofprivate land occur within the district boundariesconsisting mostly of unincorporated developments.Two communities, Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low,are located within the boundaries of the district with acombined population ranging from about 10,000 inthe winter to over 50,000 in the summer. The trend istoward more growth as a retirement and second homearea, leading to an increase in demand for conversionof National Forest lands to both private lands andareas for dispersed recreation (E.H. Klein, SitgreavesNE pers. comm.).
San Mateo MountainsUnit of Cibola National Forest
The San Mateo Mountains encompass approximately395,000 acres primarily in the southwestern portionof Socorro County northeast of the Black Range inNew Mexico. The San Mateos are situated in theMagdalena Ranger District of Cibola NF, to thenortheast of the Gila NF portion of the BRWRA. Nopermanent water sources are found in the San Mateos;only seasonal springs and wildlife watering tanks arelocated here. Vegetation ranges from spruce-fir wood-land at about 10,000 feet elevation to mixed conifer,ponderosa pine and pifion-juniper woodlands, moun-tain shrub, plains grassland, and Chihuahuan desert atabout 6,000 feet elevation on the south end of themountains. About 66 percent of the land is forested.Less than 4,000 mule deer inhabit this part of theCibola NE Approximately 400 elk also occur (B.Stephenson, Cibola NF, pers. comm.).
Most of the mountain range is covered by amanagement plan; however, about 52,800 acres in the
3-25
Affected Environments
southern half of the range is not under any currentplan. Unit plans covering a ten-year period will beprepared beginning in fiscal year 1996 (B. Stephen-son, Cibola NF, pers. comm.).
There are approximately 4,000 head of permittedcattle using the mountain range. Grazing seasons varyfrom a few months to year-round. The only ungrazedland is in the upper elevations of the Apache Kid andWithington Wilderness Areas. No timber sale pro-gram exists on the Magdalena Ranger District with theexception of fuelwood harvesting. No new camp-grounds, roads, or major hiking trails are planned.Management emphasis for the mountain range willcontinue to be grazing, dispersed recreation, andwilderness management.
The primary recreation use is hunting, predomi-nantly for mule deer and elk. During the warmermonths, developed camp sites receive steady use.Hiking and sight-seeing by automobile are otherimportant seasonal uses. The San Mateo Mountainsaccount for about 75,000 RVDs.
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area
Geography
The WSWRA encompasses 2,578,026 acres, or 4,028mi’, in south-central New Mexico (Fig. 3-4). This areaincludes all of White Sands Missile Range andHolloman Air Force Base (2,087,264 acres), WhiteSands National Monument (142,639 acres), the SanAndres National Wildlife Refuge (57,215 acrescontained within the missile range boundary), andlands adjoining the western boundary of the missilerange (348,123 acres), including theJornada Experi-mental Range and San Andres National WildlifeRefuge. The WSWRA encompasses two entire moun-tain ranges (the San Andres and the Oscura Moun-tains), portions of two major drainage basins (theTularosa Basin to the east of the mountains and theJornada de1 Muerto to the west of the mountains),two lava flows, and the largest gypsum deposit in theworld.
The WSWRA primary recovery zone consists ofthe San Andres Mountains in the western part of themissile range. (The primary recovery zone and otherprecise boundaries are delineated in Box 2-l .) The
Affected EnvironmentsFigure 3-4. White Sands Wolf Recovery Area.
SIERRA CO.SIERRA CO.- - - - - -- - -
MMA ANA co.OONA ANA co.
PRIMARY RECOVERY ZONE
WOLFRECOVERY
)M AREABOUNDARY
0d5SCALE IN MILES
Affected Environments
secondary recovery zone on the west side is the narrowstrip of foothills and plains, about 70 miles long andabout eight miles wide, lying adjacent to the missilerange boundary (Fig. 3-4). The secondary recoveryzone makes up 14% of the WSWRA and consistsmostly of BLM lands, private lands, and the JornadaExperimental Range (see separate section below). Theremainder of the WSWRA secondary recovery zonelies within the White Sands Missile Range boundary,consisting ofall lands outside the San Andres moun-tains.
The WSWRA includes portions of five NewMexico counties: Dofia Ana, Sierra, Socorro, Lincoln,and Otero. Highway 70 traverses the southern portionbetween Las Cruces and Alamogordo forming thesouthern boundary of the primary recovery zone. The1,119,77 l-acre Fort Bliss, an Army artillery and airdefense training range, lies to the south of theWSWRA. The Army has evacuation agreements withland owners over four extension areas to the north andwest of the missile range that are evacuated periodi-cally for safety reasons during missile tests and othermilitary activities (Fig. 3-5).
White Sands Missile Range is approximately 100miles long and 37 miles wide. The majority of therange is situated in the Tularosa Basin, which consistsmostly of Cenozoic deposits of gypsum and quartz(Bednarz 1389). The basin is notable for its shiftinggypsum dunes and extensive alkali flats. The northernpart of the basin is covered by a basalt flow called theCarrizozo Malpais. The San Andres Mountains formthe western boundary of the Tularosa Basin forapproximately 85 miles and are from six to 17 mileswide. The range rises to about 9,000 feet elevation atSalinas Peak. The San Andres are fault-block moun-tains with tilted sedimentary rock beds dippingwestward toward the Jornada de1 Muerto. The foot-hills and bajadas in the secondary recovery zone to thewest of the San Andres grade into gravelly and sandyplains toward the Rio Grande.
The Oscura Mountains occupy the northeasternsection of the WSYURA. These extend 25 miles fromnorth to south in a roughly triangular shape with amaximum width of about 13 miles. The Oscuras arecomprised of primarily eastward dipping blocks ofPermian sedimentary and Paleozoic rocks (Meinzerand Hare 19 15). The western margin is a steep escarp-ment and the eastern slope descends gradually.
Climate
The climate in the WSWRA is typical of the south-western deserts, characterized by aridity throughoutthe year, hot summers, mild winters, low relativehumidity, and scant precipitation (Table 3- 12).Average high temperatures can be over 1 OO”F in June,and the average low is 2 1 “F in January. Annual pre-cipitation varies from 7 to 11 inches in the lowerareas, averaging 10 inches. High mountain locationsin the San Andres can receive from 12 to 20 inches,averaging 18 inches. Most precipitation occurs duringthunderstorms from June through September. Precipi-tation from 1993- 1995 in the lower Tularosa Basinhas been 38% below the 195- 1994 ten year average(Morrow 1996).
Water
Surface water in the WSWRA is almost nonexistentexcept for the highly gypsiferous and saline water inLake Lucero, Salt Creek, Malpais Springs, and LostRiver. Malpais Springs is the most significant source ofsurface water, discharging several cubic feet per second.About 130 small springs, of variable reliability, existin both the San Andres and Oscura Mountains.Approximately 50 percent of these are perennial(Bednarz 1989). Discharge from most sites usually isless than one gallon per minute (USFWS 1985). As aresult of a 1993- 1995 drought all natural springs inthe San Andres Mountains either dried up or were attheir lowest levels in ten years (Logan 1994a). Inaddition, White Sands Missile Range has more than50 watering facilities (e.g. windmills and rainwatercatchments) that are occasionally serviced for game,wildlife, and feral horses (D. Taylor, WSMR, pers.comm.).
The secondary recovery zone to the west of themissile range has numerous dirt tanks and livestocktroughs, many supplied by pipeline systems. A watersource occurs roughly every one to two miles(Howard 1993).
527
Ahred Environments
Figure 3-5. White Sands Missile Range Extension Areas.
/
/L
:EXTENSION
AREA
W H I T E
S A N D S
TRUTH ORCONSEOUENCES
M I S S I L E
R A N G E
SCALE IN MILES
LAS CRUCES
3-28
Affected Environments
Table 3-12. Average annual temperatures for White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
Temperature ( OF)
Region Elevation (feet) High Mean Low
Basins 3,900-4,900 77 6 1 46
Mountains fi,OOO-9,060 74 53 3 1
SOURCES: WSMR Meteorological Branch 1994; Eschrich 1992.
Vegetation
The WSWRA supports a mixture of Chihuahuandesert, upper Sonoran desert, and southern RockyMountain flora. The major vegetation classes includep&on-juniper woodland, semi-desert shrubs, desertgrasslands, gypsum grasslands and dunes, and desertmountains (NMNHP 1992).
A ponderosa pine community occurs at thehighest elevations of the San Andres Mountains atSalinas Peak, covering about 7 mi2. The coniferouswoodlands are found between 6,300 and 8,500 feetelevation and are dominated by p&on and juniper.These woodlands total about 237 mi2. Savannasoccurring between about 6,000 and 7,000 feetelevation have open juniper canopies with predomi-nately grassy cover. Savannas cover approximately 32 1mi’ of the missile range.
Scrublands are extensive, covering over 2,000 mi’.Scrub types occur from about 4,100 to 8,500 feetelevation. Montane scrub usually occurs in the sameelevation zone as woodlands and savannas, but ineither more extreme environments or on sites thathave been subjected to high frequency disturbancesuch as repeated fire. The vegetation is dominated bymountain mahogany, oaks, and hardy grasses. Plains-mesa scrub is typified by sand sage, occurring alongthe edge of the upper Jornada basin. Chihuahuandesert scrub occupies large areas of lower mountainslopes, bajadas, and basin bottoms, and is dominatedby drought-resistant shrubs.
Grasslands on the missile range total about 761m? and are dominated by plains-mesa and desertgrasslands. Plains-mesa grasslands lie between thehigher elevation woodlands, savannas, or montanescrub, and the lower elevation desert grasslands ordesert scrub. Desert grasslands are characterized byspecies like black grama. Desert grasslands range in
elevation from 4,000 to 6,000 feet (NMNHI? 1992).
The federally listed plants occurring in the WSWRAare listed in Appendix D.
Animals
History of Wolves
The WSWRA lies within the probable historic rangeof the Mexican wolf subspecies. Historic documenta-tion of wolves is sparse, consisting of a few verbalaccounts from turn-of-the-century residents (Halloran1946, 1944a, and 1944b; Forsling 1919). Also,Bertram (1992) examined canid bones excavated fromthe northeastern foot of the Organ Mountains withinthe WSWRA, which he identified as Cimis lupus.However, he could not determine whether the boneswere of local origin or came to the site through tradefrom elsewhere.
Bailey (1907 and 193 1) mentioned reports ofwolves in the San Andres and documented theircommon occurrence in the early twentieth century inneighboring areas such as the Sacramento and CapitanMountains. Nunley (1977) and Young and Goldman( 1944) reported wolves being captured west of theWS’X’RA near Hatch, New Mexico. No confirmedwolf reports have come from the area in recent years(Wolok 1994). However, one alleged sighting of alone “wolf” occurred in 1988 at the southern WhiteSands Missile Range boundary in Otero County(Wolok 1994).
Species of Special Concern
The federally endangered species which the FWS listsas occurring on the missile range include the baldeagle, American peregrine falcon, northern aplomadofalcon, southwestern willow flycatcher, whoopingcrane, and black-footed ferret. Federally-threatened
Mexican spotted owls are listed by the FWS as
3 2 9
occurring. Peregrine falcons and bald eagles have beendocumented only as transients. The other animalspecies are seasonal residents or breeding species.
The potential wolf prey species of special concernis the New Mexico-endangered desert bighorn sheep,which occurs in the San Andres Mountains. Thepopulation numbers about 30 individuals (S.Berendzen, San Andres National Wildlife Refuge,pers. comm.) and primarily inhabits steep, rocky areas.The population has had persistent, devastating scabiesinfections that sharply reduced its numbers in the late1970s from a high of about 200 animals (Sandoval1979).
Critical habitat for the federally endangeredTodsen’s pennyroyal occurs within a 2-km* area ofWhite Sands Missile Range. Activities by the Armywhich would result in increased trampling or distur-bance of the critical habitat may be restricted (46 Fed.Reg. 5730, Jan. 19, 1981).
Potential Wild Prey of Wolves
Mule deer are the most abundant ungulates followedby oryx, pronghorn, and feral horses. Table 3- 13provides population estimates for these potential prey(except horses) on the missile range portion of theWSWRA. Small mammals and ungulates such asjavelina, elk, and desert bighorn sheep occur in limitednumbers.
Mule deer occupy most habitat types except forthe lowest elevations in the Tularosa Basin wherevegetation and fresh water are sparse or nonexistent.Approximately 70% (5,300) of the total mule deerpopulation on the missile range can be found in theprimary recovery zone in the San Andres Mountains(NMDGF 1993a, 1993b, and 1992). Densities varywidely, from less than one animal per mi* to lo- 12 per
Affected Environments
mi* within the mid-elevations of the mountains andalong the footslope areas. Pockets of high densitiesexist at lower elevations as well. About 10% of thetotal deer population dwells in the lower basins (P,Morrow, WSMR, pers. comm.).
A drought from 1993-l 995 has caused a declinein mule deer numbers in the San Andres Mountains(Morrow 1996). Fawns and reproducing does experi-enced the greatest reduction. It is anticipated that themule deer population in the San Andres will recoverwith the return of normal to above normal precipita-tion (Logan 1994a).
Approximately 80% of the pronghorn live in theJornada Basin and the rest occur in the northern andwestern portions of the Tularosa Basin below 6,000feet elevation (U.S. Army 1994). Pronghorn moveseasonally between the missile range and adjacentprivate and federal lands, apparently in response towater and forage availability. Overall, pronghorn onthe missile range are increasing. The Jornada Basinpronghorn population appears to be stable-to-increasing and theTularosa Basin population appearsto be increasing (I? Morrow, WSMR, pers. comm.).
Non-native oryx are well-distributed below 6,000feet elevation. Generally, oryx occupy the basin desertshrub and grassland habitats, but they can be foundthroughout the WSWRA, including most canyonswithin the San Andres. Single oryx and groups of lessthan three individuals are frequently observed inpifion-juniper habitats (I? Morrow, WSMR, pers.comm.). The population on the WSWRA is about1,700 animals. It is increasing at an average annualrate of about 17% (Table 3-14). In the WSWRA, thespecies has no significant predators other than hu-mans. They have sharp, formidable horns, and theydefend their young. Coyotes, mountain lions, andbobcats may take a few, primarily young, oryx. It is
Table 3-13. Population estimates of ungulate prey species for the WSWRA, 1994.
SPecies
Mule Deer Pronghorn
Primary recovery zone 5 , 3 0 0 7 0
Secondary recovery zone 2 , 2 0 0 2 8 0
Total primary + secondary 7 , 5 0 0 3 5 0
SOURCE: Morrow 1994.
3-30
oryx
7 0 0
1 , 0 0 0
1 , 7 0 0
AfFected Environments
Table 3-14. Oryx population estimates for the WSWRA.
Year
Area
Primary recovery zone
Secondary recovery zonewithin the missile range
Secondary recovery zoneoutside the missile range
Total WSWR4
1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6
7 0 0 7 0 0 9 5 0 1 , 1 0 0
6 5 0 8 2 5 9 0 0 1 ,070
150 175 2 0 0 2 3 0
1 ,500 1 , 7 0 0 2 , 0 5 0 2 , 4 0 0
SOURCE: Morrow 1994.
not known whether wolves will prey on oryx, orwhether oryx will harm the wolves through defensiveactions. African wild dog packs do not attack oryx intheir native Africa (J. Ginsberg, Zoological Society ofLondon, pers. comm.). No evidence exists of diseaseresulting in significant mortality in the oryx popula-tion (D. Taylor, WSMR, pens. comm.).
The oryx population continues to expand beyondoriginal introduction expectations (Saiz 1978).Concern over the impacts of this expansion is increas-ing. White Sands National Monument personnel areundertaking a roughly half-million dollar project tofence out oryx (D. Ditmanson, White Sands Natl.Mon., pers. comm). Managers are implementingstrategies to reduce the population, particularly withinthe mountains where the potential to compete withnative species may increase and through which oryxmay disperse off the missile range (Morrow 1996).
A population of feral horses exists on the missilerange entirely within the northernTularosa Basin. Thehorses likely represent the progeny of domestic ranchstock left behind after the Army established exclusivemilitary use of the missile range in 1950 (U.S. Army1991). They are not protected under the Wild andFree-roaming Horses and Burro Act, 16 USC $ 1334,because the Act does not apply to federal militarylands. Feral horse movements and distribution aredirectly related to water availability (U.S. Army199 1). During dry periods horse distribution becomescompressed. Following rains horses again disperse(Morrow 1993).
In 1994, the horse population was estimated at1,200 to 1,400 animals. However, several die-offs had
occurred as a result of extreme dry conditions whichlimited forage and water availability. Over 120 horsesdied in the 1994 drought. Severe degradation isevident throughout horse habitat, especially alongriparian areas (D. Holdermann, NM Coop. Res. Unit,pers. comm.). Pursuant to a study and EnvironmentalAssessment (EA), the missile range initiated horsereduction activities (capture and removal) in late1995; the current population is 250-350 animals(Morrow 1996). Current management objectives callfor continued reductions in the population in 1996 toachieve the EA recommendation of half the Ma%mumTarget Population of about 375, that is, reducing thepopulation to about 180.
Small prey species include jackrabbits, cottontails,skunks, porcupines, ground squirrels, chipmunks, rats,and other small mammals (Bednarz 1989; Findley1975).
Hunting
All big game hunts on the missile range are by specialpermit with limited entry. Permit levels and hunt areasare established cooperatively by White Sands MissileRange and the New Mexico Department of Game andFish. In recent years, there have been two deer, onepronghorn, and six oryx hunts annually. Deer huntsare conducted annually in either the Salinas Peak orOscura Mountain Hunt Area on an alternating basis.One male deer with at least one forked antler is thelegal limit. Pronghorn are hunted concurrently withoryx in the Stallion Range Center area each fall. Thelegal harvests are one male pronghorn and either a
3-31
male or female oryx. Hunters are limited to onetrophy oryx permit for life. Most hunts take place fortwo days over a weekend. Both rifle and primitiveweapons hunts (muzzle-loader and archery) areconducted annually. No hunting is permitted onHolloman Air Force Base except for occasional oryxcontrol hunts.
Table 3- 15 summarizes the average mule deerharvest over the past five years. The average annualpermit level for deer hunts is 140, and hunter partic-ipation averages 123 (88%). Hunter success ratesaverage 5 1% for all deer hunts combined. Bow huntersuccess averages 1 1%, while rifle hunter successaverages 69%. The success rate for primitive weaponhunts averages 38%. Harvest strategies for the 1996-97 season on WSMR will include the reduction ofpermit levels by about 50% from the previous year toan expected harvest of 40-55 legal bucks in thenorthern San Andres and Oscuras.
Pronghorn and oryx harvest statistics for theperiod 1986 though 1993 are presented inTable 3-16. From 1992-l 994, permit levels increasedby an annual average of 1 O%, while the oryx popula-tion is estimated to have increased 17% annually.Approximately 200 oryx permits were available in1994 (U.S. Army 1994; I? Morrow, WSMR, pers.comm.). Permit levels for the 1995-96 season wereincreased by 50% to 300 permits. Depredation huntsheld on and off WSMR were increased by over 100%to approximately 150 permits.
Existing Livestock Predators
Coyotes are present in the mountainous areas in lowdensities and are more numerous in the secondary
Al&ted Environments
recovery zone in the Jornada de1 Muerto (K. Havstad,Jornada Experimental Range, pers. comm.).
White Sands Missile Range and the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish have initiated aninformal agreement that allows nuisance black bearslive-trapped from the Cloudcroft and Ruidoso areasto be released into suitable habitat within the OscuraMountains on the missile range (NMDGF 1993b).Eight bears have been relocated under this agreement.Relocated bears were not believed to have killedlivestock or to have been aggressive toward humans.
The total mountain lion population in the SanAndres Mountains is estimated at 75 to 80. Density isapproximately one lion per nine mi*. This density isamong the highest documented in North America(Logan 1994b). An experiment was initiated in 1990in which two-thirds of the lion population of thesouthern San Andres were translocated to northernNew Mexico. By mid-1993, most of this loss hadbeen replaced by immigration and reproduction, andthe population in this portion of the San Andresstood at 26 to 28 animals. Researchers continue toregularly monitor their movements. Despite the highlion density, cases of depredations on livestock on thewest side of the missile range have been very rare (K.Logan, Hornocker Wildlife Research Inst., pers.comm.).
No predator control occurs within the missilerange boundary. The New Mexico ADC offIce hascontrol agreements with six ranches in the WSWRAsecondary recovery zone. Target animals are coyotesand bobcats, and a full range of control methods areused, Verified losses in 1992 consisted of one calf.
Table 3-15. Average annual mule deer harvest, White Sands Missile Range, 1989-1993.
Area Weapon # Permits # Hunters Harvest % Hunter Success
Oscura Bow 50 43 4 8
Salinas Bow 50 36 5 14
Oscura Rifle 93 84 42 49
Salinas Rifle 75 71 60 88
SOURCE: Morrow 1994.
3-32
Afkred Environments
Table 3- 16. Average annual pronghorn and oryx harvest, White Sands Missile Range, 1986-1993.
# Permits # Hunters Harvest % Hunter Success
Pronghorn 27 26 25 97
oryx 148 147 140 96
SOURCE: Morrow 1994.
Land Ownershipand Management
The Department of the Army exerts principal controland land management authority over White SandsMissile Range. The Army manages it to supportmissile and weapons development and test programsfor the Army, Navy, Air Force, National Aeronauticsand Space Administration (NASA), several otheragencie!;, and non-government agencies. The missilerange consists of a complex overlay of federal lands co-used by the Army and various land administrators,particularly in the southern one-third of the instal-lation. Air space over the entire WSWRA is con-trolled by the military.
The National Park Service administers the 88-mi*White Sands National Monument. The monument islocated entirely within the boundaries ofWhite SandsMissile Range (see separate section below on theMonument). The FWS manages the 90-mi2 SanAndres National Wildlife Refuge that also lies entirelywithin the missile range. The principal purpose of therefuge is to conserve and develop its wildlife resources.The focus of refuge activities has been on protectingand restoring the remnant population of desertbighorn sheep.
The U.S.D.A. Agriculture Research Service,administers the 293-mi* Jornada Experimental Rangelocated on the western San Andres Mountain pied-mont and on the eastern portion of the Jornada Valley(see separate section below on the JER). About half ofthe JER is located within the missile range, andactivities of both the Agriculture Research Service andthe Army are subject to a co-use agreement.
NASA manages its White SandsTest Facility on a88 mi* portion of the missile range to test spacecraftcomponents. The Army has access to the NASA siteand may construct roads, power lines, communicationlines, and instrumentation sites, as well as conductmissile and Air Force tests at altitudes above10,000 feet.
A 64-mi2 area in the southeastern portion of themissile range is managed by Holloman Air Force Base.
The New Mexico Department of Game and Fishhas ultimate management responsibility for most ofthe wildlife in the area. An interagency cooperativeagreement sets forth the specific responsibilities of theDepartment of Game and Fish, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, and the Army.
Military use of all co-use lands takes precedenceover other activities. Public access generally is prohib-ited on all co-use lands except on White SandsNational Monument (WSMR 1993). The secondaryrecovery zone to the west of the missile range bound-ary consists mostly of BLM and private land. About adozen ranches operate there.
Land Development
Within the missile range are one post headquartersarea in the southwestern corner and four range centers(Stallion, Oscura, North Oscura, and Rhodes CanyonRange Centers), two of which are regularly inhabitedby government personnel (Fig. 3-6). The post head-quarters area consists of 1,900 acres (U.S. Army1985) and provides living quarters for about 850families and 65 single people (Anon. 1992). The rangecenters occupy less than 65 acres each and primarilyconsist of maintenance, shop, and storage buildings.These sites have temporary housing facilities for 20 to80 people (U.S. Army 1985). All of the supportfacilities are located in lowland basin areas.
More than 1,100 instrumentation sites are scat-tered throughout the missile range (U.S. Army 1985).Many of these consist simply of elevated concrete padsused occasionally to support portable equipmentduring specific tests. A few sites have structuresmanned occasionally. Collectively, these sites occupyabout 1,480 acres, mostly in basin areas (U.S. Army
1983).
Affected Environments
Figure 3-6. Impact areas and range centers in White Sands Missile Range.
StallionRangeCenter il’r90-Mile
RhodesCanyon
USAFYonderImpactArea
North w
OscuraRange
30-MileMissileImpactArea
Impact Area
Oscura-Range
Center
0 15
II ISCALE IN MILES
Historic homesteads, mostly in dilapidatedcondition, are scattered throughout the missile range.The Hardin Ranch and Mocking Bird Gap House aremaintained by the Army and used mostly by staffworking in remote areas.
Livestock Grazing
The only part of the WSWRA with private livestockgrazing is the narrow, sparsely-populated ranching areain the secondary recovery zone to the west of themissile range. Twelve ranchers graze a total of about2,120 cattle year-round. Some of their BLM allot-ments are only partially within the secondary recoveryzone (Howard 1993). Cattle occasionally trespassonto the missile range, especially where fences do notexist or are not maintained, and a small band (10 to20) of feral cows reportedly lives in the southern partof the San Andres (D. Taylor, WSMR, pers. comm.).
Mining and Other NaturalResource Extraction
There are no active mines or other natural resourceextraction activities occurring within the WSWRA,with the exception of an exploration permit grantedfor an alleged historic gold cache on Victorio Peak inthe southern part of the San Andres range. Activemines for precious metals are found in the northwestpart of the Oscura Mountains just outside theWSWRA boundary near Bingham. Portions of thesecondary recovery. zone to the west have been leasedfor oil and gas development (Howard 1993). How-ever, the few wells drilled have not produced and thedevelopment potential appears low.
Military Activities
White Sands Missile Range is a multi-service testrange. Its main function is to support missile develop-ment and test programs for the Army, Navy, AirForce, NASA, other government agencies, and privateindustry. The missile range is under the operationalcontrol of the U.S. ArmyTest and Evaluation Com-mand, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Theprimary purpose is to test new high-technologyweapons systems and equipment. In conducting thesetests, the missile range uses sophisticated instrumentssuch as radar, fixed and tracking optics, and telemetry.
Affected Environments
White Sands Missile Range also operates variousArmy laboratories and test facilities, including theTemperatureTest Facility, Atmospheric SciencesLaboratory, Aerial Cable Range, and Nuclear EffectsLaboratory. Simulated nuclear explosions are con-ducted in the northwest area to the west of the OscuraMountains. White Sands Missile Range also providesan alternate landing site for the space shuttle program.In 1992,9 1 testing programs were active and 3,468different tests were completed (Public Affairs Ofbce1993). Many sites are used as missile or weaponsimpact areas or for other types of potentially hazard-ous experiments. Most operations that involve somerisk to wildlife and humans are carried out in theTularosa Basin; however, the mountainous areas aresubject to occasional impact risk.
Many missile firing programs are underway.Surface-to-surface type missiles, with ranges in excessof twenty miles and requirements for large impactareas, use much of the range area and assets. Surface-to-air missiles along with their associated targets useeven more range area and assets, often scattering debrisover wide areas. The proposed reopening of the off-range corridor over White Sands Missile Range, whichwould enable the firing of target missiles from FortWingate, New Mexico and Green River, Utah, wouldincrease surface-to-air test activity. Several air-to-airmissile test programs are ongoing with the attendantproblem of debris falling over wide areas. Air-to-surface missile tests also are ongoing and have largesurface area danger zones as well as specific target areas.
Most of the instruments are mobile and may beoperated from any of the more than 1,100 sitesdistributed throughout the missile range, dependingupon the test requirements. There also are a numberof autonomous, manned facilities scattered through-out, the operators of which frequently conduct theirown operations. Most of those sites, such as AerialCable, Large Blast Thermal Simulator, and NuclearEffects facilities, are located in the basin areas. How-ever, some facilities are located in or adjacent tomountainous areas. North Oscura Peak is occupiedintermittently by test programs requiring a mountain-top location.
Although a majority of the live firing tests havethe potential to impact the mountainous areas of therange, the more routine impacts in the San Andresarea will result from Air Force and Air National Guardtraining missions. Most of these missions occur ataltitudes over 10,000 feet. Duds and damaged drone
3-35
targets are scattered throughout the mountain range.Targets are not normally shot down over the SanAndres because of the difficulty in recovering thedebris; however, this area is a safety buffer zone andimpacts can occur.
The Red Rio and Oscura impact areas (Figure 3-6, above), managed by Holloman Air Force Base, aremainly used for bomb drop exercises and by tacticalfighter aircraft for air-to-ground gunnery and strafingpractice. These locations in the relatively dry foothillsare contaminated with 20-mm shells, but are policedperiodically for duds by the Air Force to the maxi-mum extent possible (U.S. Army 1985). Programsinvolving the testing ofair defense system weaponshave been active in the foothill areas east of the OscuraMountains (U.S. Army, n.d.). The testing programsinvolve numerous missile firings at fixed-wing androtary drone aircraft. The Oscura Mountains primarilyserve as a “back stop” for launched missiles that missthe targets. Live ordnance has occasionally caused firesin this area (U.S. Army, n.d.).
A hazardous test area in the southwestern portionof the missile range (Fig. 3-6, above) lies adjacent tothe San Andres. Contaminants at this site includeordnance, explosives, and propellants that may bepotentially toxic to wildlife.
Public Access and Recreation
The entire missile range is closed to the public withthe following exceptions: occasional temporaryopenings of specified areas such as theTrinity Site,which commemorates the first atomic bomb test; biggame hunts; and special use permits, such as forresearch. Additional public access has been proposedfor future special events. Holloman Air Force Base isclosed to the public with the exceptions of LakesHolloman and Stinky. The White Sands NationalMonument is open to the public (see separate sectionbelow on the Monument). Highway 70 provides themajor public access across the WSWRA.
The secondary recovery zone to the west of WhiteSands Missile Range is primarily BLM land that isopen to public use. However, due to its isolation andlack of developed recreational opportunities, recre-ational use is low (Howard 1993). The exception isduring the deer hunting season when numeroushunters occupy BLM land along the missile rangeboundary.
Regional Economy,Affected Environmenrs
Employment, and Population
The economic activity generated by missile rangetesting activities and nearby military and space facili-ties dominate the economy of the WSWRA. Thecombined civilian and military payrolls of the missilerange exceed $143 million annually. An additionalpayroll is attributable to the contractors working onthe range (Public Affairs Of&e 1993).
The Post area, where 1,724 personnel live, is theonly population concentration within the WSWRA.Most of the rest of the 8,800 missile range employees(military, civilian, and contractors) live in the LasCruces, El Paso, or Alamogordo areas (Public AfhairsOfice 1993). The other large employers in the regionare Holloman Air Force Base near Alamogordo andNew Mexico State University in Las Cruces.
The population of Dofia Ana County, which isconcentrated in the Las Cruces area, is projected togrow rapidly in the near future, from 136,470 in1990 to 182,430 in 2000 (Bur. of Bus. and Econ.Res. 199 1). Slower growth rates are projected forLincoln, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro Counties sur-rounding the WSWRA. Table 3-l 7 summarizes U.S.census data for the census areas that correspond bestto the boundaries of the WSWRA. There are nopermanent inhabitants of the WSWRA primaryrecovery zone, thus no summary table is providedfor it.
White Sands NationalMonument
White Sands National Monument occupies approxi-mately 145,000 acres of theTularosa Basin and issurrounded by White Sands Missile Range. TheMonument was established to preserve the whitegypsum sand dunes and crystalline formations thatcover about 37% of the area (NPS 1993). TheMonument contains no perennial water sources. LakeLucero, a playa lake, contains water about 10% of thetime. During periods of heavy rainfall, the lake maycontain water for up to three to four months (J.Mangmeli, White Sands Natl. Mon., pers. comm.).
The vegetation is generally representative of theChihuahuan desert ecosystem. The harsh alkaline soilssupport little growth, however. No deer, pronghorn,or javelina inhabit the Monument (R. Appling, White
Afkred Environments
Table 3-17. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for White Sands wolf recovery area.’
Total population 3,868
Population density 0.8/mi’
Number in civilian labor force 1,870
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed 9.2%)
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries 1 0 . 0 %
Median household income $23,393
Percent of population below poverty level 8 . 4 %
‘Kcg~ori covcrcd hy census tracts doc5 1101 correspond exactly with recovery arca boundarleb; generally. CCIISUS tr;icrb
include \ome xijaccnt rural ;ue.ib :~round the recovery areas. I’orrions of additional census tracts in Dona Ana, Lincoln, Otcro
and Soc,jrro counrir, also occur within the WSWRA secondary recovery zone; howrver, rhese portions lack permanent
rcsidcnt / and census dxa Cram rhcsc tracts arc not included here. There arc no pcrmanenr inhabitants of the WSWKA
primary rccovcry ZOIIK:, thus no summary table IS provided for it.
SOURCES: 1990 U.S. Census for Dona Ana County census tract 19 and Sierra County censustract 982 1.
Sands Natl. Mon., pers. comm.). Oryx number 100
to 200. No mountain lions or black bears are present.Coyotes and kit foxes are common.
The western half of the Monument is adminis-tered as a joint-use area with the missile range and issubject to frequent closures during testing periods.Development plans consist of expanding the trailsystem and continuing construction ofan oryxexclosure fence. A total of eight miles of public roads,a one-mile trail, and three picnic areas have beenconstructed for public use. An average of 600,000visitors per year visit the Monument, and the onebackcountry campsite attracts 1,000 to 1,700 peopleper year (R. Appling, White Sands Natl. Mon., pers.comm.).
Jornada Experimental Range
The Jornada Experimental Range (JER), administeredby the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S.D.A.,is located mainly on the Jornada de Muerto Plainbetween the Rio Grande Valley on the west and theSan Andres Mountains on the east (Fig. 3-4, above).Elevations on the 193,394-acre tract range from4,200 feet on the plains to 8,500 feet in the SanAndres. Average annual precipitation is 9.7 inches,
falling mostly from July through September. Theaverage maximum temperature is 97°F in June and56°F in January. Eighteen permanent water tanks andwells are distributed throughout the plains portion ofthe JER.
The primarily Chihuahuan desert vegetation typesrange from grassland to desert scrub. Research hasdocumented the historical conversion of semi-desertgrasslands to desert shrubs caused by drought, shrubseed dispersal by animals, and overgrazing. Grasses areinterspersed with encroaching snakeweed, honeymesquite, creosotebush, and tarbush. On the moun-tain slopes, honey mesquite, creosotebush, sotol, andmountain mahogany are predominant, although someareas support oneseed juniper and pifion.
No federally endangered or threatened mammalsoccur in the JER. New Mexico state-endangered desertbighorn sheep number about 20, including theoverlap area with the San Andres National WildlifeRefuge. Mule deer in the foothills and mountains areestimated at 100 to 300. Pronghorn (70 to 100
animals) roam the Jornada plain. Eighty oryx inhabitthe plain and foothills. Coyotes are the most numer-ous carnivore and are increasing in number. Coyotedensity is three to four animals per mi’. Two to threemountain lions inhabit approximately 55 squaremiles, all in the San Andres Mountains.
The mission of the JER is to acquire knowledge ofecosystem processes for development of remediationtechnologies and management of desert rangelands.Research conducted by JER staff is augmented byinteragency research programs, including the NationalScience Foundation’s Long-Term Ecological ResearchProgram and the Environmental Protection Agency’sEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.Over 30 scientists conduct agricultural and ecologicalstudies.
For experimental purposes, the JER maintainsapproximately 1,100 cattle (640 cows and 400 to 500calves), 300 sheep (plus 300 to 400 lambs annually),and a small number of horses. No livestock grazingoccurs in the San Andres National Wildlife Refugeportion of the JER. Coyotes are the major predator.The JER’s experimental predator control programconsists of electric fences, guard dogs, and bonding ofsheep to cattle. Fifty coyotes were removed in 1989
and none since then. Most of the land is managed forlivestock grazing, including 42,720 acres managedjointly with White Sands Missile Range as a missiletest safety buffer zone. A total of 4 1,280 acres of theJER in the San Andres is off-limits to livestock.Unescorted public access and hunting are prohibited(Anon. 1987a; K. Havstad, JER, pers. comm.).
The Potential NaturalRecolonization Areas
The following are potentially suitable areas for naturalrecolonization by wolves that might disperse northfrom Mexico: southeastern Arizona, southwesternNew Mexico (Fig. 3-7), and Big Bend National Parkin south Texas (Fig. 3-8). They are not proposed foractive releases of captive-raised wolves. These areas aredescribed here for the purpose of assessing speculative,long-term, impacts under Ah. D, the no actionalternative (see Chap. 2). No impacts will occur inthese areas under the other alternatives, unless reintro-duced wolves were to disperse into these areas underAh. C, the full-endangered reintroduction approach.
Afked Environments
Southeastern Arizona PotentialNatural Recolonization Area
Coronado National ForestSouth of Interstate 10
Geography
The potential natural recolonization area withinsoutheastern Arizona is that portion of the CoronadoNF south of Interstate Highway 10 together withCoronado National Monument, Chiricahua NationalMemorial, and Fort Huachuca (see sections below onthe latter three areas). The area takes in parts ofCochise, Santa Cruz, and Pima Counties.
The Coronado NF in this area consists of sevenseparate blocks totalling 1,53 1 mi’, or 979,840 acres,and comprises the Tumacacori (3 10 mi2), Santa Rita(218 mi2), Huachuca (380 mi2), Whetstone (69 mi2),Dragoon (81 mi2), and Chiricabua (445 mi2) Moun-tains, and the Arizona portion of the southernPeloncillo Mountains (28 mi2) (Girmendonk 1994b).Landforms are typical of the Basin and Range physi-ographic province, with isolated mountain rangesrising above desert valleys. Elevations vary fromslightly under 4,000 feet in the interspersed desertvalleys to more than 9,000 feet at the crests of theSanta Rita, Huachuca, and Chiricahua ranges (Allen1993).
Climate
Climate varies with elevation, with mild winters andhot summers at lower elevations and the oppositeextremes in the high mountains (Allen 1993). TheAtascosa and Patagonia Mountains average 19.2inches of rain per year with extreme temperaturesranging from -7°F to 114°F and averaging 62°F. TheChiricahua Mountains receive 16.7 inches of rainannually and temperature extremes are -9°F to 112”F,with an average of 60.8”F (Johnson et al. 1992).
Water
Several thousand water sources have been developedby the Forest Service and its permittees in this area(Allen 1993). Based 1on y on sources registered forlivestock or wildlife use, the Arizona Game and FishDepartment determined that the Atascosa, Santa Rita,
3 3 8
Figure 3-7. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization areas in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico.
L
55 2-I701%$1”
r -___ -__ -___-____--I z
COCHISE C O U N T YLordsburgI
,I,/-----‘1 AT.. I
,Aui TUCSON
\
I
,/ c-l WILLCOX
PIMA C O U N T Y , //.
/’ CHIRICAHUA
SANTA CRUZCOUNTY -.,
NATIONALMONUMENT
/ \ , - - F O R T H L J A C H U C A / I///‘/
HIDALGO COUNTY
“\a’ DOUGLAS _ _ t;,~,/;/~,/‘;;/,/,~,,/‘/,/, , _ _,_ _ y , , /) j,‘&&&$ _NOGALES
-‘\ CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL MEXICO
mj PC:TE:!:TiAi N A T U R A L RECCCONiZAilO”i A R E A S
N O T E : A r e a s i n s o u t h e a s t e r n A r i z o n a c o n s i s t o f a l l t h e C o r o n a d o N a t i o n a l F o r e s tu n i t s s o u t h o f I n t e r s t a t e IO, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s e p a r a t e l y labelied a r e a s .
0 1 0 2 0 3 0r-- -- I I 1
S C A L E I N M I L E S
Figure 3-8. Mexican wolf potential natural recolonization area in Big Bend National Park.
SCALE IN MILES
Huachuca, Whetstone, and Patagonia Mountains have2,395 developed sources and the Chiricahua Moun-tains have 1,576 developed sources. Four perennialwaters are present in the Chiricahuas, and 13 perennialwater sources are spread throughout the AtascosafPatagonia area (Johnson et al. 1992).
Vegetation
Because mountains in southeastern Arizona aresurrounded by desert vegetation, these isolated rangeshave developed unique plant and animal species.Valley floors support desert shrub or semi-desertgrassland vegetation. Low elevation areas west of theWhetstone Mountains exhibit flora characteristic ofthe Sonoran desert, while low elevation areas to theeast are part of the Chihuahuan desert. The dominantvegetation on the southern portion of the CoronadoNF is Madrean evergreen woodland. This communityincludes live oaks, pinon, junipers, and a significantcover of grasses and forbs. Density of these woodlandsvaries with topographical aspect and fire history, andthe area is a mosaic of dense to sparse woodlands,savannas, and grasslands. These woodlands are bor-dered by pine and mixed conifer forests at higherelevations and grasslands at the lower elevations (Allen1993). The Atascosa and Patagonia Mountainscontain the greatest percentage of oak vegetation andMadrean evergreen woodlands. The Dragoon andWhetstone Mountains contain few forested areas(Johnson et al. 1992). Riparian vegetation intergradesfrom mesquite, willow, and hackberry within thedesert grasslands through cottonwood, sycamore, ash,and willow in the woodlands to willow and alder atthe upper elevations (Allen 1993). The areas thatinclude conifer forests, Madman evergreen woodlands,and grasslands total 860 mi’ in the Atascosa andPatagonia Mountains and 790 mi2 in the ChiricahuaMountains (Parsons 1993).
Animals
History of Wolves.-In southeastern Arizona, Mexi-can wolves historically were common in the SantaRita, Tumacacori, Atascosa, Patagonia, Chiricahua,Huachuca, and Pinalefio Mountains, and the CaneloHills (Brown 1983). The area contained three histori-cal wolf runways (paths regularly used by travellingwolves) (Young and Goldman 1944). One originatedin Mexico and ran north through the Huachuca
Affected Environments
Mountains, west along the Canelo Hills nearPatagonia, and back south along the Patagonia Moun-tains to the border. The second passed north throughRuby along Bear Mountain, west through AltarValley, and into the Baboquivari Mountains. Thethird went northwest from Mexico through thePeloncillo Mountains and back into Mexico throughthe Animas/San Luis Range (Johnson et al. 1992).
Trapping data from Arizona revealed the presenceof wolves throughout the region until 1950. In the1920s and 193Os, about 40 wolves were taken bygovernment trappers and private ranchers in SantaCruz, Pima, and Cochise Counties. Approximately 30more were trapped in the 1940s in the same area. Afew wolves were reportedly captured in 1949, but nosuccessful trapping occurred after that year (Brown1983). Since 1983,29 unconfirmed “wolf” observa-tions have been reported in Cochise, Santa Cruz, andPima Counties, more than half of those reportedbeing lone animals. The greatest concentration ofthese reports (14) occurred in Santa Cruz County(Girmendonk 1994a). Intensive wolf howling surveysin the area in 1995 found no evidence ofwolves(Whitaker et al. 1995).
Species of Special Concern.-Federally endangeredwildlife include the Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, desertpupfish, Gila topminnow, Yaqui topminnow, baldeagle, peregrine falcon, thick-billed parrot, southwest-ern willow flycatcher, and lesser long-nosed bat. Thefederally threatened Sonora chub and Mexican spottedowl also occur here. Chihuahuan pronghorn are astate-threatened species, occurring in the Atascosa andPatagonia Mountain area and the Chiricahua Moun-tain area (Johnson et al. 1992). Other species listed byArizona are the Sonora chub, Yaqui chub, Gilatopminnow, Yaqui topminnow, and California leaf-nosed bat (L. Allen, Coronado NF, pers. comm.; D.Groebner, AGFD, pers. comm.).
Designated critical habitat associated with thefederally threatened Sonora chub occurs in theCoronado NF, which encompasses Sycamore andPefiaso Creeks, an unnamed tributary, Yank’s spring,and a 25-foot wide riparian strip along each side of thecreeks. Activities that would deplete or change thenatural flow of these waters may be restricted. Inaddition, excessive groundwater pumping, impound-ment, or water diversion, mining, excessive sedi-mentation, riparian destruction, release of pollutants,
341
and the introduction of exotic fish species also mayadversely impact the Sonora chub’s critical habitat.
Potential WildPrey of Wolves.-Prey species presentinclude white-tailed deer, mule deer, javelina, andChihuahuan pronghorn (Allen 1993). In southeasternArizona white-tailed deer are associated with Madreanevergreen woodlands, while mule deer inhabit chapar-ral, semi-desert grasslands, and desert shrub communi-ties (Johnson et al. 1992). In the Coronado NF southof Interstate 10 white-tailed deer are estimated at1,640, mule deer at 2,700, javelina at 3,177, andtransplanted Chihuahuan pronghorn at 500 animals(Table 3-l 8). In addition, about 100 North Americanpronghorn inhabit the Lochiel Valley. No elk orRocky Mountain or desert bighorn sheep are found insoutheastern Arizona south of Interstate-l 0(Girmendonk 1994b), although the New MexicoGame and Fish Department recently relocated desertbighorns to the New Mexico side of the Peloncillos(L. Allen, Coronado NF, pers. comm.). SoutheasternArizona deer are increasing since a low in 1989,although fawn and buck survival remain relatively low.The Dragoon Mountains have had good mule deerfawn survival recently, while the Whetstone andChiricahua Mountains have had the poorest mule deerfawn survival. Javelina populations are increasing. Thepronghorn fawn and overall survival rates are increas-ing (AGFD 1994a).
Ungulate density in the Atascosa/PatagoniaMountains area is 8.5 per mi’, with about 69% deerand 30% javelina (Girmendonk 1994b). TheChiricahua Mountains maintain an ungulate densityof 3.2 per mi2, with 73% deer and 25% javelina(Parsons 1993). Descriptions of habitat characteristicsof the various prey are found in the previous sectionin this chapter on the BRWRA, with the additionalobservation that in southeastern Arizona, javelinausually occur at 2,000-6,500 feet near bajadas andcanyon mouths, rarely going above the oak forests(Hoffmeister 1986).
Small prey species include jackrabbits, cottontails,skunk<, coatimundis, porcupines, various tree andground squirrels, chipmunks, rats, voles, and othersmall mammals (Hoffmeister 1986).
Hunting.-White-tailed and mule deer, javelina, blackbear, lion, and pronghorn hunting are permitted inthe Coronado NF south ofI-10. For 1991-1992, theaverage annual deer, javelina and pronghorn taken
Affected Environments
were 7,612 (24.0% hunter success), 1,206 (23.3%hunter success), and 6 (50.0% hunter success),respectively. Buck:doe:fawn deer ratios vary among thedifferent units, although does consistently outnumberbucks and fawns, and fawns outnumber bucks(Girmendonk 1994b). Hunting seasons are compa-rable, but with some differences, to those for theArizona side of the BRWRA, described above. Smallgame hunting is more common.
Existing Livestock PreaSztors.-Coyotes and moun-tain lions are the primary livestock predators in thearea. Coyote, black bear, mountain lion, and bobcatnumbers are depicted in Table 3- 19. No federalpredator control actions were carried out on this partof the Coronado NF during fiscal year 1993. TheADC can respond to requests from livestock permit-tees when needed; however, because of a lack offunding agreements, work in Santa Cruz and Pimacounties has been limited since 1989, and no federalcontrol actions in the Atascosas, Santa Ritas,Patagonias, or Canelo Hills has occurred since 199 1(Phillips 1993). Grazing permittees are allowed totake depredating animals under state regulation.
ADC has two full-time employees stationed inCochise County. ADC has agreements with 39ranches, which graze 398,789 acres of private lands,and with Fort Huachuca, covering another 12 1,304acres. Livestock losses in the area are low. BetweenOctober 1992 and August 1993, a total of four adultcattle, eight calves, 25 lambs, two ostriches and fourchickens were verified killed by predators. Controltools used include leghold traps, call and shoot, andfoot snares (Phillips 1993).
Land Ownership and Management
The Forest Service administers the Coronado NEManagement emphasizes grazing, forest products, andrecreation. The National Forest is surrounded by StateofArizona, BLM, and private lands, including ap-proximately 75,000 acres of private inholdings (about4% of the land area) (L. Allen, Coronado NF, pers.comm.) .
Wilderness areas include Miller Peak Wilderness inthe Huachuca Mountains, Pajarito Wilderness in thePajarito Mountains, Mount Wrightson Wilderness inthe Santa Rita Mountains, and Chiricahua Wilderness(totalling 87,150 acres). The Bunk Robinson Wilder-ness Study Area is in the Peloncillos. The private San
AfTected Environments
Table 3- 18. Number and density (animalslmi2) of potential wild prey of wolves in Coronado NationalForest south of Interstate 10.
Note: Densities arc’ not available for white-railed deer or pronghorn.
TumacacoriMountains(310 mi2)
Mule Deer
992 (3.2)
White-tailedDeer
>200
Javelina
1,054 (3.4)
Pronghorn
*--
Santa RitaMountains(218 mi2)
153 (0.7) >260 414 (1.9) 0
HuachucaMountains(380 mi2)
114 (0.3) >360 684 (1.8) <lOO
WhetstoneMountains(69 mi’)
200 (2.9) >200 97 (1.4) >lOO
DragoonMountains(81 mi2)
203 (2.5) >20 65 (0.8) 0
ChiricahuaMountains(445 mi2)
979 (2.2) >400 801 (1.8) >150
AZ PeloncilloMountains(28 mi2)
64 (2.3) >200 62 (2.2) >150
“l’his Iwpul~~tion i\ the rcsulr ot’rccenr transplants of Chihuahuan pronghorn. Information on popularion numh~n i\ not
ycr availatlle.
SOURCE: Girmendonk (1994b).
Rafael de la Zanja land grant, primarily comprised ofone large ranch, lies on the U.S.-Mexican bordersurrounded by the Huachuca and Patagonia Moun-tains and the Canelo Hills.
Agency and LocalGovernment Plans and Policies
The Coronado NF operates under its 1986 ForestPlan, as amended each year. This plan identifies majorissues facing the National Forest, including: 1) inabil-
ity to meet growing outdoor recreation demands; 2)appropriateness of predator control; 3) identificationof critical wildlife habitat; 4) necessity to excludemining in some sensitive areas; and 5) restrictingpublic access in some areas. Specific goals of theCoronado NF include providing for ecosystemdiversity “by at least maintaining viable populations of,.. wildlife, fish and plant species through improvedhabitat management”; meeting the goals of theEndangered Species Act; and restoring rangeland to at
343
Affected Environments
Table 3-19. Predator population estimates and densities (animaIslmi2) in Arizona Game and Fish Depart-ment management units corresponding to Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 10.
Coyote Black Bear Mountain Lion
TumacacoriMountains
Santa RitaMountains
HuachucaMountains
WhetstoneMountains
DragoonMountains
Chiricabua andAZ Peloncillos
550(1.0)
700
(1.0)
1,000
( 1 .O)
500
(1.0)
1,400
(1.0)
2,700
(1 .o>
o-1
(0-0.002)
22-56
(0.03-0.08)
l-5(O-0.002)
0
(0)
l - 3
(0.001-0.002)
81-204
(0.02-0.05)
21-47
(0.04-0.08)
21-52
(0.03-0.08)
26-68
(0.03-0.08)
12-33(0.02-0.07)
24-6 1
(0.02-0.04)
60-l 23
(0.01-0.03)
S O U R C E : AGFD (1994b).
least a moderately high ecological condition (SWRegion USFS 1992b).
Land Development
Subdivision of private holdings adjacent to and inbetween the National Forest units in southeasternArizona is on the rise. This trend should continue inthe foreseeable future. Inholdings tend to be concen-trated along stream courses and valleys and have thepotential for fragmenting wildlife habitat (L. Allen,Coronado NE pers. comm.). Approximately 95 milesof trails are in need of construction or reconstructionin the Nogales, Sierra Vista, and Douglas RangerDistricts (SW Region USFS 198&z).
Livestock Grazing
Approximately 37,400 cattle (cows and calves) arepermitted to graze the Coronado NF south of Inter-state 10. There are 130 allotments, averaging 288cattle per allotment. Roughly 70% of the cattle are onyear-round allotments, while the rest are on the rangein winter only. Almost all calves in this area are bornon the range. About 50% of the area is grazed (Allen1993).
Forestry
No commercial timber harvest is planned for theCoronado NF south of Interstate 10. Fuelwoodharvest for personal use is permitted on three rangerdistricts. About 900,000 board feet is the anticipatedannual harvest. The Forest Service manages the harvestfor wildlife habitat improvement, watershed restora-tion, and range forage improvement. About 1,000acres per year will be impacted and no new roadconstruction for this purpose is anticipated (Allen1993).
Mining and Other NaturalResource Extraction
No mines are active in the area. However, copperdeposits have been located in the Santa Ritas andPatagonias and may be mined if markets improve (L.Allen, Coronado NF, pers. comm.).
Public Access and Recreation
The densities of roads in the rural areas in the Atas-cosa-Patagonia Mountains region and the ChiricahuaMountains are 0.10 and 0.24 miles/mi2, respectively(Parsons 1993). The Huachuca Mountains are the
344
most heavily roaded region. Private inholdings thathave been developed as subdivisions of larger blocks ofland pose barriers to public access in some cases. TheForest Service is negotiating rights ofway to someparts of the National Forest in southeastern Arizona(L. Allen, Coronado NF, pers. comm.).
Outdoor recreation is the fastest growing use. TheForest Service constructs and upgrades campgroundsand other recreational facilities to meet demand.Primary recreation uses are dispersed activities such ashiking, backcountry camping, hunting, fishing,birdwatching, and pleasure driving. Developedrecreation areas include 19 campgrounds and threepicnic areas. Many of these facilities have boat ramps,fishing docks, trail heads, nature trails, interpretivetalks, and other attractions. The Coronado NF hastwo developed fishing lakes, Parker Canyon Lake inthe Sierra Vista Ranger District and Pefia Blanca Lakein the Nogales Ranger District.
Estimated use of the area in 1992 was 921,580
RVDs, including 369,900 RVDs for camping, 61,860RVDs for hunting, 229,200 RVDs for hiking andhorseback riding, 26,400 RVDs for fishing, and234,220 RVDs for studying nature. These uses can beexpected to grow at a moderate rate for the foreseeablefuture (Allen 1993). The Coronado NF permits 35guides and outfitters (Coronado NF 1994). These arelargely for hunting, but include some guiding forhiking, climbing, jeep tours, horseback rides, andother uses.
Regional Economy,Employment and Population
The portions of southeastern Arizona within thepotential natural recolonization area depend economi-cally on the military (Fort Huachuca employs 3,570people, see separate section below on the Fort),ranching, and tourism/recreation. The metropolitanarea of Nogales (population 19,850) is an importantborder crossing and warehousing area for trade withMexico, lying between the Atascosa and PatagoniaMountains.
Some residential development north of Nogalesextends into the Atascosas. Nevertheless, little or noresidential developments occur within likely wolfhabitat in the area. The area between Nogales andPatagonia is developing rapidly, particularly in subdi-visions for vacation and retirement homes (see sectionon land development). Table 3-20 provides socioeco-
A&ted Environments
nomic data for the region. Median household incomesare highest in Santa Cruz County and in the FortHuachuca/Sierra Vista area and lowest in the ruralagricultural areas of southwestern and eastern CochiseCounty.
Coronado National Memorial
Coronado National Memorial, established in 1952 tocommemorate the first organized European explora-tion of the Southwest and administered by theNational Park Service, is located in Cochise County.Encompassing 4,800 acres, it lies at the southern endof the Huachucas. Elevations range from about 4,900feet at the entrance to 7,676 feet at Montezuma Peak.Several springs and livestock watering tanks occur inthe memorial (Anon. 1993; W, Smith, CoronadoNatl. Mem., pers. comm.).
Vegetation communities range from desert grass-lands at lower elevations to oak and oak-pifionwoodlands at higher elevations. Two unconfirmed“wolf” sightings were reported near the Memorial in199 1 (Girmendonk 1994a). Wildlife of specialconcern include occasional unconfirmed reports ofjaguarundis and ocelots. The federally endangeredlesser long-nosed bat also occurs. White-tailed deerand javelina are plentiful throughout the Memorial,but mule deer are uncommon. Coatimundis, ringtails,bobcats, and coyotes are residents. Hunting is prohib-ited.
There are five miles of paved or graded roads andsix miles of trails. In 1992,71,29 1 visitors came.Recreational opportunities include sightseeing,birdwatching, hiking, picnicking, and spelunking.Camping is prohibited. There are four memorial-owned residences and three private residences. Onegrazing allotment is active, with 54 cattle permitted(Anon. 1993; W. Smith, Coronado Natl. Mem., pers.comm.).
Chiricahua National Monument
Chiricahua National Monument is located in CochiseCounty at the northern end of the Chiricahuas Thesouthern boundary of the 12,900-acre Monumentadjoins the Coronado NF and private livestockranches. Administered by the National Park Service,the Monument was established to protect uniquenatural formations called “the Pinnacles” (columns and
A&ted Environments
Table 3-20. Surnmary of regional U.S. Census data for southeastern Arizona potential naturalrecolonization area.’
Total population 26,519
Population density 8.3/mi’
Number in labor force 12,148
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed 8.0%
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries 8.0%
Median household income 622,008
Percent of population below poverty level 18.3%
R~~gton ~overe~l b y amus ttxcrs dots n o t correspond cx~~ly wirh recovc~ 1 mx bonntlar~cr; gcncrally, ccmus trm\
inclttdc iorn~‘ djacifnr r u r a l :t1w3b xound rhc rccovcyv ma.
SOURCES: 1990 U.S. Census for Cochise County census tracts 5, 14, and 21 and Santa CruzCounty census tracts 9960 and 9961.
spires created from differential erosion of volcanicrock). Elevations vary from approximately 4,800 to7,400 feet (Anon. 1987b).
The Monument’s two canyon drainages containephemeral water, and five permanent springs occur.Pine-oak woodland is the characteristic vegetationcommunity, interspersed with desert and riparianvegetation. No recent reports of wolf sightings havecome from here. The federally endangered Americanperegrine falcon and federally threatened Mexicanspotted owl occasionally have been sighted. A popula-tion of at least 24 Coues white-tailed deer live in theMonument and desert mule deer occur occasionally.Javelina and coatimundi are common. The Apache foxsquirrel is endemic to the area. Coyotes are uncom-mon. At least one mountain lion and four bobcatsinhabit the area (S. Clark, Chiricahua NM, pers.comm.).
There are eleven miles of roads. Visitation reachedabout 78,000 RVDs in 1990. Uses include scenicviewing, hiking, birdwatching, picnicking, and camp-ing. Management is directed toward identifying,protecting, and perpetuating the Pinnacles and theMonument’s natural values. The Monument contains11,120 acres of designated wilderness. No hunting orgrazing is allowed. One 2.4-acre parcel of land in thenortheastern corner is the only inholding and is part
of a patented mining claim. Expansion of miningoperations is not anticipated (Anon. 1987b).
Fort Huachuca
U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca encompasses12 1,300 acres, mostly in Cochise County. The southand west sides of the fort border the Coronado NF(Fig. 3-7). Elevations range from 4,000 to 8,4 10 feet.The terrain varies greatly from flat grasslands anddesert scrub to steep, rugged mountains. About26,000 acres is mountainous. Sedimentary rocksunderlie the major canyons, and limestone forms themajor conduits for springs. The average temperature is72°F. Average annual rainfall ranges from nine inchesat lower elevations to almost 24 inches at higherelevations. At least 35 acres ofartificial ponds and fourto five miles of natural streams constitute the fort’sperennial water sources. In addition, about 80 watercatchments and wildlife watering troughs are foundaround the fort, as well as several ephemeral ponds,springs, and seeps.
Five overlapping habitat types are represented.Lower elevation vegetation consists of desert grass-land. Above 5,000 feet elevation are oak-pine, pifion-juniper and mixed conifer woodlands. Riparianhabitat comprises the smallest acreage.
Al&ted Environments
No recent wolf reports have come from the fort;however, several unconfirmed reports originatedaround Parker Canyon Lake south of the fort andalong its south-southwest border. The federallyendangered American peregrine falcon and lesser long-nosed bat, and the federally threatened Mexicanspotted owl occur here. Potential wild prey of wolvesinclude 1,100 to 1,500 Coues white-tailed deer and200 to 300 desert mule deer. Javelina number 200 to300. A population of 30 to 40 North Americanpronghorn live on the fort, originating from a herdintroduced from Wyoming. An additional herd of 10
to 11 Chihuahuan pronghorn reside on the fort froma population translocated fromTexas in 1987. Theindigenous Gould’s turkey has been re-established andnumbers 50 to 100.
Hunting is open to military personnel, civilservice employees of the fort, and dependents. Be-tween 1987 and 1993, an annual average of about200 white-tailed deer, 15 mule deer, 20 javelina, andfour North American pronghorn were harvested.Every year, 20 to 25 coyotes are taken by hunters toreduce the threat to Chihuahuan pronghorn fawnrecruitment or trapped by the ADC. Six to eightmountain lions and a similar number of black bearsrange on the fort. Lion hunting is open year-roundunder state regulations, and one lion is harvestedabout every three years. One spring bear tag is issuedannually, but no bear harvest has occurred in recentyears.
The fort contains 73,3 15 acres that are committedto a natural resource management program. Cattle andsheep grazing are prohibited. A horse stabling andrental program on the fort maintains about 50 to 60horses, a significant reduction in recent years. Miningactivity has ceased. Over 50 miles of roads are open tothe public. A minimum of 15,000 people visitannually, including 6,000 to 8,000 bird watchers.Visitors can fish, bird watch, hike, picnic, camp, andride horses. Limited recreational vehicle camping andoff-road vehicle recreation also are available. Approxi-mately 45 miles of trails provide public access to24,450 acres of forested areas in the Huachuca Moun-tams.
The fort population is growing and has reachedover 15,500, including approximately 7,000 militarypersonnel. No mechanized military activities occur inthe mountainous areas (Anon. 1989).
Southwestern New MexicoPotential Natural
Recolonization Area
Geography
Southern Hidalgo County, known as New Mexico’s“bootheel,” is located in extreme southwestern NewMexico south of State Road 9 (Fig. 3-7, above). Thebootheel, covering approximately 1,432,044 acres(2,238 mi*), is bordered on the west by Arizona, onthe south and east by the Mexican State of Chihua-hua, and on the southwestern corner by the MexicanState of Sonora. The Peloncillo Mountains portion ofthe Coronado NF (65,360 acres on the New Mexicoside) straddles the Arizona-New Mexico border. Themajority of federal public lands (488,420 acres, or34.1%) are located in the eastern part of the bootheel,although substantial federal acreage is located alongthe Peloncillo and Animas Mountain ranges as well.State of New Mexico lands (187,120 acres, or 13.1%)are interspersed among the federal lands, with thelargest holdings in the Big Hatchet Mountains (BigHatchet State Wildlife Refuge) and along the easternslope of the Animas Mountains. Private lands(69 1,140 acres, or 48.3%) are scattered throughoutthe area, but are concentrated along the Playas andlower Animas Valleys and in the southern quarter ofthe bootheel.
The area is within the Basin and Range physi-ographic province. Landforms include rugged, north-south oriented mountains, broad basins and volcanicuplifts (USBLM 1991). The Peloncillo, Animas,Alamo Hueco, Little Hatchet, and Big HatchetMountains are found here, separated by the Animas,Playas, and HachitaValleys. Elevations range from4,100 to over 8,500 feet.
Climate
The climate is arid to semi-arid and is characterized bymild winters and warm to hot summers. The averagelow temperature is 26°F in January and the averagehigh is 95°F in July. Annual precipitation averageseight to ten inches below 6,000 feet elevation and 14to 16 inches at higher elevations (USBLM 1991).
3-47
Water
Few perennial surface water sources occur in thebootheel. Playas Lake, located in the Playas Valley, is ashallow basin that occasionally contains water.Cloverdale Creek, which originates in the CoronadoNF, flows over most of the year. The Animas, Deer,and Double Adobe Creeks flow only during periodsof heavy rainfall. Stock tanks are plentiful, but fewnatural cienegas or springs occur here (C. Siepel,Hidalgo County Agric. Extension Office, pers.comm.).
Vegetation
The bootheel historically was dominated by semi-desert grasslands. In response to increased livestockproduction, the dominant vegetation generally hascl ,,,,,A,A L,, ,,,; A,.-,.-+ ,,“,,l”,J.- c,. J-.-.& -L-.-L.UL~‘QULU L‘“lll JLIIII-uL3cI L ~;1dJJldllU~ L” UC>CIL 3111 ll”.
The Animas Valley in the southwestern part of thebootheel is an exception, hosting extensive grasslandscharacterized by tobosa and black grama, and a44,000-acre prairie of blue grama and buffalograss.Nearly 55% of the privately-owned, 321,700-acreGray Ranch (in the Animas Mountains area) isgrasslands. The Animas, Peloncillo, and Alamo HuecoMountains contain extensive juniper-oak vegetationbetween 5,500 and 8,000 feet elevation. The majordrainages support sycamore and cottonwood forests.Big Hatchet State Wildlife Refuge contains primarilydesert shrub habitat with pinon-juniper communitiesinterspersed (USBLM 199 1; Brown 1990).
Animals
History of Wolves
Historically, Hidalgo County was a Mexican wolfstronghold. Wolves were most common in theAnimas Mountains. They dispersed mainly fromMexico into New Mexico along the mountain rangesin the bootheel. By the 1930s the Animas andPeloncillo Mountains were the last places in NewMexico to which wolves dispersed from Mexico.
Intensive federal eradication efforts began around19 16. Wolves were systematically trapped, poisoned,and shot as they crossed the border. By the timetrappers were employing Compound 1080 and M-44sin the 195Os, the number of wolves was waning. Only
Affected Environments
two were trapped in New Mexico in 1950, both inHidalgo County. Single or no wolves were taken inthe county each subsequent year until 1970, when thecarcass of the last wild wolf confirmed in New Mexicowas discovered in the Peloncillos (Brown 1983). Since1983, nine “wolf” sightings have been reported in thearea, although none have been confirmed. However,the most reliable-appearing report in the last ten yearsin the Southwest came from this area in 1989 (Wolok1994). Intensive wolf howling surveys in the area in1995 found no evidence of wolves (Whitaker et al.1995).
Species of Special Concern
Federally endangered species in southern HidalgoCounty include the northern aplomado falcon,peregrine falcon, lesser long-nosed bat, and Mexicanlong-nosed bat. The New Mexico ridgenose rattle-snake and Mexican spotted owl are federally threat-ened species occurring in the bootheel. New Mexicostate-endangered desert bighorn sheep, white-sidedjackrabbits, southern pocket gophers, Gould’s wildturkeys, and several other species also occur (NMNHP1993).
Potential Wild Prey of Wolves
Potential prey of Mexican wolves are Coues white-tailed deer, mule deer, javelina, bighorn sheep, jackrab-bits, and feral hogs. Fewer than 1,000 Coues white-tailed deer inhabit southern Hidalgo County. Thissubspecies lives in scattered, small populations at midto high elevations in oak and oak-pinon woodlands(D. Weywright, NMDGF, pers. comm.). Mule deer insouthern Hidalgo County number approximately10,140 and reside in all mountain ranges in the area.Population trends from 1988 through 1992 havebeen stable (Gonzales 1993).
An estimated 500 Chihuahuan pronghorn inhabitthe grasslands between the Peloncillo, Animas, AlamoHueco, and Hatchet Mountains, but populationsdeclined from 1988 through 1992. Javelina numberabout 3,000, primarily in the low grassland and desertscrub communities, and declined from 1988 through1992. Desert bighorn sheep total 140 individuals.Over five years, the bighorn sheep populations in theBig Hatchet and Peloncillo Mountains were stable andrising, respectively, and the Alamo Hueco Mountainherd was stable from 1988 to 1992 (Hubbard 1994).
Ma
Feral hogs total approximately 800. Approximately 50introduced bison occasionally roam from Mexicoonto private ranch lands near the international border.
Hunting
Coues white-tailed deer, mule deer, javelina, andpronghorn are hunted in Hidalgo County. Huntersharvested an average of 297 deer, 67 javelina, and 23pronghorn per year from 1988 through 1992.Unregulated feral hog hunting occurs. Public huntingon the large (iray Ranch is prohibited, although theadjacent Coronado NF permits hunting. No seasonhas been established for desert bighorn sheep, oryx, ormountain lions because of their low numbers.
Big game hunting seasons primarily are betweenfall and mid-winter. Two archery deer seasons arescheduled in September and January, during whichhunters ;an take one fork-antlered deer. One muzzle-loader deer season occurs in September, when onefork-antlered deer can be harvested. No muzzle-loaderseasons are scheduled ftir other big game. Three rifledeer seasons usually are scheduled in early November,which allow one fork-antlered deer to be killed. Onelimited entry javelina hunt is scheduled in February.One limited entry mature buck pronghorn seasonusually 1s scheduled for two days in late October(Gonzales 1993).
Existing Livestock Predators
Coyotes and bobcats are common. Roughly 45breeding adult mountain lions (0.03/m?) are found insouthern Hidalgo County (K. Logan, HornockerWildlife Research Inst., pers. comm.). Coyotes andmountain lions are the major targets for animaldamage control. The New Mexico ADC office hasagreements with 22 ranches, covering 566,940 acres ofprivate, 11,460 acres of State, and 122,250 acres ofBLM lands. In 1992, ADC verified 32 calves killed bycoyotes and five c:alves killed by mountain lions;however, the number of livestock losses verified byADC is only a fraction of the reported losses (Phillips1993). Also in 1992, ADC killed 231 coyotes (U.S.Department ofAgriculture 1992). No mountain lionswere taken by ADC in Hidalgo County in 1993 or1994 (A. May, NM ADC, pers. comm.). Stateregulations also allow private livestock operators andfederal grazing permittees to take depredatingpredators.
Afkted Environments
In the bootheel, ADC has employed M-44s, aerialhunting, leghold traps, and calling and shooting(Phillips 1993). However, ADC has agreed to ceaseusing M-44s, neck snares, and traps (larger thannumber 2) south of State Route 9 to reduce thelikelihood of harming any potential naturally-recolo-nizing Mexican wolves (Fowler-Propst 1993). Privatelivestock operators are still permitted by the state touse these devices on their land.
Land Ownershipand Management
Southern Hidalgo County contains mostly privateland, consisting of about 15 large ranches. The nextlargest ownership is federal, mostly BLM. The BLMmanages three wilderness study areas, the Big HatchetMountains, Alamo Hueco Mountains and CowboySprings Wilderness Study Areas. Habitat ManagementPlans (HMPs) have been established on BLM landsfor two areas. Under the Big Hatchet/Alamo Huecoand Peloncillo HMPs, priority wildlife are bighornsheep and deer and management focuses on prescribedburning and fence modification. The BLM’s wildlifehabitat management goals for the bootheel includemaintaining ungulate populations and reachingdesired vegetation goals through proper grazingpractices, including eliminating grazing on 8,026acres, and through land treatments such as fire andchemicals (USBLM 199 1).
Agency and Local GovernmentPlans and Policies, andLand Development
Hidalgo County passed an ordinance in 1992 relatedto wolves, which prohibits the release of non-residentcanids (Hidalgo County Ord. No. 92-l). The countyoperates under a land use plan. None of its provisionsrelate directly to possible natural wolf recolonization.In addition, Hidalgo County has a ComprehensivePlan for Development that encourages economic andmineral development as well as growth in recreationalopportunities and preservation of natural resourcessuch as wildlife.
The BLM’s Mimbres Resource Management Planencompasses all of the bootheel as well as federalpublic lands in the rest of Hidalgo County and inDona Ana, Luna, and Grant Counties. The Plan’s
3 4 9
primary vegetation management goals are to providefor livestock, wildlife, watershed, aesthetic, andbiodiversity values (USBLM 1991).
The Animas Foundation, which owns the32 1,700-acre Gray Ranch, provided conservationeasements to the former owner, The Nature Conser-vancy, designed to keep the important naturalcommunities intact. However, the ranch has nonumeric livestock stocking limits placed upon it underthe land purchase agreement (B. Brown, The NatureConservancy, pers. comm.).
Ranching will continue to be the dominant landuse south of State Route 9 (C. Siepel, Hidalgo. Co.Agric. Ext. Office, pers. comm.). No major types ofnew development activities are foreseen.
Livestock Grazing
In 1992, approximately 23,500 cattle and 50 sheepgrazed in southern Hidalgo County (USDA 1992, C.Siepel, Hidalgo. Co. Agric. Ext. O&e, pers. comm.).Most grazing areas are used year-round. Cash receiptsfrom livestock in this area totalled about $11,800,000in 199 1 (Hidalgo Co. Agric. Ext. Office 1993).
Mining and Other NaturalResource Extraction
While some historic mining areas exist, there is littlecurrent activity. Phelps Dodge Corporation owns andoperates a large copper smelter in the Playas Valley.Copper is mined elsewhere and shipped to the smelter.The company also owns the rights to copper depositsin the Little Hatchet Mountains (C. Siepel, HidalgoCo. Agric. Ext. Offtce, pers. comm.). A guano miningoperation and paleontological excavations areconducted in U-Bar Cave in the Alamo HuecoMountains. The intermountain basins hold someundeveloped oil and gas potential.
Public Access and Recreation
Very sparse public transportation routes extendthrough southern Hidalgo County. Antelope Wells isthe only international border crossing to Mexico, butit is closed to commercial traffic. The Coronado NF,the only large area accessible to the public, provides awide range of recreational opportunities. Theseinclude hunting, hiking, camping, picnicking, rock
Affkted Environments
hounding, fishing, birdwatching, and vehicle recre-ation. The BLM has designated no special recreationareas in the bootheel; emphasis on BLM lands isplaced on dispersed recreation (USBLM 1991). Nomajor guiding, outfitting, or other recreationalestablishments are based in the area and no significanttourist facilities exist.
Regional Economy,Employment and Population
The regional economy is dominated by the PhelpsDodge copper smelter (535 employees) and byranching. Small areas of crop farming occur, mostlynear Animas. The most important crops are Chile andcotton. Median household incomes are high insouthern Hidalgo County because of the severalhundred residents of Playas with relatively well-payingjobs at the copper smelter and because of the relativelyprosperous large-holding ranchers. Unemploymentand poverty are low (Table 3-2 1).
The scattered small communities in the areainclude Rodeo and Hachita (each of approximately150 people), Animas (population 250), Playas(population 850), and Cotton City (population 150).Slow population growth is projected for the county asa whole through the year 2000 (Bur. of Bus. andEcon. Res. 1991).
Big Bend National ParkPotential Natural
Recolonization Area
Geography
Big Bend National Park covers 80 1,160 acres insouthwest Texas. The park is on the northern side ofthe Rio Grande and makes up the southern third ofBrewster County (Fig. 3-8). Surrounding tracts ofland are primarily cattle ranches. Big Bend RanchState Natural Area, a 265,000-acre tract owned by thestate ofTexas, is located 30 miles west of the parkalong the western upswing of the Rio Grande. East ofthe park is the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area,a 99,920-acre tract owned by Texas and used primarilyfor recreational hunting. The park lies within thenorthern extension of the Chihuahuan desert into theUnited States. The majority of the park consists of anarid to semi-arid basin plain interspersed with uplifts
Affected Environments
Table 3-21. Surnmary of regional U.S. Census data for southwestern New Mexico potential natural
recolonization area.’
Total population
Population density
Number in labor force
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries
Median household income
Percent of population below poverty level
1,291
0.7/mi’
675
3.6%
14.5%
$38,015
3 . 1 %
‘Reglon cowred by the census tract analyzed corresponds exactly with the potential natural recolonization area in this cast.
SOURCE: 1990 U.S. Census for Hidalgo County census tract 9883.
~___.-.
of primarily igneous formations (Waid 1990). Eleva-tions vary from 1,880 feet along the Rio Grande to7,822 feet at Emory Peak in the Chisos Mountains.At the center of the park, the Chisos Mountains forma circle of peaks approximately three miles across.
Climate
The area has hot summers and mild winters. Tempera-tures in the Chisos Mountains are about 15°F cooler
than the surrounding basin during the summer andoften dip below freezing in the winter (Waid 1990).Rainfall occurs primarily from May through Octoberand the annual average ranges from 11 inches or less inthe arid areas to 16 inches in the Chisos Mountains(Leopold 1984).
Water
Over 300 water sources occur in the park. The RioGrande is the predominant surface water feature.Terlingua Creek is a perennial stream recharged bygroundwater north of the park that empties into theRio Grande at Santa Elena Canyon. Other permanentwater sources include wells, stock tanks, wateringholes, and approximately 100 springs, which arelargely in or near the Chisos Mountains. Creeks,streams, seeps, tinahas (pools in shallow rock depres-sions that collect rainwater), and approximately 100
springs represent the ephemeral water sources (NPS etal. 1992; R. Skiles, BBNP, pers. comm.).
Vegetation
The park’s only woodland communities occur in theChisos Mountains above 3,700 feet elevation andcomprise less than 3% of the total land base (Waid1990). At the higher elevations, emory and gray oak,three species of juniper, and pinon dominate(Krausman 1976). Between and sometimes overlap-ping with the pinon-oak-juniper formation and thelower grasslands are the deciduous woodlands, inwhich black walnut, Texas madrone, and apacheplumeare common. Extensive sotol grassland communities(about 49% of the total park area) surround theChisos basin, with grasses and lechuguilla predominat-ing. Beyond the sotol grasslands and comprisinganother 49% of the park’s land base are desert scrubcommunities, with creosotebush, prickly pear, andTorrey yucca being common residents (Plumb 1987).
Animals
History of Wolves
Historically, Mexican wolves probably were commonin the Big Bend region of Texas (Bailey 1905). Aggres-sive predator control programs, begun in the late
351
1800s and supported by local, state, and federalagencies, effectively eliminated packs from the area by194 5. Lone wolves occasionally were seen and some-times killed by ranchers or hunters until 1970, whentwo were killed (Brown 1983). Since 1983, occasionalreports of “wolves” within park boundaries haveoccurred; all these are unconfirmed (Wolok 1994).
Species of Special Concern
Federally endangered wildlife includes the Big Bendgambusia, peregrine falcon, southwestern willowflycatcher, black-capped vireo, and Mexican long-nosed bat (NPS 1992). Ocelots are federally endan-gered and extremely rare in the park (BBNP 1992).Two reports of ocelots have been made in the last 15years. Jaguarundis are federally endangered and alsoextremely rare (BBNHA 1989), with ten beingreported in the last eight years. Several other speciesare listed as threatened or endangered by Texas,including the spotted bat, coatimundi, jaguar andblack bear (Texas Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife 1994;BBNP 1992).
Potential Wild Prey of Wolves
The parks large herbivores include Sierra de1 Carmenwhite-tailed deer, desert mule deer, javelina, andpronghorn. Desert bighorn sheep were extirpatedbefore the establishment of the park.
Mule deer are common below 4,920 feet elevationin the Chisos Mountain foothills, the surroundinggrasslands, and the arid shrub communities. Overlapwith white-tailed deer occurs in the Chisos foothillsbetween 3,940 and 4,760 feet elevation (Waid 1990).An estimated I,000 mule deer inhabit the park.White-tailed deer are abundant in the Chisos Moun-tains primarily above 4,500 feet elevation, althoughpopulation estimates are not available. They are foundexclusively in woodlands.
Javelina are common in all habitats from the RioGrande floodplain to the Chisos Mountains, althoughpopulation estimates are not available. Javelina arecommonly found in dense vegetation during thehotter seasons and in the arid lowlands from Novem-ber through February (Bissonette 1982). One prong-h o r n h e r d o f 1 3 d d a l pin ivi u s re resents the entire parkpopulation. They occur in the northern and north-eastern desert areas at about 2,500 feet elevation(BBNHA 1989).
A&red Envrronmenrs
Black-tailed jackrabbits and desert cottontails arecommon residents found in the sotol grasslands andscrub desert regions. Eastern cottontails are seen onlyoccasionally and occur above 4,700 feet elevation(BBNHA 1989).
Existing Livestock Predators
Coyotes are common, though rarely occurring above5,000 feet (BBNHA 1989). Mountain lions areuncommon, occurring mostly in the Chisos Moun-tains where prey concentrations are highest. Blackbears, considered an endangered species by Texas, aremaking a comeback in the park, with a current esti-mate of 12 bears, all in the high Chisos Mountains(BBNP 1992; R. Skiles, BBNP, pers. comm.). Thepark is developing a black bear emergency manage-ment plan. Bobcats are uncommon (BBNHA 1989).They may occur throughout the park, but are densestin the Chisos Mountains (R. Skiles, BBNP, pers.comm.).
Hunting, livestock grazing, and predator controlare prohibited. Poaching of mule deer has beenreported occasionally in the northwestern section ofthe park near private ranching properties (R. Skiles,BBNP, pers. comm.).
Land Ownership and Management,and Agency Policies
The park, established in 1935, is managed by theNational Park Service for recreation and the conserva-tion of scenic, natural, wildlife, and historical re-sources. It is designated as an International BiosphereReserve in recognition of its biological, research, andenvironmental monitoring potential (NPS 1992).
Ranch access roads are permitted in the northernand western parts through written contracts. Nowilderness areas have been designated, although560,900 acres are under consideration by Congress.Until a decision is made the park administrationmanages the proposed areas so as not to preclude suchdesignation (NPS 1992).
A state statute prohibits the possession, trans-portation, receipt, or release of live wolves into Texas(Tex. Parks and Wild. Code Ann. § 63.104). Texaslaw also protects state and federally listed endangeredspecies, including Mexican wolves (Tex. Parks andWild. Code Ann. 568.00 1).
3-52
Land Development
Visitor accommodations include overnight lodging inthe C.hisos Basin, camping and recreational vehiclefacilities at two sites along the Rio Grande, a networkoftrails and campsites in the Chisos Mountains andalong the Rio Grande, and various other trails scat-tered throughout the park. The park is planningseveral minor developments including upgrading thetrail network in the Chisos Mountains and expandingresident accommodations, if funding permits. Thepark permits neither forestry nor mining. Residentialdevelopment and recreational hunting west ofthe parkare on the rise.
Across the Rio Grande in Mexico livestockgrazing continues to be the predominant land use.Three minor, low-water border crossings are located inthe park, though none are used for commercial travel(NPS 1992).
Livestock Grazing
Livestock grazing is not permitted. Nevertheless,illegal grazing is a recurring problem along the RioGrande floodplain. Cattle and horses belonging toMexican ranchers routinely cross over and causeserious habitat degradation (NPS et al. 1992; W.Wright, BBNP, pers. comm.). Park officials have seendozens and even hundreds of cattle at any given time.Preventative measures such as building fences alongthe U.S. side of the border are either ineffective orhave not been attempted for practical and comityreasons. Park officials are negotiating with Mexicanoffrciais to reach a solution.
Affected Environments
Private ranching lands constitute most of theacreage bordering the park. An estimated 58,850head, including 26,700 cows and 24,000 calves, wereraised in 1992 in Brewster County (Brewster CountyExtension Office 1993).
Public Access and Recreation
The park contains 162 miles of paved roads and 257miles of unpaved roads, all open to the public. In1990, over 250,000 people visited and in 1992almost 297,000 people visited. The Chisos Moun-tains receive the most visitor use, especially duringsummer months and holidays (NPS 1992).
Regional Economyand Employment
The economy of southern Brewster County is depen-dent on tourism, government, and ranching (Table 3-22). Less than 9.1% of the total labor force is em-ployed in agricultural occupations. Approximately 80full time position equivalents are filled by the Na-tional Park Service and 45 to 50 people work for thepark’s concessionaires.
Permanent residents include park personnel andtheir families, concessions employees, and U.S. BorderPatrol agents. Between 250 and 300 people arenormally in residence at Panther Junction making itthe second largest residential area in Brewster County(R. Skiles, BBNP, pers. comm.).
3-53
Affected Environments
Table 3-22. Summary of regional U.S. Census data for Big Bend National Park potential natural
recolonization area.’
Total population
Population density
Number in labor force
Percent of civilian labor force unemployed
Percent of civilian labor force employed in agriculture,forestry or fisheries
Median household income
Percent of population below poverty level
1 ,915
C).G/nli’
1 ,010
3 . 8 %
9 . 1 %
$20,970
2 8 . 0 %
‘Region covered by census rr:tcts does not correspond exactly with recovery area bound;u-ies; generally. ~ensu tract,
include some adiaccnt ml-al arc,ts around the rccovew areas.
SOURCE: 1990 U.S. Census for Brewster County census tract 9502.
354
,
-----i
Chapter 4
Environmental Consequences
CHAPTER 4Environmental
Introduction
This chapter presents the foreseeable consequencesof the four alternative approaches to re-establishingMexican wolves on the natural and physical environ-ment and on related social and economic concerns.Table 2-8 at the end of Chap. 2 summarizes theinformation presented here.
To avoid repetition, the impact topics are mostfully explained the first time they come up; laterdiscussions are more brief. The impact analysisgenerally attempts to be as quantitative as possible,but most of the projections involve considerableuncertainty. At root, this uncertainty is due toincomplete information about the behavior of wildMexican wolves multiplied by uncertain futuretrends in prey populations, hunting management(which is, and will be, done by state and tribal, notfederal, managers), hunter numbers, livestocknumbers, land uses, and so on. The analysis, there-fore, identifies the methods and assumptions in-volved in the projections, usually in separate text“boxes.” All quantifiable impacts are presented interms of high and low ranges; the actual impactsgenerally should be expected to fall between theseextremes. For quantifiable impacts, the point in timeat which they are quantified is when the wolfpopulation goal for the area is achieved (the excep-tions are the impacts on prey and hunting, which areprojected at five years after the goal is achieved).Impacts likely will be intermediate in earlier years ofthe re-establishment efforts, generally related to thewolf population size at the time. Of course, for eachof the alternatives, if the wolf populations grow atdifferent rates-faster or slower-than the ratesprojected in Chap. 2 (Tables 2-2, -3, -4, -5, and -6),then the rates at which the impacts occur would varyaccordingly.
The high percentage of captive-raised wolves inthe total population in the early years of the reintro-duction alternatives makes impacts somewhat lesspredictable than during later years, when wild-raised
Consequences
wolves will predominate. During the initial releasesof red wolves in North Carolina, the captive-raisedanimals exhibited behaviors that were more erratic(that is, less predictable) than the animals that, later,were born in the wild (Phillips, M.K., 1992).
The impact analysis here focuses on the areasexpected to be primarily impacted by each alterna-tive. The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA)is treated first, reflecting its increased emphasis inthis FEIS compared to the White Sands WolfRecovery Area (WSWRA). Of course, not allreintroduced wolves will necessarily stay withinrecovery area boundaries. Recapture and removal ofwolves are called for under Alt.s A and B to preventimpacts outside the designated wolf recovery areas oroutside the primary recovery zones, respectively.However, dispersing wolves could cause someimpacts outside these areas until they are recaptured.Most notably, some of the impacts discussed underAh. C could also occur to a lesser degree under Alt.sA and B on the San Carlos and White MountainApache reservations, which lie immediately to thewest of the BRWRA and share an 80 mile borderwith it (see Fig. 3-l: Affected Areas under Alt.s A, B,and C in the BRWRA Region).
Analysis of each alternative concludes with asummary of the adverse effects of the full alternativefollowed by a discussion of its short and long-termeffects in relationship to the long-term productivityof the environment, any irreversible commitments ofresources, and cumulative effects. While this chapterincludes economic analysis, the emphasis is onquantifiable adverse impacts Potential benefits arediscussed, but they are less direct and harder toproject quantitatively. (Appendix J includes examplesof economic benefits resulting from wolf recovery inthe northern Rockies and northern Minnesota.)This FEIS is not intended as a cost-benefit analysis.Monetary cost-benefit analysis is not required underNational Environmental Policy Act implementingregulations and it is specifically not recommendedwhen, as here, important qualitative considerationsexist (40 CFR sec. 1502.23).
4-1
Consequences of Alternative A(Preferred Alternative):
Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into the Blue RangeWolf Recovery Area. Wolves will be released intothe primary recovery zone and allowed to dis-perse into the secondary recovery zone. If fea-sible and necessary to achieve the recoveryobjective of 100 wolves, a subsequent reintroduc-tion of wolves into the White Sands Wolf Recov-ery Area will be conducted.
Blue Range WolfRecovery Area (BRWRA)
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
The projected population in the BRWRA under Ah.A is 100 wolves. They will kill prey totallingapproximately 282,300 lbs. (live weight) annually(Parsons 1994). The species composition of the preykilled and the impact of the predation rate on theprey populations are modelled for each of thereintroduction alternatives in this FEIS as describedin Box 4-1.
The prey impacts projected are those expected atthe point m timefiveyears a&r the wolf populationgoal for the area is achieved (Green-Hammond1994). Because of the difficulty and uncertaintyinvolved, the non-static interrelationship amongwolf and prey populations that likely would developwas not modelled (Mech 1970). In other words, themodel does not address the long-term effects ofchanges in the prey population on the wolf popula-tion, or vice versa.
In the BRWRA under Ah. A, the deer popula-tion is projected to be between a high of 64,100 anda low of 35,500 five years after the wolf populationreaches the goal of 100. This is lkyears after theinitial BRWRA releases. The deer population at thatpoint is projected to be 7% lower than it would bewithout wolves in the high ungulate populationscenario and 22% lower than it would be withoutwolves in the low ungulate population scenario. Thenet effect will be an estimated 4,800 to 10,000 fewerdeer than would occur without wolves.
The elk population is projected to be between ahigh of 18,000 and a low of 9,300 five years after
Environmental Consequences
the wolf population reaches the goal of 100. The elkpopulation is projected to be 6% lower than itwould be without wolves in the high ungulatepopulation scenario and 17% lower than it would bewithout wolves in the low ungulate populationscenario. The net effect will be an estimated 1,200 to1,900 fewer elk than would occur without wolves.
Notably, under the high ungulate populationscenarios these populations still would increase “withwolves” relative to current populations, by 13% forboth deer and elk. Of course, they would increaseeven more without wolves. Put differently, the effectof wolf predation would be to slow the rate ofincrease in the increasing scenario; wolf predationalso would speed up the rate of decrease in thedecreasing scenario.
Impacts to bighorn sheep populations were notmodelled because sheep make up less than 3% of theavailable wild ungulate biomass in the BRWRA andscientific information from northern areas wherewolves and sheep co-exist does not suggest thatwolves would prey heavily on these animals. Itappears unlikely that wolves would have a significantimpact on the overall bighorn sheep population.But, some sheep herds in the BRWRA are relativelysmall (e.g., 20 animals) and isolated, so predation ofeven a few breeding adults could reduce the produc-tivity of these groups. The likelihood of this occur-ring appears low.
Bighorn sheep in the BRWRA may not havewidely available access to rugged escape cover. Wherethis is lacking, the sheep may be more vulnerable towolf predation than they would be if escape coverwas readily accessible. Ongoing bighorn sheepsurveys, coupled with a wolf food habit study, couldprovide information on actual impacts of wolves onsheep in the BRWRA.
Wolves that did severely impact big gamepopulations could be captured and moved under theProposed Mexican Wolf Experimental PopulationRule (Appendix C; see definition of “Impacts ongame populations in ways which may inhibit furtherwolf recovery” in Appendix G - Glossary). This isnot projected to happen in the BRWRA (Green-Hammond 1994). Also, wolves are not likely toexert a major influence on secondary prey popula-tions of small mammals or on any threatened orendangered species in the area (Appendix D -Section 7 Consultation on Preferred Alternative).
4 - 2
Environmental Consequences
Box 4-l. Modelling Mexican wolf impacts on prey populations.
Potential impacts of wolf reintroduction on deer and elk populations were estimated through computer model-ing of future populations with and without wolf predation (Green-Hammond 1994). However, uncertaintyexists regarding these issues:
. hture deer and elk population trends;
. Mexican wolf use of prey other than deer and elk (called alternateprey use); and
. the degree of compensation for wolf-caused mortality of deer and elk that will occur throughreduction of other mortality factors, for example, when a wolf kills a deer that would have diedof another cause around the same time period (called compensatory mortaliy).
The model addressed these uncertainties as follows. Reasonable increasing, stable, and decreasing deer andelk population trend scenarios without wolves (i.e., assuming no wolf reintroduction) were created, using theNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish Deer Model for predicting birth and survival rates, state wildlifeagency information on current populations, historic population trends, and future agency management plans(Green-Hammond 1994). Th’IS model was applied to both the New Mexico and Arizona populations. Usingthese scenarios and other assumptions about Mexican wolf predation (Parsons 1994), the Green-Hammondmodel produced corresponding computer simulations with wolves (i.e., assuming wolf reintroduction occurredas planned). These initial simulations used a variety of alternate prey use and compensatory mortality values.The output was a plausible range of impacts to deer and elk populations five years after achievement of therecovery area goals.
Then, a survey of recognized wolf experts was conducted to narrow down the expected ranges of alternateprey use and compensatory mortality (Parsons 1994). The initial simulations that had the closest fit with thewolf experts’ conclusions regarding these variables were used. For example, for the BRWRA under Alt. A, theexperts concluded that alternate prey use would probably fall between 6% and 29%; the closest model simula-tions of 0% and 25% alternate prey use were used. The experts also concluded that compensatory mortalitywould probably be between 15% and 47%; the initial model simulations of 17% to 50% were used.
Thus, a range of plausible, expert-assisted, impact scenarios are presented in this EIS. The high ungulatepopukztlon scenario is the one in which the deer or elk population experiences the least reduction due to wolfpredation. For the BRWRA under Ah. A, this was the scenario with increasing deer or elk populations, withonly 75% of the r&introduced wolves’ diet consisting of deer or elk (50% for the WSWRA), and half of thewolf-caused mortality on deer and elk being offset by reductions in other mortality causes. The Low ungdate
population scenario-the one in which the ungulate population experiences the greatest wolf-caused reduction -for the BRW’RA under Ah. A was the scenario with decreasing deer or elk populations, with 100% of thereintroduced wolves’ diet consisting of deer or elk (88% for the WSWRA), and only one-sixth of the wolf-caused mortality on deer and elk being offset by reductions in other mortality causes.
This modelling was done for the deer and elk populations under each of the three reintroduction alterna-tives. But, it was not done for the “no action” alternative (Ah. D) and was not done for potential prey otherthan deer and elk, due to lack of data and high uncertainty regarding impacts. The actual alternate prey useand compensatory mortality figures that were used in the impact analysis here are given in the notes in thetables that accompany the “Impacts on Hunting” discussion for Alt.s A, B, and C (Tables 4-1, -5, -9, -12,and -14).
4 - 3
Potential positive impacts of the wolf, a toppredator in North American ecosystems, on its preyinclude: (1) sanitation (removal of diseased animalsto prevent epidemics), (2) natural selection (cullingof deformed or genetically inferior animals beforereproduction), (3) stimulation of prey productivity(acceleration of reproductive rates among preythrough higher twinning and fertility), and (4)population control (maintenance of prey popula-tions at levels that can be supported by the habitat,protecting against overgrazing and erosion) (Mech1970).
Conclusion: Although uncertainty exists, wolvesare not expected to severely impact prey populationsin the BRWRA under Ah. A, even under the lowpopulation ungulate scenario.
Impacts on Hunting
Under Ah. A, a re-established population of 100
wolves in the BRYVRA is projected to lead to anoverall decline in average legal kills of deer of be-tween 6% and 17% in the high and low ungulatepopulation scenarios, respectively, and a decline inlegal kills of elk of between 5% and 13% in the highand low population scenarios, respectively (Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994). That is, 300 to560 fewer deer and 120 to 200 fewer elk may bekilled by hunters annually. Because the projecteddeclines would occur over a many-year period it isnot clear that they would be large enough to bedetectable or measurable by state game managers.
The total expected reduction in hunter days dueto wolf reintroduction in the BRWRA ranges from12,400 to 23,000 days annually (Table 4-l). Box 4-2explains the calculation of these projected reduc-tions; associated economic impacts are discussedbelow under Regional Economic Impacts.
Conclusion: Hunter take may fall, with a maxi-mum projection of 17% for deer in the greatestimpact case. Actual reductions in permits issued bystate game managers likely would occur only ifmeasurable herd reductions were observed.
Impacts on Livestock
Box 4-3 explains how this FEIS projects likelylivestock depredation rates for each alternative (see
Environmental Consequences
also Tables 4-2 and 4-3). For the BRWRA, after thePreferred Alternative is completed and 100 wolvesare distributed throughout the area, losses are pro-jected to be between one and 34 cattle per year(average: 17.5), mostly calves (Table 4-4). Thisrepresents a range of between 0.001% and 0.04%annual loss of the approximately 82,600 total cattlepresent in the area. These projections are bestestimates; rates could be different. (The EIS pre-pared for the FWS’s proposal to reintroduce wolvesinto Central Idaho (USFWS 1994b), a primarilyNational Forest area comparable to the BRYVRA,projected similar rates of annual cattle depredation,that is, ranging between a low of one and a high of19 cattle killed; average: ten. In reality, after one yearof experience with 14 wolves reintroduced in Cen-tral Idaho, no confirmed depredations have oc-curred.)
Some cattle likely will be killed but not detected,However, the intensive monitoring and researchcarried out on the reintroduced population underthe Preferred Alternative will also serve to monitorlivestock depredation, at least in the initial severalyears. Another key to mitigating impacts on live-stock will be active, professional, management ofdepredation as has been implemented in Minnesotaand in the Northern Rockies (Niemeyer et al. 1994;Paul 1995). Depredation management, in conjunc-tion with public education and information, should,over the long term, improve local tolerance ofwolves.
The lost value associated with livestock depreda-tion is calculated as the estimated number of cattlelost multiplied by their market value (Table 4-4).Ranchers may be reimbursed for the lost marketvalue by the private Defenders of Wildlife Depre-dation Compensation Fund. A very few horses andsheep may also be taken.
From 1987 to 199 1, total estimated livestocklosses-all cattle-from existing predators averagedabout 1% of permitted livestock on the ApacheNational Forest (Myers and Baxter 1993). Compara-ble depredation rates occurred on the Gila NationalForest (S. Libby, Gila NF, pers. comm.). The pro-jected increase in depredation over these existingrates due to the presence of wolves is quite small.Nevertheless, as described in Box 3- 1, above, live-stock ranching in this area tends to be economicallymarginal. If uncompensated wolf depredations occurthe results could be further decreases in the attrac-
4 - 4
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-l. Estimated annual reduction in hunting five years her achievement of recovery goals in theBRWRA under Alternative A.
Note: the low estimate is based on the “high population” scenario of increasing ungulate populations with high (25%)
alternate prey use and high (500/ )o compensarory mortality; the high estimate is based on “low population” scenario of
decreasing ungulate populations, no alternate prey use, and low (17%) compensatory mortality (Green-Hammond 1994,
Parsons 1994). Impacts in Arizona and New Mexico are determined based on the proportion of the ungulate populations
existing In each state.
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced elk harvest” Total = 120 Total = 200
AZ = 40 AZ = 70
N M = 8 0 NM = 130
Reduced deer harvest’ Total = 300
AZ = 95
Total = 560
AZ= 180
NM = 205 NM = 380
Reduced elk hunting daysb Total = 2,700 Total = 4,630
AZ = 950
NM = 1,750
AZ = 1,620
NM = 3,010
Reduced deer hunting days’ Total = 9,700
AZ = 3,100
NM = 6,600
Total = 18,400
AZ = 5,900
NM = 12,500
’ Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994. Figures are rounded.
h Based on average success rate of .3366 for New Mex. GMU 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24 (1988-1992 statistics for elk;
1989-1992 statistics for deer) and Ariz. GMU 1 and 27 (1988-1992 statistics) and average number of days hunted per big
game hunter of 7.787 (average of AZ and NM weighted by number of hunters) (USFWS and Dep’t of Commerce 199 la and
1991b).’ Based on average success rate of .2385 for New Mex. GMU 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, and 24 (1988-1992 statistics for elk;
1989-1992 statistics for deer) and Ariz. GMU 1 and 2 (1988-1992 statistics) and average number of days hunted per big
game hunter of 7.787 (average of AZ and NM weighted by number of hunters).
SOURCE: Duffeld and Neher (1994).
4-5
Environmental Consequences
Box 4-2. Calculating Mexican wolf impacts on hunting and associated economic values.
This EIS calculates the effect of reduced hunter opportunity caused by wolves in two ways:
First, the social cost of the lost enjoyment of hunting is estimated. A straightforward method converts theprojected reductions in deer and elk kills into lost hunter days in the field. Reductions in hunter days arecalculated based on average success rates and days hunted per hunter (Ariz. Game and Fish Comm. 1993, NewMexico Dep’t of Game and Fish 1993, USFWS and Dept of Commerce 199 1 a and 199 1 b).
The simplifying assumption is made that the reduction in hunter days equals the reduction in harvestdivided by the success rate, multiplied by the average number of days per hunter. The projected declines indeer and elk harvested imply reduced hunting, either through a reduction in available deer and elk permits inthe affected game management units or through a reduction in hunter success rates in these units. This some-what simplistic assumption, aimed at projecting impacts that will occur up to 15 years in the future, necessarilydoes not consider potential complicating factors. Such factors that cannot reasonably be taken into accountnow could include, for example: a) changes in hunt management strategies by the Arizona and New MexicoGame and Fish Departments, such as moving to trophy hunts; b) positive or negative values that hunters mayassociate with hunting in an area where wolves are present that may compensate for - or conversely exacerbate -the projected reduction in hunter opportunity; c) the presence of wolves affecting hunter success rates indepen-dently of reducing total game availability (e.g., by causing more, or less, clustering of deer and elk); d) changesin the numbers of hunters applying for permits; e) habitat management effects on prey densities and huntersuccess. State game managers are not expected to reduce permit numbers just because wolves are introduced.
The economic values of the projected reductions in deer and elk hunter days are calculated by multiplyingthe number of lost hunter days by the average net “willingness-to-pay” for a day of hunting, which is estimatedat $58.00 (all estimates are adjusted to 1994 dollars). Average willingness-to-pay for a hunter day is derivedfrom a survey of 56 big game hunting willingness-to-pay studies in the United States (Walsh et al. 1988).
Second, the reduction in hunting-related expenditures in the region of each wolf recovery area is computed in asimilar way, that is, by multiplying the number of lost hunter days by the average hunter expenditure per day.Hunter expenditures per day are obtained from survey information for New Mexico and Arizona (USFWS andDep’t. of Commerce, 199 1 a and 199 1 b). Also, a reduction in big game license and permit fees collected by thetwo states is calculated.
The text of Chap. 4 includes caveats about the roughness of the resulting values as far as predicting neteconomic changes in Arizona and New Mexico. It should be emphasized that the point in time that these levelsof annual impacts are projected to occur is five years after full achievement of the recovery area wolf populationgoals.
SOURCE: Duffreld and Neher 1994.
4 - 6
Environmental Consequences
Box 4-3. Projecting rates of Mexican wolf livestock depredation.
Rates of gray wolf depredation on livestock have been studied in Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana (Table 4-2;see Appendix F for background information on the livestock depredation experiences in each of these areas).Estimating future Mexican wolf depredation rates based on these northern areas presents difficulties due todifferences in climate, terrain, vegetation, size of operations, livestock husbandry practices, and prey popula-tions. The Minnesota livestock industry, in particular, is quite different from that in the Southwest becausepastures are smaller, calving often occurs in barns, and cattle are more easily protected from predators. Also,Mexican wolves are typically smaller than northern wolves, which could lessen the rate at which they depre-date.
To estimate depredation in a given Mexican wolf recovery area the equation below is used, which standar-dizes depredation rates in relation to livestock and wolf numbers in the northern study areas. (Sheep aredisregarded in the equation because of the small number of sheep in the Mexican wolf recovery areas.)
The difference in year-round presence of cattle on the range is a key factor, In Alberta, Minnesota, andMontana cattle graze in free-ranging situations (although in Minnesota the pastures they range in are relativelysmall) for four to six months. In contrast, in many areas of the Southwest cattle are on the range from eightmonths to year-round. The equation accounts for this difference by multiplying the northern study area ratesby a multiplier based on the comparative length of the typical grazing season for the allotments in the wolfrecovery area being analyzed. For example, if livestock are present year-round in a southwestern area--or twiceas long as the northern area-then the kngth-oflgrazing-season multiplier is 2.0 (see Appendix F for the actualmultipliers used for each southwestern area).This FEIS uses just the length-of-grazing-season multiplier for thearea for calculating the low range of likely depredation (Table 4-3). For calculating the high range of likelydepredation, the length-of grazing-season multiplier is used as a base and 3.0 is added to it. This increasereflects the general feeling of experts that were surveyed on this issue that depredation rates will be higher inthe Southwest than in the three northern study areas for a variety of reasons besides differences in the length ofthe grazing season (the expert survey responses are summarized in Appendix F). Adding 3.0 to the base length-of-grazing-season multiplier represents the high end of the range of specific multipliers proposed by the surveyrespondents. Thus, the equation used is:
No. of cattle (recoverv area)No. of cattle (northern area)
X No. of wolves frecoverv area)No. of wolves (northern area)
XMean annual no. Estimated annual no.depredations X m u l t i p l i e r = depredations(northern area) (recovery area)
“Plugging in” the numbers from the three northern study areas, and multiplying by the appropriate lowrange and high range multipliers, produces a range of estimates for the BRWRA and the WSWRA (AppendixF, Tables F-l and F-2). Table 4-3 presents the lowest low estimate and the highest high estimate from Tables F-1 and F-2 as the “low” and “high” estimates, respectively. Table 4-3 also provides the average of these. (Theselow, high, and average projections are also provided in the discussion of “Impacts on Livestock” for each of thereintroduction alternatives in this chapter.)
Wolves are expected to prey more on calves than adult cattle. In northern areas calves make up 68 to 95percent of cattle losses. It is uncertain whether the addition of wolves into an area that already has other depre-dators, such as lions and coyotes, will add to, or redistribute, overall cattle depredation. Mexican wolf depreda-tion will certainly vary from year to year and place to place.
A small fraction of one percent of the total livestock available is expected to be taken in the typical year.(Table 4-3). Most wolves will not depredate even when livestock are present. A small number of livestock
(continued)
4 - 7
Box 4-3. Continued
Environmental Consequences
owners are expected to be affected; however, some could sustain significant losses in a given year. Depredatedlivestock may be replaced on grazing allotments, thus effects on the overall number of livestock present duringa grazing season should be marginal.
Livestock may also suffer non-lethal wounds from wolf attacks that could reduce their market value andcompel the rancher to incur veterinary expenses. Ranchers may also be compelled to devote time and expenseto investigating possible depredations, to dealing with government offtcials and others regarding depredationsand compensation claims, to replacing stock that has been killed, and to taking steps to prevent depredations.Finally, it should be expected that some wolf depredations will not be found or, even if they are found, will beso old that evidence of wolf involvement may no longer exist. No accepted method exists to project uncon-firmed predation losses.
SOURCES: Fowler et al. 1993; Fritts 1992; Mack et al. 1992; W. Paul, ADC, pers. comm.; Thompson 1993;USFWS 1994b.
Table 4-2. Mean livestock depredation rates from northern study areas.
Area
No. YearsStudied No. Wolves No. Cattle No. Sheep
Mean AnnualCattle Killed
Mean AnnualSheep Killed
Alberta 17 1,500 257,041 10,000 235 (0.09%) 3 1 (0.3%)
Minnesota 13 1,460 229,064 23,713 2 7 (0.01%) 50 (0.2%)
Montana 7 4 4 75,000 1 1,000 3 (0.004%) 2 (0.020/o)
SOURCE: Mack et al. (1992).
4 - 8
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-3. Number and percentage of cattle available projected to be killed annually by Mexicanwolves after achievement of recovery area goals.
Notes: 7 he top number in each box is rhe number of cattle expected to be killed annually; the bottom number is the
percentqe of the total cattle available projected to be killed. “Low” and “high” estimates are the lowest low and highest high
estimates from background Tables F- 1 and F-2 in Appendix F.
Mexican WolfRecovery Area Low Estimate High Estimate Average
BRWRA Primary andSecondary Zones combined(Alts. A and B)- 82,617 cattk
100 wohs
BRWRA PrimaryRecovery Zone(Ah. B)- I 0,494 cattk- 20 wolves
WSWRA Primary andSecondary Zones combined(Alts. A and B)- 3,220 cattle
(O.kY “53)33.9
(0.04%)
0.03(0.0003%) (O.o%%)
(0.0Dooos%) (0.0%3)
17.5(0.02%)
(O.ooo:%)
0.16(0.008%)
- 20 wolves
WSWRA PrimaryRecovery Zone(Ah. B)- 0 cat-de- 14 wolves
0 0 0
tiveness of affected ranches as businesses to own,invest in, or lend money to (A. Thal, Western NMUniv., pers. comm.).
The impact of wolf depredation on the “customand culture” of livestock grazing in the BRWRA andother recovery areas defies quantification. Clearly,most ranchers view the wolf as a negative (Biggs1988, Johnson 1990, Kellert 1985). (However,opinion polling by Duda and Young (1995), indi-cates about 50% of the public in the most-affected,ranching-oriented, rural New Mexico countiesactually support wolf reintroduction, which under-cuts the idea that major cultural impacts wouldoccur.) It is unlikely that the small projected in-crease in livestock losses will have more than amarginal impact on the viability of ranching in theBRWRA. A potential positive impact to ranchers
from wolf recovery is the projected reduction in thesize of the deer and elk herds that can compete withlivestock for forage on grazing allotments. In addi-tion, coyote and lion densities may be reduced bycompetition with reintroduced wolves, which couldreduce livestock depredation losses from coyotes andlions.
Conclusion: Wolves likely will take between oneand 34 cattle per year, representing less than one-twentieth of one percent of all the cattle present.This should not cause a major impact to ranching asa whole in the area, but some ranchers may experi-ence significant losses.
4-9
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-4. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in theBRWRA unter Ah. A.
Cattle lost
Average value peranimala
Low Estimate High Estimate
1 33.9
$638 $638
AverageEstimate
17.5
$638
Total lostvalue/year
$640 $21,600 $ 1 1 , 2 0 0
“Value based on average of the January 1994 average value of cows and calves in Arizona (I). Dewalt, AZ Agric. Sratistics
Service, pers. comm.) and the February 1994 average value of cows and calves in New Mexico (B. Nedom, NM Agric.
Sratistics Service, pers. comm.). Average values include high value stock, culls, and all others.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
The experimental population rule will restrict all useof M-44s and choking-type neck snares in “occupiedMexican wolf range” (see definition in Appendix G -Glossary). Label restrictions on M-44s already limittheir use in areas where threatened or endangeredspecies may be adversely affected (USFWS 1994b).The FWS, with USDA Animal Damage Control(ADC) cooperation, will provide private users ofthese devices with the locations where the EPA labelrestrictions would apply. Other changes in ADCoperations, such as limiting trap sizes and increasingfrequency of trap checks, may be agreed to followingconferencing between ADC and FWS. The restric-tions on control methods likely would reduce ADC’seffectiveness in controlling other predators in thearea, unless the agency commits additional resources.However, in Arizona, an anti-trapping law (ARS 17-301 (D)), passed in 1994, already disallows use oftraps and snares on public lands for control of otherpredators. No additional restrictions on controlmethods for other predators should result from wolfrecovery in Arizona.
Wolves may displace other large predators (seeAppendix A section on Influence on Other Preda-tors); coyotes and mountain lions could most likelybe affected (populations of black bears and wolvesapparently co-exist without appreciable impacts oneach other). This potential displacement may result
in temporarily higher concentrations of the otherpredators in surrounding areas, presumably untilsome equilibrium level is restored. However, becausewolf populations will recover gradually, such changeslikely would be difficult to detect if they occurred.The ultimate impact wolf recovery would have onthese predators, and on animal damage controlneeds for them, cannot be determined now withconfidence. In other words, it is unclear whether thepresence of wolves in an area would reduce, displace,or perhaps somehow increase the overall private andADC workloads for other predators.
Impacts on Agency, Tribal, andLocal Government Policies and Plans
U.S. Forest Sewice.-The current managementfocus on the two national forests in the BRWRAshould not change significantly with the presence ofwolves. Addressing habitat diversity loss and exoticspecies invasions should not conflict with manage-ment for wolves. Enhancement of native vegetationcommunities may enhance ungulate populationsupon which wolves depend. No formal ESA Section7 consultation with the FWS would be requiredregarding potential impacts of Forest Service activi-ties on nonessential experimental Mexican wolves.
The Forest Service may choose to amend theApache and Gila National Forest Plans to reflectchanges related to wolf recovery. No amendments
4 - 1 0
are required under the Preferred Alternative, how-ever. The most significant topics of possible amend-ments include Grazing Use, Timber Volume, Vegeta-tion Management Practices (especially fire) andAcres Treated, and management for multiple pro-tected species. Generally, these changes would serveto enhance ungulate prey and harmonize manage-ment for wolves with the other “multiple uses” of theforests.
The Forest Service would need to informally“confer,” but a conference would not be required foreach individual project, development, or planamendment in the BRWRA that the agency under-takes. According to the FWS’s Section 7 Process andPolicy Handbook: “a conference is required if theaction is judged to likely jeopardize” the speciesinvolved (USFWS 1993f). This “threshold” is“reached if the likelihood of the species’ survival isappreciably reduced.” Few, if any, Forest Serviceactivities would pose this level of threat to a reintro-duced Mexican wolf population. In those few caseswhere conferences are undertaken, the Service willprovide “advisory recommendations for minimizingor avoiding adverse effects.”
It is expected that this informal conferencingwill occur on a more programmatic basis under theumbrella of a cooperative wolf management planthat all of the affected agencies will develop. Thismanagement plan would include various measures toimplement and support wolf recovery and to mini-mize conflicts with other Forest Service duties on theApache and Gila National Forests. Such measureswould need to avoid conflict with management forother threatened or endangered species with fullESA protection, such as the Mexican spotted owl,that would have a higher degree of legal protectionthan the nonessential experimental wolves.
State of Arizona.-Although neither Arizona’sGame and Fish Department nor its Commission hastaken a final position on wolf reintroduction, theDepartment has applied its twelve-step procedure forre-establishing endangered species in the state to theMexican wolf (AGFD 1987; Appendix E describesthe complete procedure). The FWS’s Preferred
Environmental Consequences
Alternative includes working cooperatively with theDepartment. The proposed federal and state recov-ery efforts are consistent; Arizona’s plan is essentiallya subset of the Preferred Alternative that covers onlyArizona (Groebner et al. 1995).
State of New Mexico.-The Preferred Alternative isconsistent with New Mexico’s Wildlife ConservationAct. The FWS’s Preferred Alternative includesworking cooperatively with New Mexico’s Depart-ment of Game and Fish.
Tribes.-While no reservations are within thedesignated BRWRA, dispersing wolves could causesome impacts on the neighboring White Mountainand San Carlos Apache reservations until they werecaptured. This could compel those tribes to developwolf management plans that are approved by theFWS or to enter into cooperative wolf managementplans directly with the FWS. Both tribes haveadopted resolutions opposing wolf recovery in theBRWRA. Further potential impacts on these tribesare discussed under Ah. C.
Counties.-The Catron and Sierra counties land useordinances that call for equal authority with federalagencies over decisions affecting federal lands withinthese counties could conflict with the PreferredAlternative. Similar assertions are made in bothApache and Greenlee counties’ Land and ResourcePolicies. Catron and Sierra counties have expressedconcern about wolf recovery and sought to extendlocal planning jurisdiction over it. The federal ESAand the Mexican Wolf Experimental PopulationRule, after adoption as a federal regulation, wouldpreempt any conflicting local mandates.’ Wolfrecovery under the Preferred Alternative does notdirectly conflict with Catron and Sierra counties’ordinances prohibiting the release of wolves intothose counties as no wolves will be released there.Nevertheless, releasing wolves in nearby countieswith foreseeable dispersal into Catron and Sierracounties, as proposed here, does appear to conflictwith the goals of these ordinances.
’ The National Environmental Policy Act and implementing regulations require the federal government to attempt to cooperatewith local governments when planning federal actions that may affect them. The FWS has pursued cooperation in preparing this EISthrough meetings with county officials, inviting county representatives as consultants to the EIS Interdisciplinary Team, makingbackground information available, reviewing and responding to comments and studies prepared by county consultants, and othermeasures. In addition, the EIS process included holding public comment meetings in each area potentially affected.
4-11
Conclusion: Wolf reintroduction as proposedunder Ah. A will not seriously impact existingfederal or state policies or plans. But, wolf reintro-duction and the accompanying federally-adoptedexperimental population rule would conflict withand preempt certain county ordinances.
Impacts on Land Use
Wolf reintroduction under Ah. A should not signifi-cantly impact four major land uses in the BRWRA:forestry, mining, recreation, and grazing (the sectionabove addressed livestock depredation). No formalESA Section 7 consultation would be requiredregarding potential impacts of land uses on nones-sential experimental Mexican wolves. The FWS’smanagement of this experimental population willimpose no restrictions on these activities, with someexceptions that apply only within the one-mileradius protected areas on public lands aroundoccupied pens, dens, and rendezvous sites. Com-mencing operations on a new timber sale, mine, orengaging in other “disturbance-causing land useactivities” (see detailed definition, including exemp-tions, in Appendix G - Glossary) could be tempo-rarily delayed until the pen, den, or rendezvous siteis no longer occupied (see Appendix C - ProposedMexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule). Therelease pens will not be located near existing orplanned timber sales, mines, or developments. Noinvoluntary rest-rictions will be imposed on anyprivate land use.
Timber harvesting generally benefits wolves bymaintaining shade-intolerant vegetation favored byungulates on which wolves prey (Thiel 1988).Further, wolves in Minnesota are able to toleratenoise and blast effects associated with logging andheavy mining (Mech 1993a). Mech (1993b) has alsopointed out that low density development forhomes, recreational facilities, power lines, and so ondo not deter wolf recovery. No additional wildernessareas or other land designations are called for underthe Preferred Alternative.
Grazing strategies could be affected by depreda-tion by wolves and by their establishment of densand rendezvous sites. However, the proposed Mexi-can Wolf Experimental Population Rule allowsextensive flexibility in the relocation of wolves. Theycould be relocated if they became habituated tohumans or human facilities, preyed on livestock,
Environmental Consequences
caused major ungulate population decreases, and forother reasons.
Conclusion: It is expected that any land use restric-tions due to the reintroduction of wolves to theBRWRA will be minor. While some activities maybe inconvenienced due to temporary access restric-tions, this inconvenience is unlikely to result inmajor economic losses.
Impacts on Recreation
Presence of the wolf may deter some visitors fromthe BRWRA, but it may attract others. The largemajority of people surveyed in Arizona (Johnson1990) and New Mexico (Biggs 1988) indicated theywould enjoy seeing or hearing a wolf in the wild (seealso Duda and Young 1995). The demand forrecreational facilities in the BRWRA may increase.(Millions of people recreate annually, in Minnesota,Wisconsin, Alaska, and Canada, within the range ofgray wolves.)
Protection of reintroduced wolves from distur-bance by visitors may require occasional temporaryaccess‘restrictions within a one-mile radius of a densite, rendezvous area, or release pen, depending onlocation and terrain. Wolf pups cannot regulate theirown body temperatures during the first several daysof life and are vulnerable if disturbance compels theadults to move their pups to more secure areasduring this period. However, wolves tend to den insecluded areas in the spring prior to the peak visita-tion periods, so little impact on hiking, hunting, orother activities should result. Limiting overall ruralroad density is not required for wolf recovery (Mech1993b, but see Thiel 1985). In any event, roaddensities in the BRWR4 are low and are not ex-pected to increase greatly (USFWS 1993~).
Conclusion: Wolf reintroduction is expected tocause increased visitation to the BRWRA as a whole,but also to require minor temporary restrictions onhuman access to particular areas as necessary toprevent harm to the wolves.
Regional Economic Impacts
As shown in Table 4-5, reduced elk and deer harvestdue to wolf reintroduction could result in major lostbenefits to hunters in the region, ranging in value
4 - 1 2
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-5. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region
five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alternative A.
Note: low and high estimates are based on range of impacts on hunting described in Table 4-l
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced value of elkand deer hunting”
Share by State of AZ - $243,700reduced hunting value NM - $473,100
Reduced expendituresassociated with deer and elkhuntingb
Share by State of reducedhunter expenditures
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - New MexicoC
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - Arizona”
$716,800
$ 5 7 9 , 1 0 0
AZ - $115,900NM - $463,200
$51,200
$17,500
$1,336,600
AZ- $454,450NM - $882,150
$1,079,100
AZ - $215,820NM - $863,280
$93,400
$32,100
’ Basetl on average economic value per day of big game hunting of $58.00 (Walsh ec al. 1988).
” Based on average A% and NM trip related expenditures per day of $46.38 for deer and $48.60 for elk (weighted by
number of hunters)(USFWS and Dep’t of Commerce 1991a and 1991b).
’ Based on current AZ and NM license and tag costs for residents and nonresidents and the split between resident and
nonresident deer and elk tags sold in AZ and NM.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
from about $716,800 to $1,336,600 per year.(Again, this represents hunters’ assessments of thelost personal value of the sport, not actual expendi-tures.) About 34% of these lost benefits wouldoccur in Arizona and 66% in New Mexico.Additionally, an estimated $579,100 to $1,079,100reduction in hunter expenditures could occur. About20% of this reduction would occur in the Arizonaportion of the region and 80% in the New Mexicoportion. New Mexico bears a greater share of theexpenditure reduction because it has a higherpercentage of nonresident hunters than Arizona andthus a higher average hunter expenditure per day.
Hunting-related losses represent the greatestpredicted economic impacts of Mexican wolf recov-ery under the Preferred Alternative. However, they
probably are overstated because hunters probablywill not actually hunt less overall because of fewerdeer and elk in the BRWRA, but instead turn theirattention to substitute areas or species (Duffleld andNeher 1994). In other words, the losses are unlikelyto reach the amounts shown in Table 4-5. Further,deer and elk hunting in both Arizona and NewMexico are dominated by resident hunters (over96% of total hunting days by residents in Arizonaand over 74% by residents in New Mexico)(USFWS and Dept of Commerce 1991a and1991 b). Most of the money not spent by residentson hunting probably will be spent in some othersector of the state economy (Duffleld and Neher1994). However, reductions in Arizona and NewMexico expenditures by the 4% to 26% of hunter
4-13
days that are by nonresident hunters would result inreduced overall expenditures in these states. Theselost hunter expenditures represent only a small part
(0.7 to 1.3%) of the total estimated expenditures(approximately $80,000,000) by all big and smallgame hunters in Arizona and New Mexico (USFWSand Dep’t of Commerce 199 1 a and 199 1 b; C.Neher, Bioeconomics, pers. comm.).
Guides and outfitters operate heavily in the areanow, particularly in Catron County, primarily forhunting, but some also offer photography trips, trailrides, and other non-hunting trips (SW Center forRes. Analysis 1994). H unting guides could experi-ence a reduction in business because less game maybe available due to wolf predation. However, someguides may add wolf-watching and howling trips totheir offerings. The forested regions of northernMinnesota support over 1,500 wolves and a minor“wolf-watching” industry has sprung up aroundthem (Thiel 1988). Educational touring packagesand guided “howling” trips have gained popularityand contributed to some regional economies. Thiscould occur in the BRWRA depending on localinitiatives. (Appendix J includes examples of eco-nomic benefits resulting from wolf recovery in thenorthern Rockies and northern Minnesota.)
Greenlee County in particular could benefitbecause it contains the primary recovery zone, itrepresents the gateway for visitors coming frommajor population centers to the south and west, andcounty management has emphasized facilitatingtourism and recreation as economic growth sectors(Ariz. Dep’t of Commerce, n.d.). Alpine, in ApacheCounty, is already very oriented toward tourism andrecreation and wolves could enhance this. Also,expenditures by wolf management field staffs, whichmay include local residents, represent potentialpositive economic impacts.
Average annual livestock losses in the BRWRAare projected to total between $640 to $2 1,600.These could impact a few economically marginalranchers if adequate funds are not available to fullycompensate them or if numerous undetected wolfkills occur (A. Thal, Western NM Univ., pers.comm.). Catron County likely would be moreaffected than any other BRWRA county because ithas the largest share of cattle in the recovery area,mostly on small- to medium-sized ranches, whichare more likely to be economically marginal thanlarger ranches. Further, with the lowest median
Environmental Consequences
incomes in the BRWRA, Catron County could bemost affected by any negative economic impactscaused by wolves. The tax base and local economycould be negatively impacted if the effects of wolfdepredation in Catron or other counties were to leadto ranch failures. Ranch failures are not expected,however. In Minnesota, with about 1,500 wolvesinhabiting the cattle range and an average of about27 cattle depredated per year (i.e., within the rangeof depredations projected for the BRWRA), noknown ranch failures have resulted from suchdepredation (W. Paul, ADC, pers. comm.). Simi-larly, no known ranch failures have resulted fromnatural wolf recolonization in northern Montana.
One final area of potential economic impact isthe value (positive or negative) people may place onhaving a recovered wolf population. Just as the valuehunters place on a day of hunting may be economi-cally quantified, potential visitors may place aquantifiable value on a day of hearing or seeingwolves in the BRWRA (Duffleld and Neher 1994).
Another type of economic value is “passive use” or“existence value.” Existence value is the value aperson associates with the knowledge that a resourceexists, even if that person has no plans or expecta-tions of ever directly using or observing that resource(Krutilla 1967). For example, a wolf enthusiastliving in Albuquerque or Phoenix might place ameasurable monetary value on the knowledge that arecovered Mexican wolf population exists in theBRWR4 even if he or she never anticipates visitingthere (Johnson 1990, Duda and Young 1995). Otherpeople may value their absence. Some ranchers orbig game hunters, for instance, might value theabsence of wolves because they view the wolf as apotential threat.
The potential use and existence values (positiveand negative) associated with wolf reintroduction inthe BRWRA have not been quantified. However, theFWS projected substantial net economic benefits inthe millions of dollars associated with the use andexistence values of wolf reintroduction to the Yellow-stone and central Idaho areas (USFWS 1994b). Inthe Southwest, negative economic impacts likelywould be offset to some extent by positive economicimpacts.
Conclusion: Negative economic effects are pro-jected predominantly in the lost value of huntingand reduced hunter expenditures.
4-14
Environmental Consequences
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
The projected population in the White Sands WolfRecovery Area (WSWRA), assuming it is used,would be 20 wolves. They would kill prey totallingapproximately 56,460 lbs. (live weight) annually(Parsons 1994). The deer population is projected tobe between a high of 7,360 and a low of 3,550 fiveyears after the wolf population reaches the goal of20. The deer population is projected to be 14%lower than it would be without wolves in the highpopulation scenario and 46% lower than it would bewithout wolves in the low population scenario. Thenet effect will be approximately 1,200 to 3,000fewer deer than would occur without wolves.
Considerable uncertainty remains over theextent to which wolves will compete with, andthereby reduce, the high (75 to 80) mountain lionpopulation in the San Andres (Logan 1994). Becauseof their numbers and greater average body weight,these lions likely currently consume more deer thanthe projected 20 wolves would consume. Thus,wolves’ ultimate impacts on the deer population maydepend largely on whether they displace lions.
Wolves’ impacts on the other potential large preyspecies--oryx, feral horse, and pronghorn-cannotbe predicted with confidence, but are expected to bemuch less than their impact on deer. Major manage-ment reductions in the horse population occurred in1995 and are continuing (Morrow 1996), whichshould reduce the likelihood of wolves preying onhorses.
Wolves that severely impact big game popula-tions (which excludes feral horses) could be capturedand moved, under the proposed experimentalpopulation rule (Appendix C). The greatest concernsarise with the projected 46% decline in the deerpopulation under the low population scenario(Green-Hammond 1994), and with the small herdof desert bighorn sheep in the San Andres (Hubbard1994). Wolves are relatively inefficient predators onall species of mountain sheep due to the cursorialnature of their hunting techniques (Bednarz 1989).However, in other areas gray wolves do occasionallykill bighorn sheep and packs may routinely visitbighorn sheep habitats seeking vulnerable animals(Huggard 1992). If wolves displace mountain lions
(an uncertain effect) and reduce deer populations aspredicted, then predation on bighorn sheep by thelions could increase. The scabies-infected desertbighorn sheep may be especially vulnerable topredation and any additional mortality may threatenthe viability of this herd of a state-listed endangeredspecies.
Conclusion: While considerable uncertainty exists,wolves are unlikely to severely impact the deerpopulation under the high population scenario, butthey are likely to severely impact the deer populationunder the low population scenario, reducing thepopulation almost in half. Wolves also could nega-tively impact the desert bighorn sheep herd.
Impacts on Hunting
Under Ah. A, a reintroduced wolf population in theWSWRA-a lightly hunted area-would lead to adecline in average legal kills of deer of between 11%and 34% in the high and low population scenarios,respectively (Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994)(Table 4-6). That is, 10 to 24 fewer deer may bekilled by hunters annually.
Conclusion: While a relatively high percentage oflost hunting opportunity could result, the sm,-11amount of hunting that occurs in the WSWRAmeans that actual losses of hunter days will beminor.
Impacts on Livestock
In the WSWRA, after the Preferred Alternative iscompleted and 20 wolves inhabit the area, losses areprojected to be between 0.01 and 0.3 cattle per year(average: 0.16), mostly calves (Table 4-7). (In otherwords, if 0.3 cattle are taken per year this means thatone animal would be taken every three years, onaverage.) This represents a range of between0.0005% and 0.0 15% annual loss of the 3,220 totalcattle present in the area. These projections are bestestimates; rates could be different. Bednarz (1989)also predicted very low depredation rates. The lowrates are largely due to White Sands Missile Range(WSMR) being free of livestock; apart from a fewtrespassing cattle, the only livestock in the WSWRAare in the secondary recovery zone to the west ofWSMR.
4-15
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-6. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goalsin the WSWRA under Alternative A.
Note: rhc low estimate is based on rhe “high populkon” scenario (,fan ~ncrcas~ng deer popularlorl wlrh hlgli (5O’hj .~I~cI.IIJ~L.
prey u\e and high (50%) compensatory morrality; the high estimate is based on the ‘glow popul‘~tlcln” scCI1;1,-,0 of a dKrc‘lsrn~
deer p~)pul.Jrion, lo\v (12.5%J .IIternarc prc!’ tw. and low (17%) cornpensatoy fnort,alir)~ ((;rccli-~~anlniond 1994, i’a~-~~ri~
IW4j
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced deerharvesta
10 24
Reduced deerhunting daysb
51 120
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
Table 4-7. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in theWSWRA under Alt. A.
Low Estimate High EstimateAverageEstimate
Cattle lost 0 .01 0.3 0 . 1 6
Average value peranimala
$665 $665 $665
Total lostvalue/year
$10 $200 $110
’ Value based on the February 1994 average value of all cattle and calves in New Mexico (B. Nedom, NM Agric. Statistics
Service pew comm.).
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
4-16
The lost value associated with livestock depreda-tion is calculated as the estimated number of cattlelost times the market value of those animals (Table4-7). Ranchers may be reimbursed by the privateDefenders of Wildlife Depredation CompensationFund. A very few of the livestock present on theJornada Experimental Range may also be taken. Theexperimental mission of this area provides an oppor-tunity to conduct research on wolf depredation,should it occur, and ways to mitigate it.
Conclusion: Annual livestock losses in theWSm4 will be minor.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
Little predator control occurs in the area, thus nosignificant impacts are anticipated. However, a needmight arise for control of mountain lions if, as hasbeen speculated (Bednarz 1989), the wolves dodisplace some of the large mountain lion populationfrom the missile range into livestock grazing areas,where the lions might depredate (see Appendix Asection on Influence on Other Predators).
Impacts on Agency, Tribal, and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans
No formal ESA consultation with the FWS wouldbe required regarding potential impacts of actions bythe IJ.S. Army or other federal agencies on nones-sential experimental Mexican wolves (except foractions in the White Sands National Monument andthe San Andres National Wildlife Refuge whereconsultation could be required). The agencies wouldneed to informally “confer,” but a conference wouldnot be required for each individual test or project inthe WSWRA. According to the FWS’s Section 7Process and Policy Handbook: “a conference isrequired if the action is judged to likely jeopardize”the species involved (USFWS 1993f). This “thresh-old” is “reached if the likelihood of the species’survival is appreciably reduced.”
Few, if any, WSMR activities are likely to posethis level of threat to a reintroduced Mexican wolfpopulation. In those few cases where conferences areundertaken, the Service will provide “advisoryrecommendations for minimizing or avoidingadverse effects.” It is expected that this informalconferencing will occur on a more programmatic
Environmental Consequences
basis under the umbrella of a cooperative wolfmanagement plan that FWS will develop withWSMR and cooperating agencies, which will in-clude various measures to support wolf recovery inthe WSWRA while allowing for the normal militaryuse of WSMR.
Most of the area is devoted to military use(discussed in next section). Portions of the WSXURAlie within Sierra and Otero Counties, which haveland use ordinances that call for equal authority withfederal agencies over decisions affecting federal landswithin these counties. These could conflict with thePreferred Alternative. Both counties have expressedconcern about wolf recovery and sought to extendlocal planning jurisdiction over it. Further, SierraCounty has an ordinance banning wolf reintroduc-tion in the county. The federal ESA and the experi-mental population rule, after adoption as a federalregulation, would preempt any conflicting localmandates.
While no Indian reservations are within thedesignated WSWRA, dispersing wolves could causesome impacts on the nearby Mescalero ApacheReservation until they were captured. This couldcompel the tribe to develop wolf management plansthat are approved by the FWS or to enter intocooperative wolf management plans directly with theFWS.
Conclusion: Impacts on WSMR planning areexpected to be minor. Limited potential conflictswith local land use ordinances exist.
Impacts on Military Activities and Land Use
Under the nonessential experimental classification,the Mexican wolf will receive a slightly higher degreeof legal protection than other large mammals likethe mountain lion and the oryx with which theWSMR test community has co-existed for years. Thepresence of these animals has never delayed orcancelled a test. (Indeed, no known cases exist of testactivities directly killing a large mammal, althoughsuch cases have not been actively looked for andwould not necessarily have been recorded if theyoccurred.)
Except on the San Andres National WildlifeRefuge (SANWR) and the White Sands NationalMonument (WSNM), the wolf would have the samestatus as a species “proposed” for ESA listing, such
4 - 1 7
that only a non-binding conference would berequired between the FWS and other federal agen-cies on proposed activities that might harm thewolves. In the WSWRA sub-areas within the Na-tional Wildlife RefUge System, i.e., the SANWR,and within the National Park System, i.e., theWSNM, federal agencies must treat members of theexperimental population as a threatened species forpurposes of complying with Section 7 of the ESA.No major management conflicts are expected inthese areas. The SANWR is already under FWSmanagement. Further, wolves are not expected toinhabit the desert basins and sand dunes of theWSNM.
(iray wolves are able to tolerate noise and blasteffects associated with heavy mining in Minnesota,which may be comparable to military testing activi-ties on W’SMR (Mech 1993a). Further, wild redwolves live in North Carolina in and adjacent to anAir Force and Navy training area without negativeimpacts (Phillips 1993). If humans are active in anarea the wolves likely will avoid them. However,some test areas in the basins-where wolves are leastlikely to go-are contaminated with unexplodedshells and could be dangerous to both wolves andfield personnel (Bednarz 1989).
While limited access restrictions could be im-posed under the proposed Mexican Wolf Experi-mental Population Rule around release sites, dens,and rendezvous sites, the effects will be minimal dueto the very limited public access in the WSWRA.Further, the proposed rule allows extensive flexibilityin the relocation of wolves. They could be moved ifthey endangered themselves by remaining in amilitary impact area, became habituated to humansor human facilities, caused major ungulate popula-tion decreases, preyed on livestock, preyed on desertbighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains, and forother reasons.
Likely the greatest issue related to militaryactivities and land use will be the need for FWS fieldpersonnel to coordinate with WSMR headquartersand limit their wolf monitoring and management inthe event of potentially dangerous or high-securitytesting activities. This may inconvenience bothWSMR and the field personnel; nevertheless, suchcoordination was achieved in a comparable projectwhich occurred in the San Andres Mountains in thesame areas likely to be used by wolves. A large-scalemountain lion study conducted for several years,
Environmental Consequences
involving radio-telemetry monitoring and recaptur-ing similar to what will take place with the wolf, hascaused very little conflict with WSMR’s primarymission (K. Logan, Hornocker Wildlife ResearchInst., pers. comm.).
Conclusion: Overall, no major impacts on militaryactivities are expected.
Impacts on Recreation
Minimal impacts are anticipated, beyond the poten-tial impact on hunting discussed above, because verylittle other recreational use occurs within the areasthe wolves would likely occupy. Potential impactswould increase if, as has been proposed, more publicaccess to WSMR is allowed in the future. The onlybackcountry recreation in the area occurs in thesingle overnight camping area in the sand dunes ofthe WSNM, which are not considered suitable wolfhabitat.
Regional Economic Impacts
As shdwn in Table 4-8, reduced harvest of deer inthe WSWRA due to wolf recovery could result inlost benefits to hunters valued at $3,000 to $7,100per year. Additionally, an estimated $2,900 to$7,000 in hunter expenditures could be lost. Theestimated reductions in hunter expenditures likelyoverstate actual reduced expenditures in NewMexico due to the large proportion of residenthunters who will spend that money not spent onhunting in some other sector of the state economy.Hunters probably will not actually hunt less overallbecause of fewer deer in the WSKVRA, but insteadturn their attention to substitute areas or species(Dufield and Neher 1994). Livestock losses areprojected to have minor economic impacts.
As discussed above under the BRWRA, availablesurvey data indicate a strong level of support for wolfreintroduction in New Mexico (Biggs 1988; Dudaand Young 1995), suggesting economic benefits inthe form of existence values associated with reintro-duction in the WSWRA.
Conclusion: Minor negative economic effects areprojected predominantly in the lost value of huntingand reduced hunter expenditures. These could be
4 - 1 8
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-8. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in region
five years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA under Alternative A.
Note: low and Iligh estimates arc based on range of impacrs on hunrmg described in ‘l‘able 4-6.
Statistic
Reduced value ofdeer hunting”
Low Estimate High Estimate
$3,000 $7,100
Reduced expendituresassociated with deerhuntingb
$2,900 $7,000
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - New Mexico‘
$ 8 7 0 $ 2 , 1 0 0
’ Hased on aberage crconornic v,LiLie per day of big game hunting of $58.00 (Walsh er al. 19%).
” Based on NM trip-related expenditures per day of$56.81 (USFWS & Dept. ofCommerce 199lb).
Based on current VM Ilcenw and tag costs for residents and nonresidents and the split between resident and nonresident
deer and elk rags sold in NM.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1394).
offset to some extent by positive economic impactsbut these have not been quantified.
Summary of Adverse Effects ofAlternative A in theBRWRA and the WSWRA
Adverse effects of Alt. A in the BRWRA includeprojected lost value to hunters as high as $1,336,600per year and an associated reduction in hunterexpenditures as high as $1,079,100 per year. Addi-tionally, losses to area ranchers due to livestockpredation by wolves are projected to average as highas $2 1,600 per year, but these may be privatelycompensated. Some ranchers may suffer significantlosses. Predator control activities will be impacted.Wolves may impact the neighboring White Moun-tain and San Carlos Apache reservations by dispers-ing onto the reservations and preying on valuablebig game and livestock, until the wolves were con-trolled. Predation by wolves on elk and deer thatmigrate from the BRYVRA primary recovery zone tothe reservations may reduce tribal hunting and salesof tags co non-members.
Adverse effects of Ah. A in the WSWRA includemajor impacts on the deer population under the lowpopulation scenario and potential harm to the desertbighorn sheep population. Lost value to hunters isprojected to be as high as $7,100 per year and theassociated reduction in hunter expenditures as highas $7,000 per year. Additionally, losses to arearanchers due to livestock predation by wolves areprojected to average as high as $200 per year, butthese may be privately compensated.
Relationship Between Short-term andLong-term Effects and the Enhancementof Long-term Productivity
Losses of livestock and hunting opportunities, andtheir associated economic impacts, should be lessthan predicted in the short-term when wolf numbersare low, then rise to the predicted levels afterachievement of the recovery area goals. Full achieve-ment of the recovery objective is projected to takelonger-until 2005-under the Preferred Alterna-tive than under the other reintroduction alternatives.This is primarily because of the high population goalfor the BRSVRA (100 wolves) and the fact that 10%
4 - 1 9
of the population is expected to be removed annu-ally fi)r depredation control and other managementpurposes (see Chap. 2, Table 2-2).
In the long term, if wolves are fully recoveredand the objectives of the Mexican Wolf RecoveryPlan have been met, the wolves may be delisted(removed from ESA protection). If that occurs, thewolves in the BRWRA and the WSWRA (if used)may be managed as a game animal and furbearer bythe States of Arizona and New Mexico similar to theway wolves are currently managed in Alaska andCanada. The wolves would represent a potentiallyvaluable resource for both consumptive and non-consumptive use.
The wild Mexican wolf will also be an importantnatural force in the regulation of prey populations(Me& 1970). I,ong-term re-establishment of thecomplex, age-old, highly-evolved relationshipbetween this top predator and its prey is consideredbeneficial. It may reduce ungulate over-populationeffects (see Peterson 1977), particularly for elk in theBRWRA, including over-grazing, over-browsing,and competition with livestock. Wolf predationaffects deer and elk populations differently thanhuman hunting does (Boyd et al. 1994). Wolves killa larger proportion of young-of-the-year, males of allages, and older individuals.
The presence of the wolf will provide opportuni-ties to observe and, through research, to understandthe dynamics of natural predator-prey-scavengerrelationships in the Southwest, that is, to learn moreabout ecosystem function and productivity (see, e.g.,Murir 1944, Peterson 1977). Returning the wolf,which may go extinct outside of zoos otherwise, willrestore a missing component of native biodiversity tothe area furthering the goals of the ESA. In conclu-sion, wolf recovery should enhance the long-termnatural productivity of the environment.
Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitments of Resources
From an economic perspective the only irreversibleand irretrievable commitments of resources lie withthe wolf reintroduction and management costs andthe hunter and rancher economic losses as theyoccur (Duffleld and Neher 1994). Reintroductionand management costs will be more than $500,000per year until about the year 2010 (Appendix B -
Environmental Consequences
Estimated Costs of Implementing the Alternatives).This includes a five-year monitoring/research phaseafter full achievement of the recovery area goals.Total reintroduction and management costs areestimated at $7,247,000 over 14 years.
Wolves could possibly take some livestock thatrepresent key breeding lines that might then be lostto ranchers, but ranchers probably would not putirreplaceable, uninsured, breeding stock out on theopen range, where they could be taken by a wholesuite of predators besides wolves. The likelihood ofkey adult breeding stock being taken by wolvesappears remote, given the preference wolves show forcalves.
Cumulative Effects
Gray wolf recovery, on roughly the same scaleproposed here, has occurred in recent years innorthern Montana, Wisconsin, and YellowstoneNational Park/Central Idaho. In none of those areashas wolf recovery been shown to have acted cumula-tively with other federal actions to significantlynegatiyely affect the overall magnitude or nature ofany industry, social institution, or other aspect of theenvironment. (Further, as a general observation,analysis has found that ESA “protections offered tothreatened animals and plants do not impose ameasurable burden on development activity at thestate level... [T]he economic effects of endangeredspecies listings are so highly localized, of such smallscale, and short duration that they do not substan-tially affect state economic performance in theaggregate.” (Meyer 1995).) Nevertheless, there areareas of potential concern as far as negative cumula-tive impacts in the BRWRA region in particular:
Livestock
The effects of wolf depredation on livestock likelywill be relatively minor, with a fraction of 1% of theavailable livestock taken by wolves. But some ranch-ers could be significantly affected if they suffermultiple uncompensated depredations. The livestockindustry is cyclical and it is conceivable that wolfrecovery, along with other negative pressures on theindustry, could contribute to significant cumulativeimpacts. Chief among the other pressures are: a)declines in beef prices, which has occurred markedly
4 - 2 0
since 1994; b) increases in production costs; c)limitations and reductions of public land grazing,some of which have already been proposed in partsof the BRWRA and are mostly under appeal, andincreased costs resulting from government manage-ment decisions, including protection of otherendangered species, e.g., the Mexican spotted owl(USFWS 1995); and d) increases in fees for publicland grazing (see U.S. BLM 1994), although thesehave decreased lately,
Other Predators
Another issue between wolf recovery and ranching isthe cumulative effect of adding another predatorinto what are already multi-predator (primarily bear,lion, and coyote) areas. The restrictions on predatorcontrol tools used in occupied wolf range could leadto increased livestock depredation by the otherpredators. However, considerable uncertainty regard-ing the effect wolves will have on the other preda-tors, and therefore on the net livestock depredationrates, precludes quantitative analysis. As wolf popu-lations become more dense, coyotes may be reduced(B. Paul, USDA ADC, pers. comm.). Some evidenceexists that wolves aggressively compete with moun-tain lions (Hornocker Wildlife Res. Inst. 1993), butoverall effects of gray wolves on lion populationshave not been documented to date. Little impact onbear populations is expected.
Wild Prey and Hunting
The uncertainties about the eventual inter-relation-ships among wolves and other predators relate notonly to the cumulative effect on ranchers, but also tothe cumulative effect a new multi-predator systemwill have on deer, elk, and other prey populations.The projected impacts on the value of hunting andhunter expenditures are the highest categories ofprojected negative economic effects; nevertheless,the cumulative effect on hunting in Arizona andNew Mexico are projected to be minor in relation tothe overall value of hunting in these states (USFWSand Dep’t of Commerce 199 1 a and 1991 b; C.Neher, Bioeconomics, pers. comm.). Notably, thedeer population within the wolf range in northernMinnesota has reached historically high levels, as hasthe hunter take, notwithstanding the fact the wolfpopulation has increased steadily at the same time
Environmental Consequences
(M. Nelson, Nat’1 Biol. Survey, pers. comm.). Theprey populations are more influenced by the harsh-ness of the winters than by wolf predation. Similarly,weather and drought cycles should have greaterimpacts on the size of ungulate populations in theSouthwest than wolf predation (Green-Hammond1994).
As indicated in the discussion regarding impactson prey populations, 100 Mexican wolves on theBRWRA would be expected in the low populationscenarios to reduce the deer and elk populationscompared to what they would be without wolves, by22% and 17%, respectively. For the WSWRA, 20wolves would be expected in the low populationscenario to reduce the deer population compared towhat it would be without wolves by 46%. These lowpopulation scenarios considered negative habitat andweather trends (Green-Hammond 1994). Neverthe-less, if these scenarios occurred in combination withunexpected trends, such as a prolonged severedrought, then the long-term cumulative impactscould be a serious decline in the prey population.Unless corrective actions were taken, the areas couldlose their capacity to achieve the wolf populationgoals.
Land Management
Deer generally benefit from human management ofthe land for forest openings with early successionalvegetation. Logging and other clearing tends toultimately benefit wolves by enhancing deer habitat(M. Nelson, Nat’1 Biol. Survey, pers. comm.). In theBRWRA the trend has been toward less logging andclearing, largely resulting from reductions imposedto protect the uneven-aged forest habitat favored bythe federally-threatened Mexican spotted owl and bythe Forest Service “sensitive” northern goshawk (SWRegion USFS 1993). This closed canopy forestprovides less ungulate forage than more open areas(U.S. BLM 1994). Also, many decades of firecontrol have contributed to the dominance offormerly open areas by woody species. Approx-imately 125,000 acres, or about 5% of the ApacheNF, would require treatment annually to mimicdisturbance to the ecosystem that occurred under amore natural fire occurrence regime (Hayes 1994).This far exceeds the current prescribed burning rateof about 2,000 to 3,000 acres annually (Hayes1995). The result is a forest with a higher risk of
4-2 1
catastrophic crown fires that kill virtually all treeswithin a burned area.
Thus, a potential management conflict existsbetween supporting wolf recovery and preservingMexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat.Wolf recovery would not directly impact owls orgoshawks, or any other endangered species in thearea such as the spikedace, loach minnow, or Apachetrout (see Appendix D - Section 7 Consultation).Further, this alternative imposes no requirements topreserve wolf habitat. Nevertheless, the ForestService may amend the Apache and Gila NationalForest Plans to reflect changes related to wolf recov-ery. If federal or state managers choose to take suchactions to support wolves and their prey throughtimber harvesting, thinning, chaining, and pre-scribed burning (or allowing natural fires to burn),these could indirectly affect those species. Owls andgoshawks could be affected by direct habitat alter-ation and the protected fish could be indirectlyaffected by excessive burning and other land-clearingactivities that result in stream degradation. On theother hand, the owl management guidelines in theMexican spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 1995)are intended to provide land managers with flexibil-ity to allow most silvicultural practices to occur,apart from even-aged management and harvest oflarge trees in key habitat areas, and to reduce exces-sive fuel levels to abate fire risks. This flexibility ismost limited within the 100 acres surrounding owlnest sites.
If management conflicts occur, they may beresolved or mitigated through the interagencycooperative wolf management plan that will facili-tate implementation of the Preferred Alternative.This plan will be very specific and will be distinctfrom the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan, which is abroader guidance document.
The critical habitat designations for the loachminnow and spikedace (which have yet to becomeapplicable due to legal appeals) are expected to causeno economic impacts to private individuals and tocause less than $20,000 of total local governmentcosts (Souder 1992a and 1992b). The FWS recentlyreleased two documents related to the Mexicanspotted owl, a Recovery Plan (USFWS 1995) and aneconomic analysis for the designation of criticalhabitat (Ekstrand et al. 1995) (the former largelysupersedes the economic impact scenarios in thelatter). None of the loach minnow, spikedace, or
Environmental Consequences
spotted owl studies identify any conflict or negativeinter-relationship between spotted owl recovery andwolf recovery. Indeed, wolf recovery may contributepositively to owl recovery by reducing overgrazing bydeer and, particularly, elk in the BRWR4 (USFWS1995). The spotted owl economic analysis indicatedthat most of the negative impacts from protectionhave already occurred, brought about by listing ofthe owl and associated management changes by theForest Service.
The owl economic analysis does identify CatronCounty, New Mexico, as one of the counties mostlikely to suffer a continuing reduction in ForestService payments due to the timber harvest reduc-tions. Payments to county road and school fundscould be at risk (Ekstrand et al. 1995). CatronCounty also is identified in this FEIS as the countymost subject to negative economic effect fromMexican wolf recovery, although the potential alsoexists for some economic benefits (see RegionalEconomic Impacts section, above).
On the White Sands Missile Range increasedmilitary test activity may occur in the future, par-ticularly as other military bases nationally are closedand more testing is consolidated at White Sands(WSMR 1994). This would result in greater poten-tial for conflict with wolf reintroduction, manage-ment, monitoring, and research.
The cumulative public land area that BRWRAand WSWRA managers would actually need totemporarily close to public access to protect wolfrelease pen sites, den sites, and rendezvous areasshould amount to a small fraction of one percent ofthe designated wolf recovery areas. Access restrictionswould not apply to research, management, emergen-cies, important military needs, and similar cases. It isnot expected that the limited restrictions associatedwith reintroduction of nonessential experimentalwolves will act in combination with other current orprospective governmental restrictions so as to causesignificant hardship. No planned land uses in theBRWRA or WSWRA, beyond those discussedabove, are anticipated to act in combination withMexican wolf recovery to result in cumulativeimpacts.
The full potential impact of Ah. A consists ofthe combined impacts of the BRWRA and theWSWRA, if the latter is used. However, little inter-action of effects between the two areas is expectedwith the possible exception of occasional transloc-
4 - 2 2ations ot wolves.
Consequences of Alternative B
Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into both the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area and the White SandsWolf Recovery Area primary recovery zones.Wolves dispersing from the primary recoveryzones will be captured and returned to the pri-mary zones or captivity.
Blue Range Wolf Recovery AreaPrimary Recovery Zone
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
The projected population in the BRWRA primaryrecovery zone under Alt. B is 20 wolves. They willkill prey totalling approximately 56,460 lbs. (liveweight) annually (Parsons 1994). The deer popula-tion is projected to be between a high of 15,120 anda low of 10,030 five years after the wolf populationreaches the goal of-20. The deer population isprojected to be 6% lower than it would be withoutwolves in the high population scenario and 16%lower than it would be without wolves in the lowpopulation scenario. The net effect will be an esti-mated 970 to 1,900 fewer deer than would occurwithout wolves.
The elk population is projected to be between ahigh of 3,580 and a low of 2,340 five years after thewolf population reaches the goal of 20. The elkpopulation is projected to be 6% lower than itwould be without wolves in the high populationscenario and 13% lower than it would be withoutwolves in the low population scenario. The net effectwill be an estimated 230 to 350 fewer elk thanwould occur without wolves.
Notably, under the high population scenariodeer and elk populations actually increase relative tocurrent populations. Of course, those populationswould increase even more without wolves. Wolvesthat severely impact big game populations could becaptured and moved under the experimental popula-tion rule. However, this is not projected to happenin the BRWRA primary recovery zone (Green-Hammond 1994).
4 - 2 3
Environmental Consequences
Conclusion: While uncertainty exists wolves likelywill not severely impact prey populations even underthe low ungulate population scenario.
Impacts on Hunting
Under Alt. B a re-established population of wolvesin the BRWRA primary recovery zone is projected tolead to a decline in average legal kills of deer ofbetween 5% and 12% in the high and low popula-tion scenarios, respectively, and a decline in legalkills of elk of between 5% and 9% in the high andlow population scenarios, respectively (Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994). This means thar 60to 110 fewer deer and 24 to 33 fewer elk may bekilled by hunters annually. All these reductions willoccur in Arizona. The total expected reduction inhunter days due to wolf reintroduction in theBRWRA primary recovery zone ranges from 2,140to 3,700 days (Table 4-9).
Conclusion: Hunter take may fall, with a maxi-mum projection of 12% for deer in the greatestimpact case. Actual reductions in permits issued bystate game managers likely would occur only ifmeasurable herd reductions were observed.
Impacts on Livestock
After Alt. B is completed in the BRWRA primaryrecovery zone and 20 wolves are distributedthroughout the area, losses are projected to bebetween 0.03 and one cow per year (average: 0.5),mostly calves (Table 4-10). This represents a range ofbetween 0.0003% and 0.009% annual loss of the10,490 total cattle present in the primary recoveryzone. These projections are best estimates; ratescould be different. Ranchers may be reimbursed bythe private Defenders of Wildlife DepredationCompensation Fund. A very few horses may also betaken.
From 1987- 199 1, total estimated livestock losses(all cattle) from existing predators averaged about1% of permitted livestock on the Apache NF (Myersand Baxter 1993). The projected increases in depre-dation over these existing rates are quite small.
Conclusion: Wolves likely will take far less thanone-tenth of one percent of the cattle present. Thisshould not cause a measurable impact to ranching as
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-9. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area go&in the BRWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B.
Note: the low rstlmate is based on the “high popularion” scenario of increasing ungulate populations with high (25%)
alretn.lte ptry use and high (50%) compensaroty mortality; the high estimate is based on the “low population” scenario of
decreasing ungulate populations. no alternate prey use, and low (17%)) compensatory mortality (Green-Hammond 1994,
Parsons 19%).
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced elk harvesta 2 4 33
Reduced deer harvest2 6 0 110
Reduced elk hunting daysnb 4 4 0 6 0 0
Reduced deer hunting daysc 1 , 7 0 0 3 , 1 0 0
a G.een-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994. Figures are rounded.
” Based on average success rate of ,470 for Ariz. GMU 1 and 27 (1988-1992 statistics) and average number of days hunted
per big game hunter of 8.568 (LISFWS & Ikpt. ofCommerce 199la).
’ Based on average success rarr of.290 for Ark. (;MU 1 and 27 (1988-1992 statisrich) and .ivcrage nulnbcr oFd.~y\ 11un1c~l
per big game hunrcr of 8.568.
SOURCE: Duffeld and Neher (1994).
Table 4-10. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals in
the BRWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B.
Low Estimate High EstimateAverageEstimate
Cattle lost 0 . 0 3 0 . 9 0 . 5
Average value peranimala
$ 6 6 5 $ 6 6 5 $ 6 6 5
Total lostvalue/year
$ 2 0 $ 6 0 0 $ 3 3 0
“Value based on rhe January 1994 average value of cows and calves in Arizona (I). LIewalt, A% Agric. Statistic5 ~ervlcc,
pers. c0mm.J.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
4 - 2 4
a whole in the area, but some ranchers will experi-ence losses.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
In Arizona, an anti-trapping law (ARS 17-301 (D)),passed in 1994, disallows use of traps and snares onall public lands for depredation control. No addi-tional restrictions should result from wolf recoveryin the BRWRA primary recovery zone.
Wolves may displace other predators; coyotesand lions would most likely be affected. This poten-tial displacement may result in temporarily higherconcentrations of the other predators in surroundingareas. However, the ultimate impact this might haveon control needs for these predators cannot bedetermined with confidence.
Impacts on Agency and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans
The current management focus on the Apache NFin the BRWRA primary recovery zone should notchange significantly with the presence of wolves.The State of Arizona’s Cooperative ReintroductionPlan resembles Alt. B in the BRWRA closely, exceptthat it includes areas to the north and south of theprimary recovery zone (Groebner et al. 1995) (seediscussion under Ah. A). The only county withjurisdiction is Greenlee County and it does not havelaws in conflict with wolf recovery.
Impacts on Land Use
Wolf reintroduction under Ah. B should not signifi-cantly impact four major land uses in the BRWRAprimary recovery zone: forestry, mining, recreation,and grazing (the section above addressed livestockdepredation). No formal ESA Section 7 consultationwould be required regarding potential impacts ofland uses on nonessential experimental Mexicanwolves. The FWS’s management of this experimentalpopulation will impose no restrictions on theseactivities, with some exceptions that apply onlywithin the one-mile radius protected areas on publiclands around occupied pens, dens, and rendezvoussites. Commencing operations on a new timber sale,mine, or engaging in other “disturbance-causingland use activities” (see detailed definition, includingexemptions, in Appendix G - Glossary) could be
Environmental Consequences
temporarily delayed until the pen, den, or rendez-vous site is no longer occupied (see Appendix C -Proposed Mexican Wolf Experimental PopulationRule). The release pens will not be located nearexisting or planned timber sales, mines, or develop-ments. No involuntary restrictions will be imposedon any private land use.
Grazing strategies could be affected by depreda-tion by wolves and by their establishment of densand rendezvous sites. However, the proposed ruleallows extensive flexibility in the relocation ofwolves. They could be relocated if they becamehabituated to humans or human facilities, preyed onlivestock, caused major ungulate population de-creases, and for other reasons.
Conclusion: It is expected that any land use restric-tions due to the reintroduction of wolves to theBRWRA primary recovery zone will be minor.While some activities may be inconvenienced due totemporary access restrictions this inconvenience isunlikely to result in major economic losses.
Impacts on Recreation
Presence of the wolf may deter some visitors fromthe BRWRA primary recovery zone, but it mayattract others. The large majority of people surveyedin Arizona indicated they would enjoy seeing orhearing a wolf in the wild (Johnson 1990). Thedemand for developed and dispersed recreationalfacilities in the Apache NF may increase. Protectionof release pens, wolf dens, and rendezvous sites fromdisturbance may require occasional temporary accessrestrictions within one-mile of the site, dependingon location and terrain.
Regional Economic Impacts
As shown in Table 4- 11, reduced hunter elk and deerharvest in the BRWRA primary recovery zone couldresult in lost benefits to hunters valued between$123,100 to $214,800 per year. Additionally, anestimated $58,200 to $101,500 in hunter expendi-tures could be lost. These projected losses likelyoverstate the actual losses in Arizona. Huntersprobably will not actually hunt less overall becauseof fewer deer and elk in the BRWRA primaryrecovery zone, but instead turn their attention tosubstitute areas or species. Also, deer and elk hunt-
4 - 2 5
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-l 1. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in regionfive years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA primary recovery zone underAlternative B.
Note: low and high estimates arc based on range ofimpaccs on hunting described in l‘able 4-9.
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced value of elk anddeer hunting”
$123,100 $2 14,800
Reduced expendituresassociated with deerand elk huntingb
$58,200 $ 1 0 1 , 5 0 0
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - Arizonac
$ 8 , 0 0 0 $ 1 3 , 0 0 0
’ Based on average economic value per day ofbig game hunting of $58.00 (Walsh et al. 1988).h Hased 011 average AZ trip related expenditures per day of $27.4 1 for deer and elk (USFWS & Dept. of Commerce
1991.1).
‘ R.~sed on cutlcnt AL liccnsc and tag cosrs for residents and nonresidents and the split between rcsidcnr and nonrcxldcnt
deer .Ind elk tags mid in AZ.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
ing in Arizona is dominated by resident hunters(over 95%). Most of the money not spent by resi-dents on hunting will be spent in some other sectorof the Arizona economy. Therefore, reduced residenthunting opportunity should not result in a majorreduction in total expenditures in Arizona. However,reduced expenditures by the 5% of nonresidenthunters would result in reduced overall expendituresin Arizona.
Hunting guides could experience a reduction inbusiness if fewer game are available due to wolfpredation. Some guides may add wolf-watching andhowling trips to their offerings. Because of theirlocations, Clifton, in Greenlee County, and Alpine,in Apache County, are the communities most likelyto benefit from possible increases in tourism andrecreational visitation.
Average annual livestock losses in the BR’XRAprimary recovery zone are projected to be between$ 2 0 to$600.0ne ma area of potential change inf 1economic value associated with wolf reintroductionis the value people may place on having a recoveredwolf population. While some people may attach avalue to the existence of wolves in the area, othersmay value their absence. Some ranchers or big game
4 - 2 6
hunters, for instance, might value the absence ofwolves because they view the wolf as a potentialthreat.
The potential use and existence values (positiveand negative) associated with wolf reintroduction inthe BRKVRA primary recovery zone have not beenquantified. However, the FWS found substantial neteconomic benefits associated with the existence valueof wolf reintroduction to the Yellowstone and centralIdaho areas (USFWS 1994).
Conclusion: Negative economic effects are pro-jected predominantly in the lost value of huntingand reduced hunter expenditures. These likely wouldbe offset to some extent by positive economicimpacts but these have not been quantified.
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area threaten the viability of this herd of a New Mexico
Primary Recovery Zone state-listed endangered species.
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
The projected population in the WSWR4 primaryrecovery zone under Ah. B is 14 wolves. They willkill prey totalling approximately 39,500 Ibs. (liveweight) annually (Parsons 1994). The deer popula-tion in this area is projected to be between a high of5,070 and a low of 2,600 five years after the wolfpopulation reaches the goal of 14. The deer popula-tion is projected to be 13% lower than it would bewithout wolves in the high population scenario and43% lower than it would be without wolves in thelow population scenario. The net effect will be anestimated 760 to 2,000 fewer deer than would occurwithout wolves.
Conclusion: While uncertainty exists, wolves areunlikely to severely impact the deer populationunder the high population scenario, but they arelikely to severely impact the deer population underthe low population scenario, reducing the popula-tion almost in half (Green-Hammond 1994).Wolves also could negatively impact the desertbighorn sheep herd. Avoiding these negative impactscould require extensive wolf population manage-ment.
Impacts on Hunting
Wolves that severely impact big game popula-tions could be captured and moved, under theexperimental population rule (Appendix C; seedefinition of “Impacts on game populations in wayswhich may inhibit further wolf recovery” in Glos-sary). The greatest concern exists with the deerpopulation and with the small herd of desert big-horn sheep in the San Andres (Hubbard 1994).Scabies-infected desert bighorns may be vulnerableto predation and any additional mortality may
Under Ah. B a re-established population of wolvesin the WSWRA primary recovery zone is projectedto lead to a decline in average legal kills of deer ofbetween 10% and 30% in the high and low popula-tion scenarios, respectively (Green-Hammond 1994,Parsons 1994). In terms of actual numbers of ani-mals, 5 to 11 fewer deer are projected to be killedannually by hunters in this lightly-hunted area. Thetotal expected reduction in hunter days due to wolfrecovery in the WSWRA primary recovery zoneranges from 26 to 56 days (Table 4- 12).
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-12. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goalsin the WSWRA primary recovery zone under Alternative B.
Note: the low cstim,rre is based on the “high population” scenario of an increasing deer population wirh high (50%) alternate
prey use and htgh (50%) compensatory mortality; the high estimate is based on the “low population” scenario of a decreasing
deer populatton, low i 12.5%) alternate prey use, and low (1796) compensatory mortality (Green-Hammond 1994. Par-sons
I 994).
Statistic
Reduced deerharvesta
Reduced deerhunting daysb
Low Estimate
5
26
High Estimate
11
56
’ Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994.
h Based on I992 success rate for GMU 19 of .39 and average number of days per hunter of ‘2.0 for the limited entry White
Sands Missile Range hunts.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
4 - 2 7
Conclusion: While a high percentage of huntingloss could result, the very small amount of huntingthat occurs in the WSWRA primary recovery zonemeans that the actual reduction in hunter days inthe area will be minor.
Impacts on Livestock
No livestock are legally present in the WSWR4primary recovery zone; therefore, cattle losses thereare projected to be close to zero (Table 4-3, above).However, a very few trespassing cattle could bekilled. Also, a small number of cattle could be killedif wolves leave the primary recovery zone until thewolves were controlled.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
No predator control activities occur within theWSWRA primary recovery zone, thus no impactswill occur. However, wolves could displace otherpredators resulting in higher concentrations of theother predators in surrounding areas, at least tempo-rarilv.
Impacts on Agency and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans
Because the area is predominantly managed by theWhite Sands Missile Range, impacts are discussed inthe following section.
Impacts on Military Activities and Land Use
Potential impacts of Ah. B largely will be limited tothe mountainous areas where very little missiletesting or other military activity occurs. Parts of theprimary recovery zone are overlaid by the Yonder AirForce training impact area (Fig 3-6, above), but it isunlikely that the high altitude training that occursthere will impact wolves, or vice versa (Bednarz1989). Gray wolves are able to tolerate noise andblast effects associated with heavy mining inMinnesota, which may be comparable to testingactivities on WSMR (Mech 1993a). Further, redwolves exist in North Carolina in and adjacent to anAir Force and Navy training area without negativeimpacts (Phillips 1993). If humans are active in anarea, the wolves likely will avoid them. If the wolvesare in danger, they can be removed. No major
Environmental Consequences
impacts are expected on the wolves or on the mili-tary activities (Bednarz 1989).
Impacts on Recreation
Except for hunting, discussed above, no recreationalactivities occur within the WSWRA primary recov-ery zone, thus impacts on recreation are not ex-pected.
Regional Economic Impacts
As shown in Table 4-13, reduced hunter deer harvestin the WSWR4 primary recovery zone could resultin lost benefits to hunters valued at about $1,500 to$3,300 per year, after wolf re-establishment. Addi-tionally, an estimated $1,500 to $3,200 in hunterexpenditures could be lost. These estimated reduc-tions likely overstate the actual losses in the region.Hunters probably will not actually hunt less overallbecause of fewer deer in the WSWRA primaryrecovery zone, but instead turn their attention tosubstitute areas or species. Most of the money notspent by residents on hunting probably will be spentin some other sector of the state economy, but likelynot in the WSWRA region. However, reductions inexpenditures by the nonresident hunters wouldresult in reduced overall expenditures in NewMexico.
Annual livestock losses are expected to be nearzero in the WSWRA primary recovery zone. Further,no economic impacts (positive or negative) relatedto changes in hunting guide use or visitor use willoccur because neither of these uses occurs within theWSWRA primary recovery zone. Positive or negativeeconomic values may be associated with the exis-tence of wolves in the area. Such values have notbeen measured.
Summary of Adverse Effects ofAlternative B in the BRWRA andWSWRA Primary Recovery Zones
Re-establishment of the Mexican wolf in theBRWRA primary recovery zone under Ah. B isprojected to result in a reduction in economic valueto hunters as high as $214,800 per year and anassociated reduction in hunter expenditures in the
4-28
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-13. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in regionfive years after achievement of recovery area goals in the WSWRA primary recovery zone underAlternative B.Note: low and high estimates are based on range of impacts on hunting described in ‘Table 4-12.
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced value ofdeer hunting”
$1,500 $3,300
Reduced expendituresassociated withdeer hunting”
$1,500 $3,200
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - New MexicoC
$440 $960
’ Based on .lvcragc economic value per day of big game hunting of $58.00 (Walsh et al. 1988).
’ I&cd on NM rrip-related expenditures per day of $56.81 (USFWS & Dept. of Commerce 199lb).
‘ Based on current NM license and tag costs for residents and nonresidents and the split between resident and nonresident
deer and elk tags sold in NM.
SOURCE: DuGeld and Neher (1994).
region as high as $101,500 per year. Average lossesto livestock owners due to wolf predation are pro-jected to be as high as $600 per year under Alt. B.Predator control activities in the area will be af-fected. Wolves may impact the neighboring WhiteMountain and San Carlos Apache reservations bydispersing onto the reservations and preying onvaluable big game and livestock, until the wolveswere controlled. Predation by wolves on elk and deerthat migrate from the BRWRA primary recoveryzone to the reservations may reduce tribal huntingand sales of hunting permits to non-members.
The relatively small WSWRA primary recoveryzone deer population could be severely impacted,i.e., up to 43% reduction. Reduced hunter deerharvest are projected to result in hunting value lossesas high as $3,300 per year, after wolf re-establish-ment. Additionally, an estimated $1,500 to $3,200in hunter expenditures could be lost.
Relationship Between Short-term andLong-term Effects and theEnhancement of Long-term Productivity
Losses of livestock and hunting opportunities, andtheir associated economic impacts, should be less
than predicted in the short-term when wolf numbersare low, then rise to the predicted levels afterachievement of the population goals. This is theshortest-term alternative, with completion by 200 1.However, because neither area alone, nor both areascombined, meets the Mexican Wolf Recovery Planpopulation objective, additional recovery areaswould be needed.
The potential positive biological and ecologicaleffects of wolf re-establishment would be limited bythe small scale of this alternative. Also, the long-termsustainability of the wolves would be in doubt absentconstant supplementation of the population fromthe captive breeding program. Thus, long termcaptive population management program costs couldbe higher than for Alt.s A or C.
Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitments of Resources
From an economic perspective the only irreversibleand irretrievable commitments of resources lie withthe wolf reintroduction and management costs andthe hunter and rancher economic losses as theyoccur (Duffleld and Neher 1994). This alternativealso presents the possibility of irretrievable loss of the
4 - 2 9
Environmental Consequences
FEIS. Thus, the DEIS discussion has been elimi-nated regarding potential impacts in the WSWRAunder Ah. C, as well as potential impacts in associ-ated areas that were identified as likely dispersalareas, i.e., the Organ Mountains, the ChupaderaMesa, the Sacramento Mountains and CapitanMountains units of the Lincoln NF, and theMescalero Apache Indian Reservation.
wild Mexican wolf type. This would result if thesmall wolf populations re-established are notgenetically, demographically, or otherwise sustain-able over the long-term and they are not maintainedthrough constant population management, and noother Mexican wolf reintroduction projects occur.
Reintroduction and management costs will beon the order of $570,000 to $610,000 per year forthe BRWRA and WSWRA primary recovery zonescombined until about 2006 (this includes a five-yearmonitoring/research phase after mull achievement ofthe recovery area goals) (Appendix B). These annualcosts are higher than those under the PreferredAlternative, despite the smaller areas and numbers ofwolves involved here, because of the intensity ofmanagement and control required under Ah. B andthe fact that the two areas would be used simulta-neously. The total reintroduction and managementcosts of Ah. B are estimated at $5,890,500, which isless than the Alt. A total because Ah. B takes lesstime to achieve.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects under this alternative would besimilar to those discussed under Ah. A, but across asmaller scale, i.e., just the primary recovery zones.
Consequences of Alternative C
Reintroduction of Mexican wolves, classified asendangered, into the Blue Range Wolf RecoveryArea only. Wolves will be released into the pri-mary recovery zone and unlimited dispersal willbe allowed. Wolves will receive full protectionunder the Endangered Species Act.
Introduction
Impacts discussed below should be considered theminimum, as wolves would probably eventuallyexpand to a greater area than just the BRWRA. Theactual impacts in areas outside the BRWRA aregenerally identified but cannot be predicted withconfidence.
Based on consideration of public and agencycomments on the DEIS, the EIS InterdisciplinaryTeam and the FWS decided to drop reintroductionof full-endangered wolves in the WSWRA from this
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
The projected population in the BRWRA under Ah.C is 100 wolves. They will kill prey totallingapproximately 282,300 Ibs. (live weight) annually(Parsons 1994). The deer population is projected tobe between a high of 58,700 and a low of 40,200five years after the wolf population reaches 100. Thedeer population is projected to be 6% lower than itwould be without wolves in the high populationscenario and 18% lower than it would be withoutwolves in the low population scenario. The net effectwill be an estimated 3,700 to 8,800 fewer deer thanwould occur without wolves.
The elk population is projected to be between ahigh of 16,400 and a low of 10,300 five years afterthe wolf population reaches the goal of 100. The elkpopulation is projected to be 5% lower than itwould be without wolves in the high populationscenario and 14% lower than it would be withoutwolves in the low population scenario. The net effectwill be an estimated 870 to 1,700 fewer elk thanwould occur without wolves.
Notably, under the high population scenario,deer and elk populations actually increase (relative tocurrent populations) by 3% each. Of course, thosepopulations would increase even more withoutwolves. Wolves that did severely impact big gamepopulations could not be captured and moved underfull ESA protection, but this is not expected tohappen in the BRWRA as a whole (Green-Hammond 1994).
Conclusion: While uncertainty exists, wolves likelywill not severely impact prey populations even underthe low population scenario.
4 - 3 0
Impacts on Hunting
Under Ah. C a recovered population of wolves inthe BRWRA is projected to lead to a decline inaverage legal kills of deer of between 5% and 13%under the high and low population scenarios,respectively; and a decline in legal kills of elk ofbetween 4% and 9% under the high and lowpopulation scenarios, respectively (Green-Hammond1994, Parsons 1994). In terms of actual numbers ofanimals, 240 to 480 fewer deer and 90 to 150 fewerelk are projected to be killed by hunters. The totalexpected reduction in hunter days due to wolfrecovery in the BRWXA ranges from 10,lOd to19,300 days (Table 4-14).
Conclusion: Hunter take may fall, with a maxi-mum projection of 13% for deer in the greatestimpact case. Actual reductions in permits issued bystate game managers likely would occur only ifmeasurable herd reductions were observed.
Impacts on Livestock
After Ah. C is completed in the BRWRA and 100wolves are distributed throughout the area, losses areprojected to be between one and 34 cattle per year(average: 17.5)) mostly calves (Table 4- 15). Thisrepresents a range of between 0.001% and 0.04%annual loss of the 82,620 total cattle present in thearea. These projections are best estimates; rates couldbe different. Ranchers may be reimbursed by theprivate Defenders of Wildlife Depredation Compen-sation Fund. A few horses and sheep may also betaken.
From 1987- 199 1, total estimated livestocklosses (all cattle) from existing predators averagedabout 1% of permitted livestock on the Apache NF(Myers and Baxter 1993). Comparable depredationrates probably occurred on the Gila National Forest(S. Libby, Gila NE pers. comm.). The projectedincreases in depredation over these existing rates arequite small.
Because this alternative allows only limitedcontrol of wolves that kill livestock, livestock depre-dation is more likely to fall near the high range ofthe projections, or even to significantly exceed theprojections, than under Alt.s A or B. This representsa more serious potential impact on ranchers. Fur-ther, since ranchers in the BRWRA and likely
Environmental Consequences
dispersal areas will not be permitted to harass wolvesin the vicinity of their livestock or to kill them ifthey are attacking their livestock, rancher tolerancefor wolves likely will be very low, possibly resultingin illegal killing of wolves (USFWS 1994b).
Conclusion: Wolves likely will take between oneand 34 cattle per year, representing less than one-twentieth of one percent of all the cattle present, butthe rate could go higher. This should not seriouslyimpact ranching as a whole in the area, but someranchers may experience significant losses.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
Effects on ADC activities will be greater than for theother reintroduction alternatives. Under Section 7 ofthe ESA, techniques that could jeopardize wolves,such as trapping, snaring, and M-44s, will be limitedor prohibited in areas that the full-endangeredwolves choose to inhabit both within and outsidethe designated wolf recovery areas. However, inArizona, an anti-trapping law (ARS 17-301 (D)),passed in 1994, disallows use of traps and snares onall public lands for depredation control. While noadditional restrictions should result from wolfrecovery on public lands in Arizona, restrictions ofADC activities on private lands are expected.
Private shooting of coyotes may be restricted ifwolves are being mistaken for coyotes and shot. InWisconsin, where wolves have full-endangeredstatus, some of the many hunters in the field duringdeer hunting season have mistakenly (presumably)shot wolves. Therefore, managers have closed coyotehunting within occupied wolf range during thisseason (Wydeven 1992). If a similar trend causeshigh Mexican wolf mortalities, similar closures couldbe imposed through cooperative agreements withthe state game and fish agencies.
Impacts on Agency, Tribal, and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies toexamine their proposed actions and to avoid thosethat would jeopardize full-endangered wolves.Additional habitat research and more biologicalassessments likely will be needed to assess potentialimpacts on wolves and their prey Vegetationmanagement may be needed to provide improved
4-3 1
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-14. Estimated annual reduction of hunting five years after achievement of recovery area goalsin the BRWRA under Alternative C.
Note: the low esttmate is based on the “high population” scenario of increasing ungulate populations with high (25%)
alternate prey use ‘tnd high (50%) compensatory mortality; the high estimate is based on the “low popularion” scenarto of
decrearing ungulate populations, no alternate prey use, and low (17’8’ )o compensatory mortaliry (Green-Hammond 1094,
Parsons 1994).
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced elk harvesta 30 1 5 0
Reduced deer harvesta 2 4 0 4 8 0
Reduced elk hunting daysb 2 , 1 0 0 3,500
Reduced deer hunting days’ 8 , 0 0 0 15,800
’ Green-Hammond 1994, Parsons 1994. Figures are rounded.
” Based on average success rdte of .3366 for New Mex. GMU 15, 16, 2 1, 22, 213, and 24 (198% I992 ht.ttistics for elk;
1989- 1992 statistics for deer) and Ariz. CMti 1 and 27 (1988- 1992 statistics) and average number of days hunted pcl- big
game hunter of7.787 (average ofA% and NM weighted by number of hunter-s) (IJSFWS and L)cp’t of (Iommercc I99l:r anti
199lb.
’ Ha>ed on ,tverage success rate of .2385 for NKW Mex. C;MU 15, 16, 21, 22. 23, and 24 (19X8- 1992 statistics for elk;
1989- 1992 statistics for deer) and Ariz. GMU 1 and 2 (I%%- 1992 statistics) and average number of days hunted per big
game taunter of?.-87 (average of A% and NM weighted by number of hunters).
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher (1994).
Table 4-15. Estimated annual livestock depredation costs after achievement of recovery area goals inthe BRWRA under Alternative C.
Low Estimate High EstimateAverageEstimate
Cattle lost 1 33.9 17.5
Average valueper animala
$638 $638 $638
Total lostvalue/year
$640 $21,600 $11,200
“VaLue based on the average of the January 1994 average value of cows and calves rn Arizona (D. Dewalt, A2 Agric.
Statistics Service, pcrs. comm.) and the February 1994 average value of cows and calves tn New Mexico (R. Nedom, NM
Agric. Statistics Service, pers. comm.).
SOURCE: Duffkld and Neher (1994).
4 - 3 2
Environmental Consequences
private land, than under the nonessential experimen-tal designation. Commencing or continuing opera-tions on a timber sale, mine, or development couldbe delayed during the spring denning season ifwolves denned in the immediate area. Timberharvesting generally benefits wolves by maintainingshade-intolerant vegetation favored by ungulatespreyed on by wolves (Thiel 1988). Further, wolvesin Minnesota are able to tolerate noise and blasteffects associated with logging and heavy mining(Mech 1993a). Mech (1993b) has also pointed outthat low density development for homes, recre-ational facilities, power lines, and so on do not deterwolf recovery.
With respect to the fourth major land use in thearea, grazing management could be affected bydepredation by wolves and by their establishment ofdens and rendezvous sites. Unlike under Alt.s A andB, which allow extensive flexibility in the relocationof wolves, little flexibility would exist under Ah. C.If depredations lead to illegal killings of wolves thenrestrictions on grazing may be imposed. Further,measures imposed under Section 7 consultations tomitigate potential long-term ecological impacts ofgrazing could be significant. These could includereductions in grazing where it is shown to negativelyaffect the deer and elk populations necessary for wolfrecovery. However, these outcomes have not oc-curred in other regions where threatened or endan-gered wolves have recovered.
ungulate habitat if low ungulate availability limitswolf recovery. This could include increasing timberharvesting, prescribed burning, and other steps toprovide open habitat with shrubs, grasses, and forbsgenerally favored by deer and elk. The Forest Servicelikely would be required to amend the Apache andGila National Forest Plans to reflect changes neces-sary to accommodate full-endangered wolf recovery.The most significant topics of possible amendmentsinclude Grazing Use, Timber Volume, VegetationManagement Practices (especially fire) and AcresTreated, and management for multiple endangeredspecies. Generally, these changes would serve toenhance ungulate prey and to prioritize managementfor wolves in relation to the other “multiple uses” ofthe forests.
Federal agency management of livestock grazingmay need revision to reduce significant negativeimpacts on prey populations and to reduce livestockdepredation and the associated potential for illegalkillings. Also, federal agencies with permittingauthority over private actions that could jeopardizewolves could be compelled under Section 7 todisallow such actions under the ESA. (Notably, evenfor full-endangered status species, such instanceshave been rare (Barry et al. 1992).)
With respect to state and local governments thesame potential conflicts exist as under Ah. A. How-ever, under Ah. C the FWS would have less flexibil-ity to accommodate state, local, tribal, and otherconcerns, Direct federal involvement in state-runhunting programs likely would meet with significantagency and hunter opposition. The potential im-pacts on state, local, and tribal governments will bebroader if wolves disperse out of the BRWRA andWSWRA; these are addressed under the discussionof Impacts in Likely Dispersal Areas, below.
Impacts on Land Use
Case-by-case consultations on proposed land usechanges that may affect wolves would be neededunder Section 7 of the ESA; it is premature to saythat the potential impacts under Ah. C would beminor. Wolf reintroduction is not expected tosignificantly impact three of the four major land usesin the BRWRA: forestry, mining, and recreationdevelopment. Nevertheless, the FWS’s managementof this full-endangered population could imposemore restrictions on these activities, including on
Conclusion: It is expected that land use restrictionsdue to the reintroduction of full-endangered wolvesto the BRWRA will be relatively minor. But thepotential is highest under this alternative for majorland use restrictions to protect wolves and theirnatural prey.
Impacts on Recreation
Presence of the wolf may deter some visitors fromthe BRWRA, but it may attract others. The largemajority of people surveyed in Arizona (Johnson1990) and New Mexico (Biggs 1988; see Duda andYoung 1995) indicated they would enjoy seeing orhearing a wolf in the wild. The demand for devel-oped and dispersed recreational facilities in theBRWRA region may increase.
4 - 3 3
Environmental Consequences
Protection of release pens, dens, and rendezvoussites from disturbance by visitors may requiretemporary access restrictions within one-mile of thesite, depending on location and terrain. However,wolves tend to den in secluded areas in the springprior to the peak visitation periods, so little impacton hiking, hunting, or other activities should result.
Conclusion: Wolf reintroduction is expected tocause increased visitation to the BRWRA and torequire minor temporary restrictions on humanaccess to particular areas as necessary to preventharm to the wolves.
Regional Economic Impacts
As shown in Table 4-16, reduced hunter elk and deerharvest in the BRWRA could result in lost benefitsto hunters in the region valued from about$582,800 to $1 ,119,200 per year after re-establish-ment of full-endangered Mexican wolves. Roughly34% of these lost benefits would occur in Arizonaand 64% in New Mexico. Additionally, an estimated$470,700 to $902,700 in hunter expenditures couldbe lost. About 20% of the reductions would occur inthe Arizona portion of the region and 80% in theNew Mexico portion. (New Mexico bears a greatershare of the expenditure reduction because it has a
Table 4- 16. Estimated annual reduction of hunting-related economic value and expenditures in regionfive years after achievement of recovery area goals in the BRWRA under Alternative C.
Note: low and high estimates XC based on range of impacts on hunting described in ‘Table 4-14.
Statistic Low Estimate High Estimate
Reduced value of elkand deer hunting”
$582,800 $1,119,200
Share by State ofreduced hunting value
AZ - $198,150 AZ - $380,530
NM - $384,650 NM - $738,670
Reduced expendituresassociated with deerand elk hunting”
$470,700 $902,700
Share by State of reducedhunter expenditures
AZ - $94,140 AZ - $180,540
NM - $376,560 NM - $722,160
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - New MexicoC
$41,100 $75,900
Reduced hunting permitrevenue - Arizonac
$14,100 $26,300
’ B ~scd oo averagr econonlic value per day of big game hunting of $58.00 (Walsh ct al. 1988).
’ B,LKX~ on average AL and NM trip related expenditures per day of $46.38 fo r deer and $48.60 for elk (weighted by
number of hunters)(USFWS and Dcp’t of(:ommerce 1931a and 199lb).B lsed on current AL and KM license and tag costs for residents and nonresidents and the split between resident and
nonrcsidcr!t deer ~md elk tags sold in A% and NM.
SOURCE: Duffield and Neher C 1994).
4 - 3 4
higher percentage of nonresident hunters thanArizona and thus a higher average hunter expendi-ture per day.)
These estimated reductions likely overstate theactual losses in Arizona and New Mexico. Huntersprobably will not actually hunt less overall becauseof fewer deer and elk in the BRWRA, but insteadturn their attention to substitute areas or species.Deer and elk hunting is dominated by residenthunters (over 96% in Arizona and 74% in NewMexico). Most of the money not spent by residentson hunting likely would be spent in some othersector of the state economy, but likely not in theBRWRA region. However, reductions in expendi-tures by the 4% to 26% of nonresident hunterswould result in reduced overall expenditures inArizona and New Mexico. Hunting guides couldexperience a reduction in business if fewer game ateavailable due to wolf predation. Some guides mayadd wolf-watching and howling trips to their offer-ings.
Average annual livestock losses in the BRWRAunder Alt. C are projected to be between $640 to$2 1,600 after wolf re-establishment. These couldhave a major impact on a few economically marginalranchers if adequate funds are not available tocompensate them.
The potential use and existence values (positiveand negative) associated with wolf reintroduction inthe BRWRA have not been quantified. However, theFWS found substantial net economic benefitsassociated with the existence value of wolfreintroduction to the Yellowstone and central Idahoareas (IJSFWS 1994b).
Conclusion: Negative economic effects are pro-jected predominantly in the lost value of huntingand reduced hunter expenditures. These likely wouldbe offset to some extent by positive economicimpacts but these have not been quantified.
Impacts in Likely Dispersal Areas
San Carlos Apache Reservation
The San Carlos reservation contains extensivesuitable wolf habitat that, if fully occupied, wouldlikely support 20 to 30 wolves. They could causeadverse impacts on the game populations and
Environmental Consequences
resulting reductions in hunting, although these havenot been modelled.
Wolves could take some of the older trophy bullelk for which the tribe received $57,000 each forthree hunting permits in 1994. The larger bull elkwill be in a depleted condition during the fall andwinter because of the rigors of the rut, frequentlyisolated from other elk. This makes them vulnerableto predation. Wolves would be less likely to take abull elk in prime condition. However, wolf depreda-tion on some older trophy animals could adverselyimpact the number of high-value permits the tribecould issue and the prices the tribe could obtain forthem. Also, wolf predation on breeding cow elk andthe younger age classes may negatively impact therecruitment of bulls into the trophy class.
If a decrease in elk migrating onto the reserva-tion is detected by the San Carlos game managers,the first adjustment to hunting seasons would beremoval of certain non-member elk permits, whichamounted to $45,000 in total revenue to the tribe in1994-95 (Brown 1995). In addition, a rough wolfpredation model for the San Carlos Apache reserva-tion prepared by Brown (1995) examined severalscenarios for wolf impacts on deer, elk, and cattleand the resulting costs to the tribe. For the case of30 wolves eventually inhabiting the reservation(which the FWS considers at the high range), Brownfound that costs in lost deer, elk, and cattle wouldrange between approximately $4,100 and $17,500annually. (This modelling effort did not include lostvalue of hunting to the hunters themselves nor did itconsider lost hunting expenditures in the region.)
Big game hunting is one of the major incomesources (through permit fees, guide costs, and hunterexpenditures) on this reservation. The other majorsource is livestock grazing. Depredation rates arealready considered high and are probably aggravatedby the low degree of livestock management. Manycattle die on the open range resulting in largeamounts of carrion available for scavenging. Theaddition of another major predator with full-endan-gered species status could cause a marked increase inthe amount of depredation, particularly if wolves areconditioned to feeding on cattle through scavengingopportunities (Bjorge and Cunson 1985).
If livestock depredation occurred regularly, asappears likely, the nature of the ownership of mostof the cattle would make depredation compensationproblematic. Many cattle are unbranded and differ-
4-35
ent family brands are intermixed so that even if abranded cow was killed by wolves, if the brand wasnot preserved the owner could not be determined.Unless some general compensation approach to thecattle association on whose land the depredationoccurred was agreed to by the tribe and the Defend-ers of Wildlife, some wolf depredations may simplygo uncompensated. The San Carlos Apaches havethe lowest median household income and thehighest percentage of people living below the pov-erty level of any area discussed in this FEIS (seeTable 3-7, above). The importance of livestockincome together with the big game hunting incomemeans that the already economically marginal SanCarlos Apaches could be more heavily impacted byMexican wolf reintroduction than people in anyother area. Deer, elk, and turkey hunting also have ahigh value to the tribe for food as well as recreationalvalue. Potential adverse impacts from wolf dispersalout of the BRWRA would be exacerbated by the factthat up to 90% of the tribal elk hunting and 50% ofthe tribal deer hunting occurs within 10 miles of theBRWRA primary recovery zone.
Other impacts could occur. The action wouldconflict with the Tribal Council resolution opposingwolf recovery. Some recreational and other land userestrlctions may be imposed under Section 7 of theESA to avoid jeopardizing the full-endangered wolfpopulation and restrictions on depredation controlactivities may be needed. Implementing and enforc-ing such restrictions, and preventing illegal killing ofwolves, would present potential conflicts with tribalsovereignty unless cooperative agreements on theseissues are achieved. Also, dispute exists about theextent to which negative impacts that the tribe maysuffer, e.g., loss of trophy bull elk, would requirecompensation under the federal government’s trustresponsibility to the tribes. On the other hand, thepotential positive impacts of wolf recovery discussedfor the BRWRA, i.e., increased tourism, existencevalue, and long-term ecological balance, could resulton the San Carlos Apache reservation as well.
White Mountain Apache Reservation
The reservation contains extensive suitable wolfhabitat that, if fully occupied, would likely support20 to 30 wolves. They could impact the gamepopulations and resulting reductions in hunting,although these have not been modelled.
Environmental Consequences
The impacts on the White Mountain Apachereservation should be qualitatively similar to thosediscussed on the San Carlos reservation. However,the White Mountain Apaches have higher incomesoverall and are less dependent on hunting andlivestock revenues than the San Carlos Apaches;therefore the relative significance of negative eco-nomic impacts from wolf recovery should be less.More of the tribe’s income is derived from timberand recreation, which recovery of full-endangeredwolves may impact in the form of temporary clo-sures but should not seriously impact. Big gamehunting may be reduced. About twice as muchrevenue, over $1 million, is generated by non-member big game hunts on this reservation as on theSan Carlos reservation. Trophy bull elk huntingaccounts for the vast majority of the hunting. rev-enue. (The discussion about the vulnerability andpotentially lower recruitment of bull elk on the SanCarlos Apache Reservation also applies here.) Wolfdepredation of trophy animals could impact thenumber of trophy elk permits issued and the pricescharged for these permits.
The cattle associations could be affected becausecalf production already is low; however, few com-mercial sales of calves occur. Livestock roam year-round over much of the reservation and the owner-ship of individual livestock is not always determi-nable. Large amounts of carrion could be available tothe wolves. Animal damage control methods toreduce depredations may need to be restricted.
Temporary access restrictions may be needed toprotect the wolf dens and rendezvous sites that couldbe affected by the relatively high rate of use forlogging and outdoor recreational activities. Thetribe’s ski area probably will not be affected, astemporary restrictions around denning sites in thespring likely will not overlap with winter recreation.The tribe’s economic development plan to expandpassive recreation and retail and service businesseswould not be impacted by fully-protected wolves.The discussion on potential conflicts with tribalsovereignty in the San Carlos Apache section applyhere also.
The action would conflict with the TribalCouncil resolution opposing wolf recovery. Addi-tional conflicts may result from the Tribal Councilresolution prohibiting most federal and state agencyaccess to the reservation for scientific and wildlifemanagement purposes. It is anticipated that a
4 - 3 6
cooperative management agreement would beneeded to avoid conflicts. The potential positiveimpacts of wolf recovery discussed for the BRWRA,i.e., increased tourism, existence value, and long-term ecological balance, could result on the WhiteMountain Apache reservation as well.
Lakeside Ranger District,Sitgreaves National Forest
Impacts on deer, elk, livestock grazing, and otheractivities should be comparable here to those in theBRWRA, in proportion to the number of wolvesthat may occur. Likely the greatest potential‘conflictwould occur in the form of land use restrictionsunder Section 7 of the ESA because of the high levelof recreational and vacation use in the Pinetop-Lakeside and Show Low areas. Closing trails or back-country roads during denning season and, perhaps,limiting conversion of Forest Service land to privateland in key wolf-use areas may be necessary to affordthe wolves full-endangered protection.
San Mateo Mountains Unit,Cibola National Forest
Impacts on deer, elk, livestock grazing, and otheractivities should be comparable here to those in theBRWRA, in proportion to the number of wolvesthat may occur. Recreational use is relatively light sofew conflicts should occur.
Summary of Adverse Effects ofAlternative C in the BRWRAand Likely Dispersal Areas
Adverse effects of Ah. C after wolf re-establishmentin the BRWRA include lost value to hunters as highas $ 1 , 119,200 per year and an associated reductionin hunter expenditures as high as $902,700 per year.Additionally, average losses to area ranchers due tolivestock predation by wolves are projected to be ashigh as $2 1,600 per year, but these may be privatelycompensated. Wolves may impact the neighboringWhite Mountain and San Carlos Apache reserva-tions by dispersing onto the reservations and preyingon valuable big game and livestock. Predation bywolves on elk and deer on and near the reservations
Environmental Consequences
could reduce tribal hunting and sales of huntingpermits to non-members.
Restrictions on predator control activities andpotentially-disturbing land uses will be imposed.There is generally a greater likelihood of adverseeffects and restrictions occurring, exceeding thoseprojected, as a result of the lower managementflexibility under Section 7 of the ESA.
Relationship Between Short-term andLong-term Effects and the Enhancementof Long-term Productivity
Losses of livestock and hunting opportunities, andtheir associated economic impacts, should be lessthan predicted in the short-term when wolf numbersare low, then rise to the predicted levels or aboveafter achievement of the recovery area goals. Wolfrecovery to a population level that meets the 1982
Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan objective in theBRWRA is projected to occur in a shorter term-five years-under this alternative than under anyothers. Cost savings in the captive breeding programshould result. However, although the wolves will bemore protected legally, enforcement difftculties andlocal sentiment against the wolves may result in ahigh rate of illegal killings that could impede wolfrecovery. Extensive law enforcement efforts may benecessary to attempt to reduce illegal killings. Thiswould, of course, increase the costs. It is not clear,however, that increased enforcement efforts actuallywould be able to reduce illegal killing of wolves inremote areas.
If Mexican wolf reintroduction is successfulunder this alternative the long-term result could bevery widespread effects. The recovered populationcould eventually range over thousands of squaremiles of suitable habitat outside the designatedrecovery area such that the negative and positiveimpacts described above would occur on a largerscale, roughly correlated with the wolf populationsize. Because much of the land outside the BRWRAis private or tribal land, the potential for conflictwith non-federal land management goals would behigh.
4 -37
Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitments of Resources
From an economic perspective the only irreversibleand irretrievable commitments of resources lie withthe wolf management costs and the hunter andrancher economic losses as they occur (Duffteld andNehtr 1994). Reintroduction and management costswill be on the order of $550,00 to $590,000 per yearfor the BRYVRA until about 2006 (this includes afive-year monitoring/research phase after fullachievement of the recovery area goal) (Appendix B).The total reintroduction and management costs ofAh. C are estimated at $5,692,000, which is lessthan the Ah. A total because Ah. C takes less time toachieve.
The ranchers’ losses would be highest under thisalternative and some marginal ranching operationsmight be forced out of business. The likelihood ofdepletion of the Defenders of Wildlife DepredationCompensation Fund is highest here, although thereversibility of such a situation is unclear.
The reductions that wolves are projected to causein the prey populations would likely only be revers-ible if the wolf population was reduced throughillegal killing or higher natural wolf mortality due tolack of a prey base (although the wolves could switchtheir choice of primary prey if it was depleted, e.g.,from deer to elk). Due to the lack of flexibility toremove wolves ro assist the recovery of potentiallyseverely impacted prey populations, the potentialexists for a major decline in those herds, althoughthis is considered unlikely.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects would include those discussed,above, under the Preferred Alternative (Ah. A),which should be referred to. In addition, the full-endangered status of the wolves under Ah. C couldcreate serious management complications. A keyvegetation management issue will have to be con-fronted for the BRWRA in planning for the overalleffects of wolf reintroduction on the prey popula-tions and on the ecosystem. That is, at least for theApache NF, the general long-term vegetation trendsappear unfavorable for ungulates and wolves (HayesI 995). This area historically had far more open,unforested areas than exist today and the trend is
Environmental Consequences
toward an even more heavily forested situation.(Also, local perceptions that this situation was causedby federally-imposed protections for the Mexicanspotted owl and other threatened and endangeredspecies has resulted in a “backlash” against them (L.Allen, Coronado NF, pers. comm.).)
Deer generally benefit from forest openings withearly successional vegetation; thus, active loggingand other clearing ultimately benefit-s wolves byenhancing deer habitat (M. Nelson, Nat’1 Biol.Survey, pers. comm.). In the BRWRA the trend hasbeen toward less logging and clearing, largely result-ing from reductions imposed to protect the uneven-aged forest habitat favored by the federally-threat-ened Mexican spotted owl and by the Forest Service“sensitive” northern goshawk (SW Region USFS1993). This closed canopy forest provides lessungulate forage than more open areas (U.S. BLM1994). Also, many decades of fire control havecontributed to dominance of woody species informerly open areas. Approximately 125,000 acres,or about 5% of the Apache NF, would requiretreatment annually to mimic disturbance to theecosystem that occurred under a more natural fireoccurrence regime (Hayes 1994). This far exceedsthe current prescribed burning rate of about 2,000to 3,000 acres annually (Hayes 1995). The result is aforest with a higher risk of catastrophic crown firesthat kill virtually all trees within a burned area.
Thus, a potential management conflict existsbetween supporting wolf recovery and preservingMexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat.Wolf recovery would not directly impact owls orgoshawks, or any other endangered species in thearea such as the spikedace, loach minnow, or theApache trout (see Appendix D - Section 7 Consulta-tion). But indirectly managing to favor wolves andtheir prey through such actions as silviculturaltreatment, tree thinning, chaining, and prescribedburning (or allowing natural fires to burn) couldaffect those species. Owls and goshawks would beaffected by direct habitat alteration and the pro-tected fish could be indirectly affected by excessiveburning and other land-clearing activities that resultin stream degradation. On the other hand, the owlmanagement guidelines in the Mexican spotted owlrecovery plan (USFWS 1995) are intended toprovide land managers with flexibility to allow mostsilvicultural practices to occur, apart from even-agedmanagement and harvest of large trees in key habitat
4 - 3 8
areas, and to reduce excessive fuel levels to abate firerisks. This flexibility is most limited within the 100acres surrounding owl nest sites. Yet, wolf recoverymay contribute positively to owl recovery by reduc-ing overgrazing by deer and, particularly, elk in theBRWRA (USFWS 1995).
Consultation between the Forest Service and theFWS would be necessary to avoid actions favoringMexican wolves that jeopardized the other endan-gered species. Also, these actions would be managedto minimize potential taking of wolves themselves,e.g., by fire. The ultimate effect likely will be greaterneed for biological impact assessments of proposedmanagement actions. A carefully-planned manage-ment partitioning of the Apache and Gila NFlandscape so as to provide the optimum distributionof required habitat to meet the life-history needs ofall protected species in the area may be necessary (seeHansen et al. 1993). Site-specific planning effortswould assist the Forest Service in describing desiredfuture conditions necessary to support outputs fromthe land (Hayes 1995). This would also providebackground information for the Apache and GilaForest Plan amendment process.
Needed studies and planning efforts likely wouldlead to additional costs and delays initially, buttaking a proactive approach may reduce future costsand delays that would result from case-by-caseanalyses of impacts on a single endangered speciesbasis. Mexican wolf recovery (under any alternative)likely would stimulate more of an ecosystem ap-proach in the management of these multiple endan-gered species areas. This fits with the recent FWSpolicy emphasis on cooperative, ecosystem-widerecovery planning (Beattie et al. 1994). Put suc-cinctly, this means (Beattie et al. 1994, citing Clarkand Zaunbrecher 1987):
“Management of natural resources usingsystemwide concepts to ensure that all plants andanimals in ecosystems are maintained at viable levelsin native habitats and basic ecosystem processes areperpetuated indefinitely.”
Environmental Consequences
Consequences of Alternative D:
No action.
Introduction
Under this “no action” alternative, no impacts areexpected in the BRWRA or WSWRA as no wolveswill be reintroduced. The most likely areas forpossible natural wolf recolonization are closer toMexico, that is, southwestern New Mexico, south-eastern Arizona, and Big Bend National Park.However, if Mexican wolves somehow did eventuallynaturally recolonize the BRWRA or WSWRA, theywould have full-endangered status. The conse-quences would be similar to those described underthe Consequences of Ah. C, the reintroduction ofwolves with full ESA protection.
Uncertainty exists regarding whether wildMexican wolves survive in Mexico, whether they willrecolonize the U.S. areas under consideration, and, ifso, when and in what numbers. It appears likely that“no wolves”-and no impacts-will occur under thisalternative. Thus, the value of quantitative modellingof impacts is limited. Impacts are discussed qualita-tively only and should be considered highlyspeculative.
The Potential NaturalRecolonization Areas
Southeastern Arizona
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves.-Both white-tailed and mule deer occupy the probable typicalhabitat for Mexican wolves in southeastern Arizona,from Madrean evergreen woodlands to chaparral andsemi-desert grasslands. Javelina are abundant andcould provide a secondary diet for wolves. If wolfrecolonization occurs, the projected maximumpopulation in the southeastern Arizona potentialnatural recolonization area would be 30 wolves.Given the relatively sparse deer population in thearea, this number of wolves could exert a majorimpact on the deer. Thus, the ultimate carryingcapacity of the area for wolves may be less thaninitially projected. Also, wolves could impact thesmall population of Chihuahuan pronghorns (listedby Arizona as threatened) in the area. The Fort
4-39
Huachuca herd, in particular, is currently heavilyimpacted by coyote predation on fawns that ADC isattempting to hold in check. The presence of full-endangered wolves might not only result in morefawn predation, but also could limit the tools ADCcould use in its control efforts. On the other hand,wolves might reduce the numbers of coyotes.
Impacts on Hunting.-If Mexican wolves diddisperse to the area from Mexico, wildlife managerswould need to re-examine and possibly adjusthunting and ungulate management to reflectchanges in prey mortality caused by wolves.
Impacts on Livestock.-If natural recolonizationhappens, some losses of the 37,400 cattle in the areawould be expected. Ranchers may be reimbursed bythe private Defenders of Wildlife DepredationCompensation Fund.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs.-Becausefederal ADC activities in the Coronado NF south ofInterstate 10 have been very limited, the effects ofwolves on ADC activities would be minimal. Be-cause naturally recolonizing wolves would be fullyprotected as endangered the ADC may need toconsult with the FWS under Section 7 of the ESAregarding ad hoc requests from livestock owners tocontrol predators, as well as from Fort Huachuca.Techniques that could jeopardize wolves, such astrapping, snaring, and M-44s could be limited orprohibited in occupied wolf range. However, inArizona, a new anti-trapping law passed in 1994disallows use of traps and snares on all public landsfor depredation control. Private taking of wolveswould be illegal; private use of traps might berestricted if necessary to reduce the risk of illegallytaking a wolf and private shooting of coyotes mightbe restricted if wolves were being mistaken forcoyotes and shot.
Mexican wolves dispersing into the area couldcompete with coyotes, black bears, mountain lions,and bobcats. This competition could reduce ordisplace populations of these predators, but theextent of such competition cannot be predicted withconfidence.
Impacts on Agency and Local GovernmentPolicies and Plans.The Forest Service goals ofenhancing ecosystem diversity and restoring range-
Environmental Consequences
lands would be consistent with management forwolves under this alternative, primarily because theymay enhance ungulate populations. However,management to protect full-endangered wolvesmight impact the management of public landlivestock grazing, pursuant to consultations with theFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. Grazing practicesmight need revision to reduce livestock depredationand the associated potential for illegal killings ofwolves. Such steps could include, for example,seasonal removal of livestock from key areas andrequiring changes in husbandry to produce a morecontrolled calving situation such as calving near theranch headquarters and controlled breeding toproduce a more uniform calving period. (However,these outcomes have not occurred in other regionswhere threatened or endangered wolves have recov-ered.) The Coronado NF plan likely would needamending to enhance management for ungulate preyand to prioritize management for wolves in relationto the other uses of the forest.
Impacts on Lund Use and Military Activities.-Natural wolf recolonization under Ah. D should notaffect the major land uses in the Coronado NF area:mining and recreational and vacation development(grazing is discussed above). Restrictions probablywould not be imposed on these activities, with oneexception. Commencing operations on a mine,development, or other disturbing activity could bedelayed during the spring denning season or summerrendezvous season if wolves established a den orrendezvous site in the immediate area. However,wolves in Minnesota are able to tolerate noise andblast effects associated with mining (Mech 1993a).Mech (1993b) also has pointed out that wolf recov-ery need not conflict with low density developmentfor homes, recreational facilities, power lines, and soon.
Fort Huachuca conducts few military tests ormaneuvers in the mountainous areas. Wolf recoverylikely would not pose a major conflict with the Fort’sactivities.
Impacts on Recreation. -Visitor access by trail orroad might be limited or temporarily blocked in thevicinity of an active den or rendezvous site. Roadsmight be closed to reduce illegal killings if theyoccur. Visitor use might increase. If so, the demandfor recreational facilities could increase.
4 - 4 0
Regional Economic Impacts.-The large sector ofthe population in southeastern Arizona that relieseconomically on Fort Huachuca would not beaffected by naturally recolonizing wolves, nor wouldbusinesses and trade associated with the heavily-usedNogales border crossing. Natural recovery of theMexican wolf in southeastern Arizona likely wouldcause some economic losses to livestock owners andlost hunting value and hunter expenditures. Benefitsassociated with reintroduction might accrue due tothe positive value many Arizonans would place onthe existence of wolves in the state (Johnson 1990).The tourism industry could benefit if visitors cometo the area to view or hear wolves.
Southwestern New Mexico
Impacts on Wild Pry of Wolves.-If naturalrecolonization occurs, the projected maximumpopulation in southwestern New Mexico would be20 wolves. Their prey would consist primarily ofmule deer and some Coues white-tailed deer, javeli-na, and pronghorn. Some concern exists regardingwolf predation on Gould’s wild turkeys and white-sided jackrabbits, listed as endangered by the State ofNew Mexico, but major effects on these species arenot expected (Hubbard 1994).
Impacts on Hunting.-If Mexican wolves diddisperse to the area from Mexico, wildlife managerswould need to re-examine and possibly adjusthunting and ungulate management to reflectchanges in prey mortality.
Impacts on Livestock.-If natural recolonizationhappens, some losses of the 23,500 cattle in the areawould be expected. Ranchers may be reimbursed bythe private Defenders of Wildlife DepredationCompensation Fund.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs.- BecauseADC has already agreed to limit its use of tech-niques that could jeopardize wolves in southwesternNew Mexico, such as trapping, snaring, and usingM-44~ (Fowler-Propst 1993), there should not beadditional impacts if wolves do, in fact, recolonize.Private taking of wolves would be illegal; private useof M-44s and traps may be restricted if necessary toreduce the risk of illegally taking a wolf and private
Environmental Consequences
shooting of coyotes might be restricted if wolveswere being mistaken for coyotes and shot.
Mexican wolves dispersing into the area mightcompete with coyotes, black bears, mountain lions,and bobcats. This competition could reduce ordisplace populations of these predators, but theextent of such competition cannot be predicted withconfidence.
Impacts on Agency and Local GovernmentPolicies and I)lans.-Management to protect full-endangered wolves might impact the management ofpublic land livestock grazing. Grazing practicesmight need revision to reduce livestock depredationand the associated potential for illegal killings ofwolves. Such steps could include, for example,removal of livestock from key areas and requiringchanges in husbandry so as to reduce open-rangecalving. (However, these outcomes have not oc-curred in other regions where threatened or endan-gered wolves have recovered.) The Coronado NFplan likely would need amending to enhance man-agement for ungulate prey and to prioritize manage-ment for wolves in relation to the other uses of theforest.
HidaIgo County’s ordinance prohibiting therelease of non-resident canids would not conflictwith wolf management under this alternative be-cause wolves would be naturally recolonizing. Thecounty development plan’s emphasis on economic,mineral, and recreational opportunities should notconflict with management of full-protected wolves.
IfnpLzcts on Land Use.--Other than potentialrestrictions on grazing management and some roadclosures, few land use restrictions are likely. How-ever, the high proportion of private land in the areacompared to the other areas addressed in this FEISmeans that government managers probably wouldface greater difficulty in implementing the minortemporary land use restrictions needed to protectwolf dens and rendezvous sites from disturbancethan would be the case on public lands.
Impacts ora Recreation.-Few developed recreationalfacilities exist. Visitor use of the Coronado NF landsmight increase if wolves attract them. If so, thedemand for developed and dispersed recreationalfacilities may increase.
4-41
Regional Economic Impacts.-Wolf recolonizationin southwestern New Mexico likely would result insome economic losses to livestock owners and losthunting value and hunter expenditures. Benefitsassociated with reintroduction might accrue due tothe positive value many New Mexicans place on theexistence of wolves in the state (Biggs 1988; Dudaand Young 1995) and with increased visitation tothe area.
Big Bend National Park
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves.-If wolves recolo-nized Big Bend National Park, some reductions inprey populations, primarily white-tailed deer, muledeer, and javelina, could result. Little data existsregarding these populations. Mech (199 1) notedthat none of the several long-term studies conductedin hunting-free U.S. and Canadian nationai parkshave shown wolves to severely impact populations oftheir prey.
The projected maximum population in the parkunder this alternative would be five wolves. White-tailed deer and javelina might be more available asprey than mule deer because the Chisos Mountainhabitat of white-tailed deer and javelina overlapswith the likely preferred wolf habitat.
Impacts on Hunting.-Hunting in the park isprohibited. Hunting might be affected outside thepark if wolves dispersed into nearby areas, such asBig Bend State Natural Area and Black Gap WildlifeManagement Area, where hunting is the primarymanagement emphasis.
Impacts on Livestock-No livestock are legallypresent in the park. However, a very small numberof cattle trespassing from Mexico could be killed.Also, wolves might range out into ranch areasoutside the park and take a very small number ofcattle there.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs.-Nopredator control activities occur within park bound-aries. Coyote control does take place on surroundingprivate ranches. If endangered Mexican wolvesrecolonize the park, predator control programs onthese ranches could be restricted if necessary toreduce the risk of illegally taking a wolf and privateshooting of coyotes may be restricted if wolves were
Environmental Consequences
being mistaken for coyotes and shot. Wolves dispers-ing into the park might compete with coyotes, blackbears, mountain lions, and bobcats, especially in theChisos Mountains, where all four predators occur.This competition could reduce or displace popula-tions of these predators, but the extent of suchcompetition cannot be predicted with confidence.
Impacts on Agency and Local GovernmentPolicies and Planr.-Under Ah. D, Mexican wolvesdispersing into the park would receive full protec-tion under the Endangered Species Act. The Na-tional Park Service would be required to formallyconsult with the FWS to determine whether pro-posed park activities would likely jeopardize thecontinued existence of the wolves. The park’s mis-sion, to manage for recreation and conservation ofscenic, natural, wildlife and historical resources, isconsistent with wolf recovery. Park plans such as trailupgrading might need to be altered or limited if theyaffect wolves, but this is unlikely. Interpretive ser-vices also might need to accommodate increasedvisitor demand to see or hear wolves first-hand.Management of the 560,900 acres being consideredfor wilderness designation would not change, asdesignation would be consistent with wolf protec-tion.
The Texas statutory prohibition against possess-ing, transporting, receiving, or releasing live wolvesinto the state (Tex. Parks and Wild. Code Ann.§ 63. I 04) would not apply to naturally recolonizingwolves. Further, the Texas endangered species statute(Tex. Parks and Wild. Code Ann. $ 68.001) sup-ports wolf recovery.
Conclusion: Major impacts on agency policies andplans are not expected, but some changes in parkplans might be necessary.
Imparts on Land Devehpment.-If visitor useincreases because of the presence of wolves, a greaterdemand for recreational facilities could ensue.Increased development could result both in the parkand in nearby areas.
Impacts on Recreation.-Wolves probably wouldattract the public. The initiation of a wolf interpre-tive program could lead to enhanced visitor use. InAlgonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada, about60 public howling sessions have been conducted
4 -42
since 1963 (except 1966-68), with 74,250 visitorsparticipating through 1992 (averaging about 1,200per session) (Strickland 1992). Prince Albert, RidingMountain, and Jasper National Parks in Canada alsohave successful wolf howling programs, although ona smaller scale than those in Algonquin.
Visitor interactions with wolves in the ChisosMountains could occur, due to the high concentra-tion of visitor use in this area, especially during thesummer months and holidays. Visitor access by trailor road might need to be limited or temporarilyblocked to avoid disturbance of wolf dens andrendezvous sites. However, disturbance by visitors inthe desert regions of the park is unlikely because ofthe low concentration of visitors and limited accessi-bility, and because wolves probably would not preferthese areas.
Conclusion: Wolf recolonization could result inincreased visitation to the Big Bend National Parkand could require minor temporary restrictions onhuman access to particular areas as necessary toprevent harm to the wolves.
Regional Economic Impacts.-If wolves attractedmore visitors to the park, especially if the parkinitiates a special interpretive program, demand forconcessionaire services such as dining, lodging, andgift items could increase. Such an increase mightcontribute to Brewster County economically, wherethe park already is the largest employer, by increas-ing employment and visitor expenditures.
Summary of Adverse Effects ofAlternative D in the Three PotentialNatural Recolonization Areas
Deer in southeastern Arizona are the most likelyprey group to be impacted by recolonizing wolves.In addition, natural recolonization could result ineconomic losses to livestock owners in southwesternNew h/iexico and southeastern Arizona. Losses ofhunting value and hunter expenditures could occur.Restrictions on land use and predator controlactivities could be imposed in recognition of thewolves’ full-endangered status.
Natural recolonization in Big Bend NationalPark would have fewer adverse effects than any ofthe areas or alternatives discussed in this FEIS. The
Environmental Consequences
very low projected numbers of wolves, the absenceof livestock and hunting, and park managementobjectives consistent with wolf recovery wouldpreclude the main impacts that could occur else-where.
Relationship Between Short-term andLong-term Effects and the Enhancementof Long-Term Productivity
Under this alternative, no short-term effects wouldoccur except for program costs because no indicationexists that Mexican wolves will naturally recover inthe foreseeable future. Over the longer term, thesame types of potential adverse and beneficial effectscould occur that arise under the other full-ESAprotection alternative (Ah. C). However, the noaction alternative has the highest likelihood that nolong-term environmental effects will result at all, ifnatural wolf recolonization does not happen.
Irreversible and IrretrievableCommitments of Resources
From an economic perspective the only irreversibleand irretrievable commitments of resources wouldlie with the wolf program and management costsand any hunter and rancher economic losses as theyoccurred (Duffield and Neher 1994). In Appendix Bthese costs are presented based on two reasonablescenarios: wolves do not recolonize (the status quo)and wolves recolonize one of the areas. In the firstcase annual costs for the Mexican Wolf RecoveryProgram would continue at about $150,000 peryear. In the second case, monitoring, management,and other needs would cause annual costs to increaseto about $218,000 per year. Due to uncertaintyregarding the period of time over which thesescenarios might occur, if at all, no total costs areestimated.
This alternative squarely presents the prospect ofan irreversible and irretrievable loss of the wildMexican wolf type. Maintenance of the captivepopulation over several more generations, withoutnatural selection pressures but with domesticationpressures, may result in an animal too far removedfrom the wild type to be suitable for reintroduction.Risks of disease, possible future genetic problems,lack of zoo space, costs, and other factors could lead
4-43
to the permanent loss of the subspecies, if no addi-tional Mexican wolves are discovered in the wild.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects under this alternative are toodiffkult to predict with any confidence. If wolves donot recolonize, obviously no cumulative effects canbe described. If they do recolonize, depending onwhere and how, the types of cumulative effectsdescribed under Ah. C might occur.
Environmental Consequences
4 - 4 4
Chapter 5
Consultation and Coordination
Development of theProposal and the Draft
and Final EnvironmentalImpact Statements
C H A P T E R 5Consultation and Coordination
The FWS-the lead agency-and cooperatingagencies compiled a variety of information in orderto systematically analyze the potential impacts ofalternative approaches to re-establishing Mexicanwolves. Needed information was identified andcollected during and after the scoping process.Public scoping occurred in 199 1 and 1992. TheFWS held four public meetings attended by a totalof over 838 people, at which a total of 65 commentswere presented. The meetings were followed by awritten comment period, during which the FWSreceived 1,342 written comments. The results of thescoping process are summarized in Chap. 1,Table l-l.
Qualitative and quantitative data were gatheredon Mexican wolf biology, ecology, and history;species of special concern; potential wild prey ofwolves, including deer, elk, javelina, pronghorn,bighorn sheep, exotic ungulates, and small mam-mals; livestock predators such as coyotes, bears, andmountain lions; predator control activities; landownership, use, and management, including militaryactivities; grazing, forestry, mining, and recreationalactivities; and regional economies and populations.The information came from many sources, includingfederal, tribal, state, and local agency files, personalcommunications, on-site visits, scientific literature,and experts’ analyses. Wolf biologists, predatorcontrol experts, economists, resource managers,livestock producers, wildlife biologists, and otherswere consulted.
The FWS contracted with the Center for Wild-life Law at the University of New Mexico School ofLaw to coordinate the EIS process and to be primari-ly responsible for drafting the document. The FWSthen asked cooperating federal agencies to appoint arepresentative to an interdisciplinary (ID) team tooversee the writing of the EIS (see List of Preparers).Also, representatives were sought as consultants fromthe Arizona and New Mexico Departments of Game
and Fish and from the potentially affected tribes.The ID team oversaw the formulation of the Pro-posed Action (including the proposed Mexican WolfExperimental Population Rule - Appendix C), thewolf recovery alternatives, and the analysis of theirimpacts.
The ID team met ten times during the develop-ment of this EIS, beginning in April, 1993. Also,FWS and Center for Wildlife Law staff attendedmany informal meetings with representatives of thepotentially affected public, local governments,agencies, and organizations to discuss the EISprocess and to obtain background information. Amailing list was compiled that now has over 6,000individuals and organizations. Regular status reportson the progress of the EIS and Mexican wolf recov-ery were sent to those on the mailing list.
Consultants were contracted for technicalanalyses. These were Katherine Green-Hammond ofAlbuquerque, New Mexico, a prey populationmodeler, and John Duffreld and Chris Neher ofBioeconomics, a natural resources economics con-sulting firm in Missoula, Montana. Also, two expertsurveys were conducted, one on livestock depre-dation and the other on wild prey impacts.
All of the information was compiled at theCenter for Wildlife Law. The FWS, the ID teammembers and their agencies, the Mexican WolfRecovery Team, and other potentially affectedagencies contributed to, reviewed, and revised theinternal EIS drafts prepared at the Center for Wild-life Law. The FWS had final approval authority overthe entire draft and final EISs.
Concurrently with preparation of the DEIS bythe FWS, the State of Arizona developed a “Coop-erative Reintroduction Plan for the Mexican Wolf inArizona” (Groebner et al. 1995). The FWS cooper-ated in this effort. The FWS also has attempted tocooperate with the local governments that may beaffected. The FWS has requested informationrelevant to drafting the EIS, held meetings withindividual county officials, invited county represen-tatives to ID team meetings as consultants, madebackground information available, held a joint DEISpublic comment meeting with one county that
5-I
requested it, and reviewed and responded to com-ments and studies prepared by county consultants.
The DEIS was released in June, 1995. Reviewcomments on it are responded to at the end of thischapter. The Public Comment Summary documentincludes a full recounting of hearings and openhouses that the FWS held on the DEIS.
Notice
The FWS has final sole responsibility for the con-tents of this EIS. Participation or review by represen-tatives of other agencies does not imply concurrence,endorsement, or agreement to any recommenda-tions, conclusions, or statements in this document.
Agencies, Organizations, andPersons Sent the DEIS for Review
Copies of the DEIS were provided to federal, state,and local agencies, Native American tribes, busi-nesses, interest groups, and other organizations listedbelow that could be affected by the final decision,and to all contributors to the writing of this docu-ment. These individuals and organization are alsobeing sent the FEIS, as are other individuals andorganizations that requested it, as well some othersthat the FWS determined should receive it. Alimited number of additional copies of the FEIS areavailable, upon request. Also, copies are beingprovided to public libraries, listed below, in citiesand towns throughout the potentially affected areasin Arizona, New Mexico, and Brewster County,Texas.
Federal Agencies
Council on Environmental QualityDirector, Information Ofice
Department of AgricultureSecretary of AgricultureAPHIS Animal Damage Control
Director, Western RegionState Directors - Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
Forest ServiceRegional Forester, Southwest RegionSupervisor, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
Consultation and Coordination
Supervisor, Cibola National ForestSupervisor, Coronado National ForestSupervisor, Gila National ForestSupervisor, Lincoln National Forest
Director, Jornada Experimental Range
Department of the ArmyCommander, Fort Bliss Army Reserve Facility and
Air Defense Artillery CenterCommander, Fort Huachuca Army GarrisonCommander, Holloman Air Force BaseCommander, White Sands Missile Range
Department of the InteriorSecretary of the InteriorBureau of Indian Aftairs
OffIce of DirectorArea Director, Albuquerque
Bureau of Land ManagementOffIce of DirectorState Directors - Arizona, New Mexico, Texas
Fish and Wildlife ServiceOffIce of DirectorRegional Director, Region 2Ecological Services Field Offices -
Arizona, New Mexico, TexasManager, Bosque de1 ApacheNational Wildlife RefugeManager, San Andres NationalWildlife Re&geManager, Sevilleta NationalWildlife Refuge
National Biological SurveyOffice of Director
National Park ServiceOf&e of DirectorRegional Director, Southwest RegionRegional Director, Western RegionSuperintendent, Big Bend National ParkSuperintendent, Chiricahua National
MonumentSuperintendent, Coronado National MemorialSuperintendent, Gila Cliff Dwellings
National MonumentSuperintendent, White Sands National
Monument
Environmental Protection AgencyDirector, Office of Federal Activities
Regional Director, Region 8, Denver, Colorado
5-2
Consultation and Coordination
National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationDirector, White Sands Test Facility
State DepartmentAhmed Meer, Science Office,
U.S. Embassy, Mexico City
State Agencies
State of New MexicoOffke of GovernorCommissioner, State Land Of&eDirector, Department of AgricultureDirector, Department of Game and FishNew Mexico State House of RepresentativesNew Mexico State SenatePresident, University of New MexicoPresident, New Mexico State UniversityPresident, Western New Mexico University
State of ArizonaOffice of GovernorArizona State House of RepresentativesArizona State SenateDirector, Department of AgricultureDirector, Department of Game and FishPresident, Arizona State UniversityPresident, University of Arizona
Tribal Governments
Chairman, Mescalero Apache TribeChairman, San Carlos Apache TribeChairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe
Government of Mexico
Biol. Javier de la Maza, Direcci6nGeneral de Aprovechamiento
Ecologico de 10s Recursos Naturalts,Instituto National de Ecologia
County Governments
County Managers, Boards of Supervisors,and County CommissionsApache County, ArizonaCochise County, ArizonaGila County, Arizona
Graham County, ArizonaGreenlee County, ArizonaNavajo County, ArizonaPima County, ArizonaSanta Cruz County, ArizonaCatron County, New MexicoDofia Ana County, New MexicoGram County, New MexicoHidalgo County, New MexicoLincoln County, New MexicoOtero County, New MexicoSierra County, New MexicoSocorro County, New MexicoBrewster County, Texas
Courtesy copies of the DEIS and FEIS were alsoprovided to all members of the United StatesCongress that represent the potentially affectedareas in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Senator Jon Kyl, ArizonaSenator John McCain, ArizonaRep. Jim Kolbe, ArizonaRep. Ed Pastor, ArizonaSenator Jeff Bingaman, New MexicoSenator Pete Domenici, New MexicoRep. Joe Skeen, New MexicoSenator Phil Gramm, TexasSenator Kaye Bailey Hutchinson, TexasRep. Henry Bonilla, Texas
Businesses and Organizations
AAZPA Conservation CenterBethesda, MD
Albuquerque Wildlife FederationAlbuquerque, NM
Alpine Chamber of CommerceAlpine, AZ
Alpine Golf PropertiesAlpine, AZ
Animal Defense Council, Inc.Tucson, AZ
Arizona Wildlife FederationMesa, AZ
Arizona Trail RidersPhoenix, AZ
Arizona Cattle Growers AssociationPhoenix, AZ
5-3
Arizona Wool Producers AssociationPhoenix, AZ
Arizona Nature ConservancyTucson, AZ
Arizonans for Wildlife ConservationYuma, AZ
Blue River CowbellsBlue, AZ
Board of TourismSpringerville, AZ
Coalition of AZ/NM CountiesCatron County, Glenwood, NM
Coalition of AZ/NM CountiesLincoln County, Carrizozo, NM
Coalition of AZ/NM CountiesSocorro County, Socorro, NM
Coalition of AZ/NM CountiesApache County, Eager, AZ
Coalitron of AZ/NM CountiesGreenlee County, Clifton, AZ
Coalitron of AZ/NM CountiesSierra County, Truth orConsequences, NM
Coalition of AZ/NM CountiesFor Stable Economic GrowthGlenwood, NM
Cochise-Graham Cattle Growers Ass’nPearce, AZ
Committee of Wilderness Supporters Inc.Las Cruces, NM
Coronado Scenic Trail AssociationClifton, AZ
Davis Mountains Trans-PecosHeritage AssociationAlpine, TX
Defenders of WildlifeNorthern Rockies Field OffriceMissoula, MT
Defenders of Wildlife,Southwest Field OficeTucson, AZ
Defenders of WildlifeWashington, D.C.
Dona Ana County SportsmanAssociationLas Cruces, NM
Eastern Counties OrganizationClifton, AZ
Fundacion Chihuahuense de la FaunaChihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico
Consultation and Coordination
Gila Valley Natural ResourcesConservation DistrictSafford, AZ
Gila WatchSilver City, NM
Gila Archery AssociationSilver City, NM
Greenlee County CattlegrowersClifton, AZ
Hannagan Meadow LodgeAlpine, AZ
Holistic Management InstituteAlbuquerque, NM
Hotchkiss Sawmill & Lumber Co.Silver City, NM
Instituto de Ecologia, Unidad DurangoDurango, DurangoMexico
International Wolf CenterEly, MN
Malpais - Borderlands ProjectDouglas, AZ
Maricopa Audubon SocietyPhoenix, AZ
Mexican Wolf Coalition of TexasSpring, TX
Mexican Wolf CoalitionAlbuquerque, NM
National Audubon SocietyBoulder, CO
National Audubon SocietyNew Mexico OfficeSanta Fe, NM
Native EcosystemsTucson, AZ
New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.Roswell, NM
New Mexico Wool GrowersYeso, NM
New Mexico Farm &Livestock BureauLas Cruces, NM
New Mexico Cattle GrowersAssociationAlbuquerque, NM
New Mexico Land Use AllianceSilver Ciry, NM
Northern Arizona Audubon SocietySedona, AZ
5-4
People for the WestSacramento Mountains ChapterWeed, NM
Precision Pine & Timber, Inc.Heber, AZ
Preservation of Caballo MountainsTruth or Consequences, NM
Preserve Arizona’s WolvesPhoenix, AZ
Protection de la FaunaMexicana A.C.Centro SaltilloCoahuila, Mexico
Public Lands Action NetworkSanta Fe, NM
Reidhead Brothers Lumber MillNutrioso, AZ
Region 1 Guide Ass’nAlpine, AZ
Round River Conservation StudiesCollege of Santa FeSanta Fe, NM
Sierra ClubSouthwest Regional OffrcePhoenix, AZ
Sierra Club Rio Grande ChapterLas Cruces, NM
Sky Island AllianceTucson, AZ
Southwest Center for BiodiversityPhoenix, AZ
Southwest Regional DirectorNative American Fish andWildlife SocietyAlbuquerque, NM
Stone Forest IndustriesEagar, AZ
Sportsman’s VoiceSpringerville, AZ
Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers’ Ass’nSan Angelo, TX
The Nature ConservancySanta Fe, NM
The Wildlife SocietyBethesda, MD
The Wildlife Society, AZ ChapterPhoenix, AZ
The Wildlife Society, NM ChapterLas Cruces, NM
The Wildlands ProjectTucson, AZ
Trail Riders
Consultation and Coordination
Magdalena, NMTucson Rod & Gun Club
Tucson, AZWestern States Public Land Coalition
Safford, AZWestern New Mexico Houndsman Ass’n
Reserve, NMWhite Mountain Chamber of Commerce
Springerville, AZ
Public Libraries
Benson Public LibraryBenson, AZ
Cochise County LibraryBisbee, AZ
Copper Queen LibraryBisbee, AZ
Clifton-Greenlee County Public LibraryClifton, AZ
Douglas Public LibraryDouglas, AZ
Duncan Public LibraryDuncan, AZ
Globe Public LibraryGlobe, AZ
Hayden Public LibraryHayden, AZ
Holbrook Public LibraryHolbrook, AZ
Huachuca City Public LibraryHuachuca City, AZ
Larson Memorial Public LibraryLakeside, AZ
Miami Memorial-Gila County LibraryMiami, AZ
Nogales City-Santa Cruz County LibraryNogales Public LibraryNogales, AZ
Patagonia Public LibraryPatagonia, AZ
University of PhoenixLearning Resources Services CenterPhoenix, AZ
Pima Public Library-Graham CountyPima, AZ
5-5
Safford City-Graham County LibrarySafford, AZ
Apache County LibrarySaint Johns, AZ
San Carlos Public LibrarySan Carlos, AZ
Show Low Public LibraryShow Low, AZ
Sierra Vista Public LibrarySierra Vista, AZ
Snowflake Town LibrarySnowflake, AZ
Round Valley Public LibrarySpringerville, AZ
Tempe Public LibraryTempe, AZ
Tombstone Reading StationTombstone, AZ
Arizona State Museum LibraryUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Tucson-Pima LibraryTucson, AZ
University of Arizona LibraryTucson, AZ
Whiteriver Public LibraryWhiteriver, AZ
Elsie S. Hogan Community LibraryWillcox, AZ
Young Public LibraryYoung, AZ
Alamogordo Public LibraryAlamogordo, NM
New Mexico State University atAlamogordo LibraryLearning Resource CenterAlamogordo, NM
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County PublicLibrary SystemAlbuquerque, NM
Hatch Public LibraryHatch, NM
Holloman Air Force Base LibraryHolloman AFB, NM
Thomas Branigan Memorial LibraryLas Cruces Public LibraryLas Cruces, NM
New Mexico State University LibraryLas Cruces, NM
Consultation and Coordination
Lordsburg-Hidalgo LibraryLordsburg, NM
Village of Reserve LibraryReserve, NM
Ruidoso Public LibraryRuidoso, NM
College of Santa FeFogelson Library CenterSanta Fe, NM
The Public LibrarySilver City, NM
Western New Mexico UniversityMiller LibrarySilver City, NM
Socorro Public LibrarySocorro, NM
Truth or Consequences Public LibraryTruth or Consequences, NM
United States Army Post LibraryWhite Sands Missile Range, NM
Alpine Public LibraryAlpine, TX
Sul Ross State UniversityBryan Wildenthal Memorial LibraryAlpine, TX
List of Preparers
The draft and final EIS were prepared by the Centerfor Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico, underthe supervision of the Mexican Wolf RecoveryProgram, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. Peoplewho contributed substantially are listed below.Others too numerous to list provided informationon various subjects.
Mexican Wolf EISInterdisciplinary Team
Larry &-Regional Mexican Wolf Coordinator,Coronado National Forest. B.S. in Forestry, StephenF. Austin State University, 1960. Range, Watershed,Timber, and Ecosystems St& Officer, CoronadoNational Forest, 1979-present. Extensive experiencein wildlife, range, watershed, timber, and fire man-agement on seven national forests in New Mexicoand Arizona, including assignments as DistrictRanger and National Forest St&Oficer.
5-6
Jim BailgcAssisrant Division Chief, ConservationServices, New Mexico Department of Game andFish. B.S. in Forestry, Michigan TechnologicalUniversity. M.S. and Ph.D. in Wildlife Biology,State University of New York College of Forestry.Past positions include Professor, Colorado StateUniversity, Instructor, University of Montana, andResearch Biologist, Illinois Natural History Survey.
Cecil Brown-Wildlife Biologist, Recreation andWildlife Department, San Carlos Apache Tribe. B.S.in Wildlife Management, Colorado State University,1965. San Carlos Apache Tribe, Wildlife Manage-ment Biologist, 1992-present. Idaho Department ofFish and Game, Conservation Officer and ResearchBiologis c, 1969- 199 1. Range Management Depart-ment, Oregon State University, 1968- 1969, researchon range inventory techniques and analysis of rangeresources. U.S. Geological Survey, Cartographer,1958-1963.
John Cad-Assistant Director, Game and FishDepartment, White Mountain Apache Tribe. B.A. inBusiness Administration (1974)) B.S. in Biology(1978), and Graduate Studies (1978- 1979), Univer-sity of Arizona. Biologist, White Mountain ApacheTribe Game and Fish Department, 1979-1988.Apache trout recovery team member, 1979-present.
Lindy R Ford-Electronics Engineer, White SandsMissile Range. B.S. in electrical engineering, Texas A& M University, 1970. Project Engineer, WhiteSands Missile Range.
Jim Gonzales--Assistant Division Chief, Division ofWildlife, New Mexico Department of Game andFish. B.S. in Wildlife Management (1974) and M.S.in Biology (1982), Eastern New Mexico University.Southwest Area Wildlife Manager with NMDGF,1983-1986. Bobcat Research Biologist withNMDGF, 1978-l 983. Public Affairs Officer withNMDGF, 1975- 1976. NMDGF Wildlife DistrictOfficer, 1974- 1975 and I 976- 1977.
Dan Groebner-Arizona Game and Fish Depart-ment, Wolf Biologist. B.S. in Wildlife, Biology andResource Management, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 1983. M.A. in Biology, NorthernMichigan University, 199 1 (studied 24-hour move-ments of Minnesota wolves). Wolf Biologist for the
Consultation and Coordination
Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1994 topresent. Field Course Instructor for the InternationalWolf Center, 1987- 1993. Educational Coordinatorof the International Wolf Center, 1988-1991.Principal Investigator of Earthwatch Wolf TrackingProject in Wisconsin and Minnesota, 1985-1993.Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources TimberWolf Project, 1982- 1984.
Frank Hayes-District Ranger, Clifton RangerDistrict, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. B.S. inWildlife Science, New Mexico State University,1973. M.S. in Range Science, University of Idaho,1978. Wildlife Biologist with Cibola NationalForest, 1988-199 1. District Range/Wildlife staff onGuadalupe Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest,1980- 1988. Range Conservationist with BLM,1976- 1980. Fire and helicopter management withApache National Forest, 1974-1976.
Peter Je&&zs--Program Manager, Institute ofPublic Law, University of New Mexico School ofLaw. Mexican Wolf EIS Coordinator and PrincipalAuthor; Interdisciplinary Team Leader, undercontract with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. B.A.,Hampshire College, 1979. J-D. cum laude, Univer-sity of Puget Sound School of Law, 1983. Masters inEnvironmental Studies, School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies, Yale University, 1990. U.S.Congress Ofice of Technology Assessment, policyanalyst, 1990-1992. Private law practice in Seattle,WA, emphasizing environmental and land use law,1984- 1989. Coordinator, Washington Wolf Project,1985-1989.
Teny Johnson-Chief of Nongame and EndangeredWildlife, Arizona Game and Fish Department. B.S.in Zoology, Central State College, Oklahoma, 1969.M.S. in Ecology, Stephen F. Austin State University,Texas, 197 1. Pre-doctoral studies in Ecology andEvolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, 1971-198 1. Various positions in biological consulting,1975- 1982. Coordinator of the Arizona NaturalHeritage Program for The Nature Conservancy andthe State of Arizona (1979- 1983). Nongame Chiefat Arizona Game and Fish since 1983. Member of,or advisor to, various endangered species recovery ormanagement teams, etc. Fellow, Arizona-NevadaAcademy of Sciences.
5-7
David R Parson.-Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordi-nator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, B.S. in Fisher-ies and Wildlife Biology, Iowa State University,1969. M.S. in Wildlife Biology, Oregon StateUniversity, 1975. Various positions, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, 1975-present. Duties includednatural resource management coordination, environ-mental impact analysis and mitigation, researchgrant administration, and endangered speciesrecovery.
Richard PbiLlip+State Director, U.S.D.A. AnimalDamage Control. Arizona State Director, APHIS-ADC, 1992-present. 25 years experience in animaldamage control, first with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and later with U.S.D.A.-APHIS-ADC.
Greg Schmitt-Endangered Species Biologist, NewMexico Department of Game and Fish. B.S. inWildlife Science, New Mexico State University,1971: M.S. in Wildlife Science, New Mexico StateUniversity, 1973. New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish, 1974 to present. Duties have includedworking with nongarne wildlife, with emphasis onendangered species, throughout New Mexico (13years) and working on waterfowl, sandhill cranes,and upland game species (7 years).
Daisan Taylor-Senior Wildlife Biologist, Environ-mental Services Division, Directorate of Environ-ment and Safety, U.S. Army White Sands MissileRange. B.S. in Wildlife Management/Biology,University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, 1976. M.S.in Wildlife Science, Purdue University, 1978.Wildlife Specialist II with Arizona Game and FishDepartment, 1980- 1982. Held present positionsince 1982, with emphasis on threatened and endan-gered species issues and Endangered Species Actcompliance.
Consultants
Wendy Brown-Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Coordinating public informationand education program and other facets of theMexican Wolf Recovery Program.
John Du#%&&-Economist, Bioeconomics,Missoula, MT. Professor of Economics, University ofMontana. Analyzed economic impacts.
Consultation and Coordination
Steven H. F&s-Wolf Scientist, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Provided wolf biology and manage-ment expertise.
Ad& Girmendonk-Wildlife Biologist, ArizonaDepartment of Game and Fish. Conducted researchon wolves and Arizona wildlife.
titbleen Grass&-Graphics Specialist, Institute ofPublic Law, University of New Mexico. Providedgraphics assistance.
k&he Green-Hammond-Consultant in ecosystemmodelling. Provided prey base computer modellinganalysis.
Ray t&r&-Mapping Specialist, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Provided all map figures.
Ma&Johnson-Veterinarian, Yellowstone NationalPark, WY. Veterinary review.
Patrick MorroutBiologist, White Sands MissileRange. Provided game data and hunting informa-tion.
Cbrzk Neber-Economist, Bioeconomics, Missoula,MT. Analyzed economic impacts.
Dan Phcber-Associate Professor in Forestry,University of Montana. Provided information onwolves and prey impacts.
Miriam Wh’uk-Staff Attorney, University of NewMexico School of Law, Institute of Public Law.Research Analyst. Conducted research and wroteportions of the DEIS.
Mexican Wolf Recovery Team
Larry Allen-Regional Wolf Coordinator, CoronadoNational Forest.
Javier de la Maza-Direction General,Aprovechamiento Ecologico de 10s Recursos Natu-rales, Instituto National de Ecologia, Mexico.
Steven H. Fritts-Wolf Scientist, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service.
5-8
Phil Hedrick-Department of Zoology, ArizonaState University.
TerryJohnson-Nongame and Endangered WildlifeCoordinator, Arizona Department of Game andFish.
David R Parsons-Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordi-nator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mike Pbil&+--Yellowstone National Park WolfRecovery Coordinator, National Park Service.
Greg Schmitt-Endangered Species Biologist, NewMexico Department of Game and Fish.
Peter Siminski--Mexican Wolf Species SurvivalPlan Coordinator, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum.
Technical Experts Surveyed
The FWS surveyed various experts on technicalissues related to potential wolf impacts on livestockand wild prey. The respondents were:
Livestock Impacts
Lawy Allen, U.S. Forest Service, ArizonaPaul Boucbe, U.S. Forest Service, New MexicoCecil Brown, San Carlos Apache Tribe, ArizonaJohn Caid, White Mountain Apache Tribe, ArizonaPbiL c&on, Arizona Cattlegrowers Association(;a?~ Davis, U.S. Forest Service, ArizonaJohn Fowler, New Mexico State UniversitySteve Fritts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MontanaMike I%SCO, New Mexico Cattlegrowers AssociationJohn C&son, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Alberta, Canada/ewy tiolocbek, New Mexico State UniversityMike Howard, Bureau of Land Management,
New MexicoJohn Mac&, National Park Service, WyomingRoy McBride, Ranchers Supply, Inc., TexasDavid Mecb, National Biological Survey, MinnesotaCurt MuLLis, US DA Animal Damage Control,
New MexicoCarter Niemeyer, USDA Animal Damage Control,
MontanaGary Nun@, USDA Animal Damage Control, Texas
Consultation and Coordination
Bill Paul, USDA Animal Damage Control,Minnesota
Rick PbiLl;Ps, USDA Animal Damage Control,Arizona
George Ruyle, University of ArizonaAlan Savory, Holistic Management, Inc.,
New Mexico
Wild Prey Impacts
Warren Ballard, University of New Brunswick,Canada
Lou Carbyn, Canadian Wildlife Service,Alberta, Canada
Todd Fuller, University of MassachusettsDavid Mecb, National Biological Survey, MinnesotaFrancois Messier, University of Saskatchewan,
CanadaMike Nelson, National Biological Survey, MinnesotaPaul Paquet, University of Alberta, CanadaRolfPeterson, Michigan Tech UniversityDan Phscber, University of MontanaJon Racbaei, Idaho Department of Game and Fish
Participants in DEIS OpenHouses and Public Hearings
The following individuals participated in the openhouses and public hearings held on the DEIS:
Arizona Game and Fish Department:Dan Groebner, Terry JohnsonNew Mexico Department of Game and Fish:Jim Bailey, Eddie Bennett, Greg SchmittU.S.D.A. Animal Damage Control:Richard PhillipsU.S. D.A. Forest Service:Larry Allen, Frank Hayes, Sandy Knight,Andrea MartinezU.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service:Charles Ault, Wendy Brown, Nick Chavez, DomCiconne, George Divine, Yvonne Fernandez, ScottHeard, Mark Johnson, John KeeLer, Ken Kessler, Mikehcckino, Susan MacMuLLin, CoLLeen McNerney, DougMcKenna, Kathy Granillo, Bill Myer, Bud Oliveira,David Parsons, Cindy Schroeder, Steve Spangle GregStover, Hans StuartUniversity of New Mexico:Peter Jenkins, Mimi WoLok
5-9
White Sands Missile Range:Daisan TaylorHearing Offker:Lo ta rio OrtegaHearing Court Reporters:Steve Brenner, Caroline Chapman, andShannon Stevenson
Consultation and Coordination
Comments on the DEISand FWS Responses
Attached are the letters, with FWS responses, fromagency, government, tribal, and legislativecommenters on the DEIS. That is followed by asummary of comments on the DEIS received fromthe public, also with FWS responses.
5-10
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Responses to Agency, Government, Tribal,and Legislator Comments
Introduction
Below are the reproduced comment letters on the DEIS from federal, state, and tribal agencies, mem-bers of the United States Congress, state legislators, and local governments. The FWS responses aregiven in the right column. Generally, if a comment has already been raised and responded to in thePublic Comment Summary, or in response to a previous official’s letter, it is not responded to a secondtime. Issues that are legal or policy based, or are unrelated to the DEIS, are generally not responded to.
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture -Animal Damage Control:
1. The FWS has issued the ProposedMexican Wolf Experimental Population Ruleand intends to analyze public and agencycomments on it prior to issuing the Record ofDecision. It would be inappropriate to issue afinal rule prior to the reintroduction decision.If the decision is to not reintroduce wolves orto reintroduce wolves with Full endangeredstatus, then there would be no needto issue a final rule.
2. Population goals for the reintroductionproposal that is set forth and analyzed in thisEIS are based on the 1982 Mexican WolfRecovery Plan and are considered appropriateby the FWS. If additional recovery actions aredeemed appropriate based on an approvedrevision of the Recovery Plan, full compliancewith NEPA would be required for any futureproposed actions.
5-11
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3. While the Mexican Wolf Recovery Teamis revising the Recovery Plan, no approveddraft plan exists (as of this writing). It wouldbe inappropriate to conduct NEPA analysis onspeculative, unapproved objectives. The goalspresented in the ADC letter were merely anearly suggestion that has not been approved. It
should be noted, too, that a majority of theMexican wolf’s original range is in Mexico
and recovery actions implemented there couldcontribute to overall recovery goals.
4. If a nonessential experimental populationof Mexican wolves is established, the FWSforesees no reason to change that classificationuntil the subspecies is removed from ESAprotection (i.e., de-listed).
5. We agree. Full support of an ADC wolfspecialist position by the FWS is a part of thePreferred Alternative. Appendix B has beenrevised to more clearly demonstrate this.
6. It is difficult to foresee all the futurescenarios and what actions would be appropri-ate following a hypothetical “termination” ofthe reintroduction project. We believe thisdecision should be made by the officialmanagement group based upon then currentdata and information and input from theadvisory group and/or the public.
7. This idea probably would not be legal aslong as the Mexican wolf remains listed as athreatened or endangered species under theESA.
8. We agree and intend to revise the finalexperimental population rule, if issued, asADC has suggested.
9. We agree that the actual observation of awolf attack on domestic livestock grazing onpublic lands will likely be rare. Endangeredspecies conservation is also a legal use of
public lands. By law, ESA section 10(j)(2)(a),the FWS must determine that the release of anexperimental population will further theconservation of the animal. We believe thelimitations imposed in the Proposed Rule ontake of Mexican wolves on public lands areappropriate to meet the conservation require-
ment. Livestock owners are not precludedfrom protecting their stock on public landsthrough other, non-lethal, means until the
established criteria are reached.
10. A definition of “public lands” has beenincluded in Appendix G - Glossary.
5-12
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
11. The FWS agrees that leghold traps are anessential tool for wolf management. We wouldplace specific provisions for their use in thefinal experimental population rule which, if
promulgated as a federal regulation, shouldpreempt conflicts in state law.
12. The present definition requires that wolfpresence be confirmed or corroborated by the
FWS. This provides adequate protectionagainst untrained or casual observers’ claims of
wolf sightings. Specific wolf sighting confir-mation criteria will be developed in consulta-tion with ADC and others and will be a partof the interagency management plan for thereintroduced population.
13. The current definition requires evidenceof consistent use of an area by wolves for atleast one month to establish that an area is“occupied” by wolves, thus triggering restric-tions on ADC activities. However, it does notprovide criteria for determining when it would
be appropriate to resume unrestricted ADCactivities following abandonment of the areaby wolves. We agree that the rule would beimproved by the addition of such wording;and, following consultation with ADC andothers, will include clarifying language in thefinal rule, if necessary
14. The experimental population rule wouldrestrict all use of M-44s and choking-type neck snares in areas occupied by Mexicanwolves. The FWS would work to provideprivate users of these devices with the loca-tions where the EPA label restrictions for M-44s apply and to advise private users of therule provisions regarding take of wolves, withthe goal of avoiding accidental or incidentaltake of wolves with potentially lethal devices.
Clarifying language has been added to theFEIS.
15. Such an assessment would be highlyspeculative as the plan is to limit wolf recoveryto the designated wolf recovery areas andcapture and remove wolves that disperse into
the larger experimental population area assoon as their presence is known. This manage-ment strategy should prevent wolf dispersaloutside the experimental population area. Wewould expect the suggested impacts to be veryminor.
16. See response number 12 to the ArizonaGame and Fish Commission comments,below.
5-13
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
17. Current restrictions of ADC techniquesin southwestern New Mexico imposed becauseof the potential occurrence of Mexican wolvesare under review by the FWS.
18. This definition is applicable under the
proposed experimental population rule onlyprior to and no longer than 6 months
following the initiation of a reintroductionproject. It would be impossible for reintro-
duced wolves to have reproduced successfullyfor 2 consecutive years during this time. Inaddition the definition, in Appendix G, of
“Population” has been modified to moreclearly apply only to “non-reintroduced wildwolves.”
U.S. Department of Agriculture -Forest Service:Apache National Forest
1. Analyses in the EIS are basedupon the best available data on ungulatepopulations in the BRWRA. While someuncertainty exists in these data, and inpredicting future trends, we believe ourconclusion is reasonable that the BRWRA willbe suitable for wolf recovery for the foresee-able future.
2. The FWS does not agree that it would benecessary to mimic the historical level ofeffects from natural fire to sustain wolfpopulations over the long term.
5-14
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3. Evidence of an overall decline in ungulatebiomass is lacking. While deer appear to havedecreased over the past several years, elk
populations have increased over the same time
period. Wolves will prey on both deer and thelarger elk. Current estimates of combined deerand elk biomass levels indicate they areadequate to sustain a population of 100wolves in the BRWRA.
4. Lack of universal acceptance of wolf
recovery and its generally moderate or minorimpacts has not precluded it in other areas andwe do not expect it to preclude wolf recovery
in the Southwest. We have addressed cumula-tive impacts with as much certainty as possiblein the revised Cumulative Impacts section of
the FEIS.
5. The FWS position is that wolf recoverycan occur with no substantive changes toexisting or anticipated future land uses orforest management practices. The PreferredAction does not require changes to ForestPlans. Even habitat modification by the USFSthat was detrimental to the wolf would notconstitute “take” of the wolf under thenonessential experimental approach. This doesnot mean the Forest Service could not modifyForest Plans, if deemed appropriate. We haveadded mention in Chap. 4, under Impacts onAgency, Tribal, and Local Government Policiesand Plans, of the specific Plan topics theForest Servicemight change.
6. Because reintroduced wolves would be
members of a designated nonessential,experimental population, other non-experi-mental threatened or endangered specieswould receive management priority overMexican wolves. Also, see response aboveregarding Forest Plans. The suggestion goesbeyond the scope of the Preferred Alternativebecause the alternative does not affectmanagement priorities for other species. Theseissues are addressed in the Cumulative Impacts
section of Chap. 4, Ah. C, the full-endangeredapproach.
7. “Disturbance-causing land use activities”
are now defined in Appendix G.
5-15
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
U.S. Department of Air Force,Holloman AFB:
1. Such restrictions would not be imposedunder Alt.s A, B, or D, and are conceivable,but highly unlikely, under Ah. C. TheWSWRA has been dropped from Alt. C. It is
conceivable, but not clearly foreseeable, that ifwolves were reintroduced under Alt. C intothe BRWRA and then dispersed to theWSWRA area that restrictions could beimposed to protect the full-endangeredwolves. But this would only occur if WSMR
or Holloman AFB activities were shown tonegatively impact the wolves. Wolves have co-existed with military activities in other areasand apparently are not sensitive to overflights.
5-16
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
U.S. Department of the Army:
Attached
5-17
The es,,ma,e IS dwenden, on the deve,o,,me”, phase of the pro,ec, lhus ibebroad range of es,,ma,ed losses For example, Ihe research and develo~men,phase IS the mos, cr”ck?l, any delay at ,hls stage has numerous collateral affetisswh as ,ms,pan,ng ,he evalua,mn penod or producdon phases of the systemThe purpose o‘co”dUCt,ng TMD extended-range ,es,s IS lo prowde rea,,s,,t tests~,uat,o”s for the defenses lo operale w,,h,n a s,mulated theater of opera,,onswhich ,“cludes defense agams, ,hrea,,qrese”,a,we target rms5~1es WSMRhas been ,de”,,f,ed as fhe most effecbve ,oca,,o” for such t&q Also IheTM0 program has the ahen,,on and ~“teres, of Congress (Congress hasDrovlded ~“ldance ard dlrec,lon lo fhe De~a”me”, of Defense I” :hebeveqmint of Lhe TMD prqam by en&g the M,ss,,e Defense Act of ,991which states “,, $5 Ihe goal of the Un,,ed Slales lo prov,de haghly effenwetheater mossile defenses (TMDs) lo toward deployed and exped,,,onaryelements of the Armed Forces of ,he United Stales and lo f”ends and alks ofthe UnIted Slates “,
I, IS also necessary to cons,der the costs and bme needed to resched&a test f I, IS delayed Pas, exper,ence shows ,,,a, there 1s a m~nomum of thre?days needed to reschedule I” the eve”, of a delay The “zord,“a,,o” andprepara,,o” eRxts mclude hundreds of em~ioyees, no, ,“st WSMR personnelbut also ~ontraC10rs arsoc,ate, w,,h the ,m,ect ,tseif Such a rescheduled les,could ther mpad an other scheduled teLs further cascading the losses
1 C At ,, 4-51 1, (“es from the bo”om add the followng to the begl”“l”g ofthe Soncius,an “A hkely ,mpacf IS tha, wolf presence WI, cause delays wllh theassoaated costs of delays ,o ,es,,ng pqects A, the end of the Concius~lnadd “lf WSMR IS no, a wable oraec, ,es,l”a s,,e the Kwa,eln M!sslle Ra-ae I?
tesis len-fold The mcreased cosfs reduce available defense dalIan for othernrqects th”s adversely affecting ,he overall readiness &the Armed Forces andimpamng natIOnal sewmy ”
11 At p 4-53 hne 13 change “Recreat~ona, use IS fwrly h,gh lo r e a d‘Recreat~ona, use of ELM lands Isfa,r,y h~gb ”
12 At p 4-53 ,,ne 14 replace “NO ,mpacts are a”,,c,pa,ed on any Fort Bllsrm,,,,ary aa,v,,es I” the Organs w,,h ‘There are SIX f,r,ng ranges with,” theIMe,,, dispersal area wlh,” Fatt Ei~ss ail of these ranges are e-tied 10 be
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
1. Suggested changes numbered 1through 8 have been made in the FEIS, except
suggested change number 4, which is consid-ered unnecessary because the process andrequirements are already set forth underNEPA regulations. Suggested changes 9through 12 have not been made because
they apply to Ah. C and WSMR has beendropped from this alternative in this FEIS.
I
5-18
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2. We agree with these suggested changesand will incorporate them into the final rule,if one is issued.
3. This requested change would result in a
total exemption written into law of all military
activities from proposed limited, temporaryrestrictions near pens, dens, and rendezvoussites. The FWS finds this inconsistent with theESA requirement that rules established forexperimental populations must further the
conservation of the animal. Release pens canbe sited to avoid the need for use restrictions.We expect that most dens and rendezvous siteswill be located in the San Andres Mountainswhere little military activity occurs. The needfor restrictions around dens and rendezvoussites on WSWRA is anticipated to be rare. Ifrestrictions were imposed within a 1 -mileradius of all dens and rendezvous sites, lessthan 1% of the WSWRA land base would beaffected for less than 4 months of the year.The management group, which would includea WSMR representative, would consider waysto avoid the need for use restrictions. For thesereasons, we anticipate that impacts to militaryactivities resulting from this provision will benegligible.
We disagree with the Army’s reasoning.The restrictions in question could be imposedonly around release pens, dens, and rendez-vous sites; and, under the Preferred Aherna-tive, no formal consultation under Section 7of the ESA is required for any military actions.Under former Alternative C, from whichWSMR has now been dropped, formalconsultation resulting in possible restrictionsor modifications of proposed military actions,would have been required any time a proposedaction could have affected wolves.
4 . The use of lands within the national parkor national wildlife refuge systems as safetybuffer zones for military activitieshas been included as an exception to thedefinition of “disturbance-causing land useactivity, n in Appendix G - Glossary andwould be similarly included in the final rule, ifissued.
5-19
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
5. The requested revisions have been madein Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative, andwould be made in the final rule, if issued.
5-20
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
U.S. Department of the Interior,BIA, Mescalero Indian Agency:
1. Under Alternatives A and B, wolves
reintroduced into the WSWRA would berecaptured if they dispersed outside therecovery areas. If they entered onto theMescalero reservation, the FWS would seekpermission from the tribe to enter the
reservation and recapture the wolves, orcooperative arrangements would be made to
assist the tribe in recapturing the wolves. TheWSWRA has been dropped from Ah. C. It is
conceivable, but not clearly foreseeable, that ifwolves were reintroduced under Ah. C
into the BRWRA, they could eventuallydisperse to the Mescalero area. Even with full-endangered status the wolf is unlikely tothreaten many land management activities.The main restriction would be that the wolvesnot be killed.
2. Despite several requests, neither theMescalero Apache tribe nor BIA providedinformation on the reservation. Nevertheless,some background information was availableand was provided in the DEIS, but detailedimpact analysis was not feasible. In the FEIS,the Mescalero reservation has been droppedfrom full consideration because reintroductioninto the WSWRA has been dropped from Ah.C.
5-21
United States Department of the Interior
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
U.S. Department of the Interior,National Park Service:
1. Thank you for your comment.
5-22
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
U.S. EPA:
1. Thank you for your comment.
5-23
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
State Agencies
OF ARIZ0t.A
%.a la.- -
GAME & FISH DEPARTh’. “--t%%?i!
Sgond: Fred Bebnanvotmg yes: h4h Golightly, Fral Belman, Charman An Portervoting no: Nonie l-n, Herb Guenther
Ilzt DEIS Alternative
Motion:
I recommend that the Comrmrrlon vote to suppon Ahcmatlve A of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServxe’r Draft Environmental lmpacl Statement @FE), prescribing mimroduction of the
I
IMexa.” wolf mlo W,ute Sands Nalional Proving Grounds, condngent upon the fo,,owing:
A The Serwce murt raosfactonly addras the Commasion concerns that ~111 befcnkardzd fouovMg dus meeting. They cmxms csmsist of those identified by theDepartment’s rcwcw of the DEE.. ax moduied 10 appropriately ret&t theCommm.mn’r gudance dus afternoon.
B The Serwce must pubhrh a Proposed Nonessential Expenmcntal Population Rulethat is detmmmed by Ihe Department to be the same in form and substance as that
:.h was mcluded I” the DEIS. I
C The Serwu must cnmmx in rls Fii Environmmtal Impact Statemenl (EIS) onhlexlcm Wolf Remtrcductlon that subsequent reintroductions (if any) m theAmman Southwest b.U be determmed through a formal Adaptive Managementprogram L4hP). The AMP rhouid be t&htared thmugh an Adaptive ManagementWork Group orgaruled as a Federat Adviww CommitLee and chaired by a staffdesrgnec of the U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Se&e Region 2 Director. ‘Ihe ridapnrohlmqemmt Work Group mua tiudc full participation by the Arizona Game andFish Department, and other inleresti or affected parner as appropriate underFederal law guidmg such processes
3
The AMP must assess the efficacy of tie white Sands remuoduction, and therauib of Ihal asxzsmeni must form the bus of a detennbaion whctber (and Ifso. how) Lo remucducc the Meucan wolf at any site 01 ~ltcs ocher than white
I
Arizona Game and FishDepartment:
1. The FWS has determined that theBRWRA is the most appropriate location forthe initial reintroduction and that theWSWRA would be used as a secondaryreintroduction area only if necessary andfeasible.
2. The FWS plans to do this.
3. We are not certain what the Commissionmeans by a “formal” Adaptive ManagementProgram; however, the FWS is committed tothe adaptive management concept, theestablishment of a formal management group(which includes full participation by AGFD),and to the concept of an oversight or advisorygroup. See Chapter 2, Preferred Alternative,for more discussion on these topics.
4. The management group, using an
adaptive management process, will assess theefficacy of the initial reintroduction effort, and
use the results of that assessment and otherrelevant information as the basis of anydetermination to conduct an additional releaseor releases on another area.
5. The FWS agrees with all these goals, butdoes not commit to conducting the initialreintroduction on the WSWRA.
5-24
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
6. The rationale and comments ofindividual commissioners are acknowledged.Specific issues included in the official com-ment document are addressed below, begin-ning with FWS response number 7.
.4mma Game and Rsh Commission ocwu21,1995notion on Mexican Wolf DEIS Page2
smds,wlthmthe wnshamtsofttzFiiELSandFiiNones.sa tial FxpcrimemlPopulahon Rule for Mencan Wolf remUcduchon.
P. Fdnliating management responses to monitomg and research infonnatmnon afiected resource cond,tiom. trends. and procase..
h Ensunng that the V.‘h,te Sands’ pl-C,JCCt’S cmseNa(lo” am, manqement
ObJecuves xre fuifdkd m goat faith and in full compliance with theNonersennal Expe.rimeatal Population Rule, and without abndgement ofany Federal, State. Tnbal, or other legal obtigation.
c hov~dm~ a mshannism fox resolving dqutes among the affected land andwldhfc management agenaes and private landowners (if any).
I
d. Pmvxhg a forum by which to transfer information denved from wolf andprey bare mowonng or other pemnent management actlwier at WhneSands to the mterested and affected par”es, and the general pubhc.
Rauonale as stated by Comnuss~oner Gohghlly
I The Adaptwe Management approach recommended within the DFJS necessitatescollection of empirical data for development of management gmdelmes.Infonnahon cmlkctd m Ihe more coimdkd setting of the Whue Sands area shouldpm&e knowledge nazrrary for wol mangemex in ti larger and more complexBlue Range Area
I2. Re,ntroducnon into Vfba Sands uurially will allow analysis of:
a z&pelx!~l?ty ofupove wolvez LO a wdd existence5. terntory fidelity and srabibtyI‘ eifecovencsr of nonessential expaiment2.l management pland potenhal for usmg wdd born pups for remooduction into the Blue Range
Area. or elsewhere
3 The genetIc dl”fmly and slzc of the captive population wu be allowed to increaxto more ~pomum l&elr. If the IWO newly certified lines of Mexican wolves areauowed to mtirecd wall the currenuy CcmFied population for liuec to five years.the capuve swxk wi,J have a lugher level of d,versity. At p-t only small~&JCFS of diverse, but genencally sqius. amoraLs u.1~4 in the captive population.
Armma Game and Fish Commission octohx 21, 1995@!+I on Meucan Wolf DEIS Page3
This mall number of awlable stock for reinUoducrion favors ui,,g white Sandsbecause fewer .uumals are needed for that area.
IThe Whne Sands wolf pqxdahon will always need actwe g&c managemen,through managed dispas.4 and subsequent releasa. This could take place as thecapbve population is bung diversified and allowed to expand. If titxcduchonoccurs as proposed. wildsaught wolw from White Sands could k used uremaaluchon stcck for the Blue Range Area or another site. should one befonhcommg (pahaps even in Mexico).
4. Effects on Southwest game populatv.mr m a multi-predator system could bedoaxxzxtcd m the more mn=olkd uruarion in Htib Sands. Stud& on the effasof wolves on tiex ungulale prey would be more complae in Wbrte Sands becausemore has&m. informanon 1s available on boons and ungulates. Hunter harvest canhe monikmd - Cody tha’e, making biologxal data from harvested ungulatesmore avulahlc than UI the Blue Range Area.
5 Effms on eximq predator populat~onr could be daxlmen led, to test lhenrier aboutd~splacemenr and mmpeOn A recent study of lions in White Sands prowdesconsiderable baseline data on ensting predator populations and home ranges thatIS slmply not avadable lo: the Blue Range Area.
7 I behew thar only through actual. close observation of Max-an wolves in the wddcan anyone rcasonahly predzt the behavior of wolves in the wdd. and thus preduthe true ,mpacu and chances for success. of a remtroduction.
8 For ther reascms, for the hleucan wolf’s sake, 1~ well as for the best mterests ofthe pubbc, I b&eve ti I, would be most pludent lo an-, forward this expcnmental Whm Sands. conduct alI the appropriate management and research ac~wUes.and UY tie open public prccesr of Adaptive Management to deternun e where 10go from there. That would prowde the best opportunity for sound rience 10 leadto good management
5
b
5-25
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Arizona Game and Fish CommissionhfQti0” on Mencan Wolf DEIS
cctober 21, 1995Page 4
9 As a Game and Fii cOmmrsscmc? repmcnhng the intereru of the public. I offerthlr recommendation a.9 a compromise tbal I bekve is rmly in everyone’s best binterests. whether wolf advocale or wolf opponent or neural parry. should anyexist.
Anmu Game and F&b Commission Concerns!3pZ%EdatthC
October 21.1995 Commission t&e&gRegardmg the U.S. Rsb and Wildlife Service
Lhft Embanmcntal Impact StatementOn Mexican Wolf Reinfxoduction
ChaIrmall Porter
1 Elk and deer pcqulaaon numbes (mudmum. maximum, and average) do not zeemlo he consistent \nlhm the DEB. The service must citify whether thesednmpnckanschmmmmathematicscrtheyrcilectmm~mbcnvcenpopulation estimaes at different poinls in time over the length of the proposedrecovery and management effort. See DFJS comments:page 7 lina 21.24.
2 The DEL5 pmporcs I-nule radius lcmpmary drmus for acclimation pas. den&gsites. and rendervous sites. ‘IYK Serwc needs to affirm tha impacts of theseclosure on big game hunts tall be mimmkd Sawing often begins in August andamal hunts begm in September. See DEIS commcnis: page 2 lines I-4
The Serwu also needs to affrm that ranchers wilI be aIlowed to drive cattlethrough such closures. See DEIS comments: page 2 lines 4-5.
3 Back-munuy road: Please Qfuv this term, as opposed to a dmroughfam. Concern.&sure of a backaunby road may dare an area ti greater than l-mile in radur.The Service needs 10 affnm that tempomy closures will not exceed an area 1 mileLII rddus. See DF.I.5 comments: page 2 lines 7-10.
4 The draft nona~hal expenmenti rule in the DFJS slates that pennition ‘may’be gramed to pnvate property owners to take wolves on public Iandr after certaincondmons are met. The Servra needs to provide more definiave wordmg, thatcties when a private landowner will or will not be granted such authority. Theconcern is that at an opaauonal level Service employees may not provide thenw appranl if gwdelhes are not IpBclfc. Se DFJS comments: page 2 liesI? :
5 Cmpsdhng agencis must be able to use leghold haps to take wolves. whether formanagement purposes (mcludmg relocaoon and research). retenhon m capttwty,or cuthanam, and regardless of land ownership. The concern 1s that If the 100)rule u no, absolutely e.xphcu and inclu.we on ihIs count. state law In Anzcma mayprelude such use. See DF.IS comments: page 2 lines 24-30.
6 The DEE emhli.&es hat resmction3 my be pLaccd on use of specific depredationconirol measurer (e.g. M44s) rhrough cmperativc management agreements wahAniml Damage Control and perhaps other agencies. TTx Service weds to affirm
b
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
.bwma Game and Fuh Comrmnmn octobcr 23, 1995Concerns wth Mexican Wolf DEIS F%geZ
hat such agreemats wilI be consistent &cross public lands and Tribal kndr (0 therm.x~mum CXMI feasible. See DEIS mmments: page 14 lincr X-33
7 Page 2-24 ‘The FWS does not guarantee the future uustence of this pnvatem~u@wn hmd: Concan: FWS must guaranrec compensaano” for livestockdepredation losses. and not leave tin m the hands of a private orga”ixation. SeeDES cammenu: page 6 brines 1-2.
8 Page 4-16, ‘Ilie Sana mud clarify the dwinction between ec~nonuc knefiu andexpenditures. 0” what surveys were these conclusmns baud? FWS rwveys maynot have mcluded children under age 16. Hunring benefits (values andexpend,tures) yem very low. but 11 also seems redundant to mclude actual(expe”d,turer) and hy@wxzJ (econonuc valuer) costs for the same event. SeelIEIS comments: page 15 lmes 35.38.
9 Powble wolf depredano” unpacts to the brghom sheq population in the BlueRange uere not adequately addressed in the DEIS. Tixse sheep are usmg habitatsdial differ markedly from those cccupxd in other pans of the Rocky Mountainr.Wolf deptim on bighorns is more likely m these vear of the Blue than in morerug& iemn. See DEIS comments: page 9 iines 16-19.
Commursmner Belm2.nI The prop& 100) rule stould have be% pubhshed before 01 with the DEIS, so
:he pubi,;: could evaluate and comment on both a, the save time See DElS;amments: page 1 lines 35-36.
2 I-he DEL! must affmn more clearly that all wolves reintrcduced ~icludmg pupswhelped in adimatim p) will be radio tagged for monitoring, Md that projectbmlogisu will nuke every reasonable effort to r&o Implant all pups whelped inLL.e wld ior monltotig. See DEIS comments: page 3 lmes 32-X
3 l?,e Corr.,nm,on’a rqwonse must include the Depanmcnt’s DFJS concxn~, wthmodifican~os as rzaw.ry IO reflect today’s dlwussions See DEIS comments: all.
Commmmner Johnson1 Town should not be used as ,ustificahon far wolf reintmduchon. The people I”
the Blue do not want addItional thousands of vinton. See DEIS comment% pagelb lines I-2.
b
Arizona Game and Fii Commisrion ocw&r 23, 1995Concerns with Mexican Wolf DEIS Page3
Fish and Pildlik savice is fom”g the m”tIKduction pqeft on the nual cifizenr.See DEIS comments: page I lines 17-20.
I3 Adequate fundig must be avulable for the duration of the prqcct. Sea DEIS
comments: page 21 lines 9-10
4 The Fish and Wildlife Serwce needs to look into the extent of mcrcaseddqxdatio” outslds of the prmwy and zeamdary recovery zones due to otherpredators being displaced by remtmduccd wolves. See DEIS comments: page 2bner 32.34
5. There IS wnmn for the decrease u1 revenues to the Depamncnt from a daxcasem licenw and tag sales. See DEIS comments: page IS li”es 32-34.
Commssmner Guenther1 There IS m much anger between the opposing groups to mwe forward with wolf
re,nuaiucucm a! this time. We need to look further for middle ground, and cratea more tixndly en~onment for wolf reb~rodwtion. It wilI be difficult, if not,mpors,b,r:. to pmmote successful remtmductio” and remvery i” a” adversamxl~nvmmmmf. See DEIS comments: page 2 lines 3639.
2 The reinrroducnon of the Mexican wolf, while it may k desirable, 1s not anecerury for a functional ecosystem See DEIS camnents: page 2 ,i”es 39-41.
3. If does “M appear that Local govcmme”ts have pa’xipated i” this process as fullyas would have been desirable. IheService needs to identify why that happened,of it did, and If possible resolve the problem. Local gmemmrnt part~clpation iserr0lm.l to de&ion making. It IS unfair 10 ~introduce the wolf into a” ama wherethe mqcmty of the pmple are against such rei”tmductio” ‘and their lives and!~vehhcod may be impacted by it. See DEJS comme”ts: page 1 lines 15-17.
4 The Se~ce needs u) rind amha vehicle for dq&ation compensation, other than,he Defenders of Wiidbfe program. We need to expand the proporal to make itmly an ~CC~UY~ based program See DEIS mmments: page 6 lines l-2.
5 The effects of the recent voter-approved trapping bq “esd to be clarified. Canagenaes w @hold pdpr or not. and d so under what circumsta”ce and with whathn,tations. Until we know the cffsts of the trapping ban on predator-preyz-c,mms. ,, would be impludenr to add another predamr to the quatio”. See DEISc.ml”lenLs: page 2 lines 24-30
5-27
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Anwna Game and Fish Commwion oaober 23, 1995Concerns with Mexican Wolf DEIS Page4
Commmoner GohghUy (all wmmentO included m the Commisvo” m&on)1 ‘The Adapnve Management approach raxmmeaxJcd within Ihe DFJS neceairatcs
colleOion of cmptical data for dcvelopmml of mvrag-t guidelines.Informanoncollstplmmcmoremn~~rttiogof~eheWhiteSanLararhouldprow& krrnvkdgc necewry for wolf managanmt in rh larger and nmrc complexBlue Range Area
2. Rmtiuction mto white Sands initially will allow analyss of:a ad@abUay of captive wolves to a wild existenceb. miuxy fidelity and aabilityc effecnvencss of noncssenrial experimental nwnagemcnt pland ptmial ior usmg wild born pups for reinbcducrion mu) the Blue Range
Area. or elsewhere
3. The genenc QVnnty and six Of me apave poplUati0” wll be auowed to increaseL” more opumum levels. If the two newly certified line.7 of Mexican WOIVCS aredlbwed ro lntabreed mth the -uy cablied populanon for rhra lo five years.he capbvc stock ~111 have a higher level of dwenity At presar only smallnumtms of &verse. but genetically surplus, animals exist in the caphve populahon.‘Tlus small number of avnlable stxk for reincroducbon favors usmg &lute Sandsvecause fewer a”imals are needed for that ara.
The Where Sands wolf population will always need actlve gencnc managementthrough managed dispersal and subsequent releases. This could take place as theaptive populaaon 1s being diverufied and allowed to expand. If rein~cduchoncoccurs a proposed, wldsaught wolves from White Sands could be used asremtrcxiuchon stock for L.c Blue Range Area or another siLe, should one betortbmmlng (perhaps eve” m Mexm)
‘I Effects on Southwest game populauons in a mulu-predator system could bedccumenred m the more comml!xd sxuation m White Sands. Studlea on the effectsof wolves on thur ungulate prey would be more complete in Wlutc Sands becauserncae badim mforrrmtion 1s available on lions and ungulates. Hunter harvest canhe monitored more clmly there. makmg bwlogical dam fmm harvesvd ungulatesmore avadahle than rn the Blue Range Area.
Amma Game and Fish Commission omba 23, 1995Concerns with Mcucan Wolf DEIS Page 5
5 ElTecLso”udsring~~cQsmuldbcdmunmhcd, to rcst tbcclrics aboutdnplacement and competition. A recent study of linu in White sandt providesmmdcrablc bavline data on existing predator pqnUaoo”s and home ranges thatIS simply not available for the Blue Range Arca.
6.
7. Only through actual, close cixervation of Mexican wolves in the wild can anyonereasonably predrct the behavior of wolvu m the wild, and thus predlcl the Oueimpacts and chances for success. of a rem!nduCtio”.
a. 1 or rixse ravms, for tie Maxan wolrs sake, aa well as for the best interests ofthe public, it would be most prudent to carry forward ti experiment at WhiteSands. conduct all the appmpriate managcrna~ and -h pctrvities, and use theupsn pubhc p10cey of Adapiwe Mmagenxnt to &amine UIIZ U, go from there.
That would provtdc the best appommily for round sc~encc to lead to goodnu”agement.
6
b
: 1,
5-28
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROCESS
CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONlntroducmnAhmauve A.Utcmatwe B.utematire cUtemarnc D
CHAPTER 3 ?.FFECTED ENVIRONMENTS
CHAPTER 4 ENWRONXENTAL COKSEQUNCESUtematrvc AUternarlve BUtematne CUtemauie D
CONS LT-ZTION AND COORDINATION
APPEhDICESkppendix A%ppendu Bippendw C4ppendw D4ppendu Ii&ppendw 1.,ppmdn 1;tppendn I_
7
2
556
6
88
1617:0
20
202021212121212121
5-29
i4
x
1
26??28?C;c
Aru~na Game and Fish Cnmrmsslon October 24,199sMeucan Wolf DEIS Evaluation Page 1
PROCESSTIE C S Fish and Wddlife Smce OJSFW) has been CriticizeA for the delay in producing the DraftEnnwonmentaI Impact Statmwtt @ES). ba ..x complexity of the issue. and of working with otherfederA and state agames, wu partly the cause USFWS used information and process Ideas Barnthe Northern Ibcky Ibioumm wolfraovuy projezt very well, and thus avoided making same of thermstakes made in that action Cwrdination with and involvement of Arizona Game and FishDepar‘metlr throughour the process was wmmcndable, as mfomlation exclunge and receptivenessfor input was consistent and profesnonal
The Depamnolt and the pubt were gwen ample opportumty to provide tnpot at a variety of formaland mfrmal neaings Issues raised 01 xnping sessions were anal+ to the fuUest extent possibleUSFWS representatwes attended most of the AGFD pubbc meetings and Commition discussions,recewlng inpur on Anwna concerlu
It does not appear that local governments have panictpated in this proces a~ fully as would haveteen desirable The Srmce needs to Identify why that happened, ifit did, and if possible resolve theproblem Local government puuclpation IE essential to decision-making. There were inadequatesuweys of rumI ndzenr of Anmna The tnmg and publicity of the hearings were poor Given thatthe wcys were poor a Commiionea feels the Flsb and MdIife Service is forcing the reln‘roduc‘mnpro,& an ‘he rural citiienr
SL’MMARY“bet long ‘em effix‘s” should be better delined on page I and throughout the DEB I‘ should bedearly rtard up tiont that these tmpacts are bnng projected ova I period of up ID 14 years The time&XOJStd to reach the recovery g0z.l after the i”iti release should be listed more clearly m a rummarytable for each altematwe The hunting public wdI Rely be very concerned regardmg the proJectedas m elk and detr numbm ptiadady *itbout having a better indication of the period over whichthese losses m&t occur This information is important enough to be included in the abstraa ands,,,m,q Conm within du gnxp might be reduced by also noting that wild ungulate populationscould srdl nse m compansnn to current estunates, under the expanding wild ungulate populationmodel sccw.no, even w‘h wolfreintroduction
The prapored lo(,) ruie should have been published before or with the DEIS, so the pubbc couldevaluate and comment on both at the same time
on page y “distu?Jan- g land ux actwitaes” should be de&ted, there or in the gbxsary Theword km& snould be wed before “rertden’ou sites” in the last Line of this page and clseuhere
IIO
.ktvm.a Game and Fti Commitstonhtexmn Wolf DUS Evahnuon
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
7. Comments acknowledged. The FWSbelieves that local governments and ruralcitizens were adequately involved throughoutthe NEPA process, which involved 4 scopingmeetings, 14 public open house meetings, and3 formal public hearings in both rural and
urban areas. In addition, the FWS attendedmost public meetings held by AGFD. Chapter5, Consultation and Coordination, describesthe extent to which input from agencies,
organizations, and individuals was sought. Wedisagree that surveys conducted by the Arizona
Game and Fish Department, and the timingand publicity of the hearings, were “poor.”
8. We have clarified the language in theAbstract.
9. This was our original intent, but theinternal FWS review process for the rule tooklonger than for the DEIS. The public is beinggiven a full opportunity to comment on theProposed Rule.
10. See Appendix G - Glossary, for adefinition of “disturbance-causing land useactivities.” Also, the word “active,” whichalready was in the draft Proposed Rule, hasbeen inserted in the text as suggested.
11. New language has been adopted thatwould allow livestock drives through otherwiserestricted areas near release pens, dens, andrendezvous sites, ;fno reasonable alternateroute or timing exists. The FWS is com-mitted to the goal of minimizing the effectof temporary closures on hunting-relatedactivities. However, the need to restrict theseactivities must be considered on a case-by-casebasis, with input from established manage-ment and advisory groups.
12. All references to the closure of back-country roads have been deleted. Based onpublic and agency comments, the FWS hasdetermined that this provision would beunlikely to accomplish the intended objective.
13. It is hard to conceive of every possible
situation, but we believe that there could besituations where it may not further theconservation of the reestablished wolfpopulation to grant permission for taking adepredating wolf on public lands. While theFWS is committed to providing clarity
wherever possible in the rule, a certain degreeof management flexibility is desirable. Inputfrom established management and advisorygroups would be sought prior to any decisionto grant or deny permission.
5-30
4
6
a9
IO
I?1314151617181920212223:.I25‘62728295031323334353637i8393041
Anwna Game and Rsh Commusmn &t&r 24, 19%Mexican Wolf DE.I.7 Evaluatmn Page 3
One Ccmmmions behevcs we need to t’esave the right to reviat the proposal and. if nsesrary,amend Ule Commission’s pxaon follownlg the completion of the Fi Environmental ImpactStatema and the pubbcabon of the tinal nottessentiaUexperimetal rule in tbe Federal Regirrer.
Tlw seam” of the DUS should idea@, tk pwibii of colip1cting univasitiu to ccmdun pementresearch on all aspects of the proposed remtroduction, including human dimensions
CHAPTER 2. ALTERYATIVES INCLUDNG THE PROPOSED ACTION
lotroductiooThe “~ertificatmn’ of the Amgon and Ghost Panch lmeages needs to be updated m the finalEwkonmmtd Imtnct Staxmmt EEIS) Status of the Sevilleta tkilitv should also be u&ted in the I I 0FElS The AGFb andyr~r of fo& c&&date areas within Arizona &uld be cited as Jk-maon et al
I
I7(1592) m the Grst paragraph on page 2-3 and elsewhere The complete citation is correctly bsted mthe Ldcrature Cad section
Alternative AThe AGFD hlcxican Wolf Relntroductmn Proposal appears relauvely intact in Alternative 4Bamdanes for the Blue Range WslfRecowry Area (BRWRA) are different @cause the USFV.5mcludrri cnnu~uous lands u, western New Meuco ,n the DEIS. l-be DEIS proposer to remtroduceth;ee hnuly groups each year for the iirst couple of years, Umaear tk AGFD proposal recommendedreeawq only two f&Jy grwpr AGFD preferred rcmtrcducbon of wIy two family groups to reducelruti management and nwmtonng COS~E The DEIS assumes some wolves will quckly disperse mtothe recondar) zones ofNew Mexico
We agee wth the non-ual apenmental designanon outlined in the proposed action and with thespec16s management protocol in the proposed rule We believe that the nonessential expenment.4desigrntxn vnll not ~eopardia wolfrecove~, and wll protect wolves that are not causing cordlzts.mtuih we expect wll be lhe ma,or.ty of them
The IjEtS must affirm more clearly that all wolves remtroduced (including pups whelped maxluwt~on pens) will be radio tagged for momtonng and that project biolo@sts will make every
I30
reasonable effort to radio lmpiant all pups whelped in the wild far monitoring
The DEIS recommends road closures iflilegai blling of wolves threatens the recovery effort Roadclopvq although d on a hted bass for olher wildlife, may do more overall damage to the YC ’pro,ect through increased ammonty and consequently b@er chances of illegal killing of wolvelSum wolves usually roam ova large areas, any road closure program would need to close off largeexpanses ofNmonal Forest to prevent human-wolfmteranion We do not believe tis is desirable.necessary or feasible %‘e recommend that much greater emphasis be placed on education and 1
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
14. The “agents” language already was in thedraft Proposed Rule; it has been added to thetext. Other suggested revisions have beenmade.
15. The final rule would be worded tospecifically authorize the use of leghold trapsby the FWS and any cooperating agencies forall approved management purposes on both
public and private lands.
16. The FWS, in cooperation with estab-lished management and advisory groups, willidentify research priorities and encourage
appropriate research. The suggested researchtopic addresses a commonly expressedconcern.
17. Wolves generate strong emotions inhumans; no amount of mitigation is likely toeliminate all anger and hostility toward thewolf or between opposing groups. We believethe Preferred Alternative addresses thelegitimate concerns of both those who supportand oppose this proposal, while Fulfilling theFWS’s ESA responsibilities to recover theMexican wolf.
18. Comment acknowledged.
19. These changes have been made.
20. The FWS is committed to placing radiocollars or implants on or in all released wolvesand to maintaining enough functioning radiosin the re-established population to ensureadequate monitoring of its status. We antici-pate that a higher percentage of the popula-tion will have radios during the first severalyears of the reintroduction effort than duringlater years. It would be impractical to committo placing a radio transmitter on every wolf inthe re-established population.
2 1. We agree; the road closure provision has
been deleted.
5-3 1
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
22. The FWS is cooperating with the AGFDin the establishment of these criteria.
4
6789
10
Anwna Manx and Fish Commrsssron oaokr 14, 1995Meman Wolf DEIS Evaluabon Page 4
enforcRn3-u la carmwn and prevenl illegal buirigs If ?.pxitic al-as arc proposed for rosd closures,we prewne that the appropriate land management agexy (e g U S Forest Set-ax) would do so
I
LIthrough normal pracuces thar provide for noufying the public, placmg appropnafe sz&wge. andenforcemeN
Spcafic sntena for dewmung whether wolves occupy an area before my are released asnonessBma expammd need IO k d&cd For example, how many miles of surveys wh no wolf
I32
qn observed arc reeded to say wth wn6dax-z that there are no woLfpoptitiolu m the area” whatother cntma could be used Lo ‘clear- M area”
The Adapuve Management approac4 whch would mclude pubbc parunpauotx should be used toevaluate the success or fadure of the karmas elements of tlus proposal
I J=
Cnrena used for decidmg where to begn. Blue Range or White Sands, sbouid be quantilied in thefollowrg areas
-lhe number of surplus Wolves avahble6.1 presen, only mull rumben of dwerre, but geneucally surplus. awnah n;lR in thtcaptwc populatmn The FElS should reflect the number of surplus wolves avulabl<
IJc(
and rhe numbn ofuolves needed for reinrroducuon m,o each area
-the amoun, of fundmg aihlableCumenrly, the DEIS appears to stale that there IS no diEerence m the cost ofremrodumon prqam berween he Blue Range Axea and ihe Whne Sands .Area WP ;25
rccommrnd rhar rxe-spec6c esumated budgets be Included m the FEIS
-the sue of field statTaviableThe DEIS does not gtve cstnates of the requucd personnel to manag<rcmuodumom LTI each area Such estmutes should be mcluded in the FEIS for eat I
ab
ofrhc two proposed areas
-the level ofagency preparedness for addressmg hvestock depredauon casesTtus “level oiprrpuedness” needs 10 he nwre spec&ally described For examplehow many periow.el would be needed ,o be conudered ‘prepared-’ I
a’
We s,,ongly b&eve the L’SFK’S and cooperatmg agenoes should be prepared u,i’a deprecauon conrrol p:ogam well m a advance of a remtroducuon attempt Th:program lncludmg tdenuficatmn of the rcrponsible agency. budget ~urces. and thenumber df personnel requued should be more clearly dewnbcd m the FEIS
I
33
WoVpopulaoon growh pro~ezuow LO the DEIS show a gouti rate faster than has been documentedin other areas such as V.‘,sconnn and hlonnna We wxld expen a slower gnuth ra!e. bu*
I
23. We agree.
24. The number of surplus wolves that will
be available cannot be accurately stated in the
FEIS because it changes with reproductionand mortality in the captive population.Currently 10 surplus wolves are available, andin July 1996 more will be identified. Aminimum of 6 surplus wolves would beneeded for the initial reintroduction, although
we would want some potential replacementsurplus wolves in reserve. The FWS would notinitiate a reintroduction effort until anadequate initial supply of surplus wolves wasavailable and the captive population wascapable of producing a steady supply.
25. Revised budget estimates are presented inAppendix B.
26. Estimates of required personnel arepresented in Appendix B.
27. The FWS considers the presence of oneanimal damage control specialist on the fieldmanagement staff, with cross-training of orherfield staff in basic depredation assessment andcontrol techniques, as adequate preparednessfor addressing livestock depredation cases. Wepropose that this position be assigned ro theAnimal Damage Control Division of the U.S.Department ofAgriculture and funded by atransfer of funds from the FWS to USDA-ADC.
28. We agree.
29. We agree that there is uncertainty inprojecting population growth rates, but webeheve our projections are reasonable. A keydifference between the Montana and Wiscon-
sin populations and the population wepropose to establish is that the formerexpanded through natural recolonization
mechanisms, whereas this population will besupplemented periodically with additional
wolves.
30. This fluctuation idea is stated in the text.
5-32
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3 1. The text has been revised to acknow-ledge the role of cooperating agencies..4rimna Game attd Fisb Cnmmisno” OctdYa 24, 19%
Mexican Wolf DEIS Evaluano” Page5
conudamg the compkaty of the variables mvolved. there II no way to “I&C predictioru titb anydeyeofcaamy lfwoifpopuktioru were to increase et a dower rate, total uvavl impacts would I
be less. yld it would take longer to reach the recovery goal Fb~ctutions UI population size once itreaches some type of asymptote should be more clearly presemed I =O
bIx&menl Program In add”ion lo&e&~ &get&t &s sb~uldbc d&eloped. even ionlyin draft form, and be made available for ma~gunent agmcie-s and the public to review dunng thersovay period rather than waiting to fully achieve recovely ob,ective munbers This would ensurethat there would be some form of long term management stratcgw ua place prior 10 reaching thetarget able&es and prevent B tune lag in providing managunent dxguo” for responsible agmcies
Wolf recorery arca boundanes are lotqca!. well-thought out, and ar b,ologxally sound as they EMbe con>lden”g polmcal realues The p”“aq and ~gandaiy zo”es follow National Forest boundanesfor management purposes and the nonesse”tal experimental zone is delineated by InterstateHighways irnd state borders Highways or palmcal boundanes uslal!y have no significanceecolog~caUy. but u1 thrs case the northern and southern highway boundaries actually closelyapproxlmatc the iyruts of apparently suitable wolfhab~tat in Anzone
Ail boudanes ~omcxde *“h those proposed untbjn the AGFD proposal, uceprron that sections ofivestern Neu hlsxlco are included m the DEIS Blue Ranye Area Smce uolves are capable of uide-rangmg dqersal. ~“tenbzie molutonng an.1 rr.anageme”t ati he needed tn co&x wolf recovery tothe zones described Ue #expect ths wll be pan ofthe unplementat~o” plan
A c”a,~on for the use of the capture collars may be appropriate I” the 4th panpph of page 2-200lsh L D and E M Gese 199: Field testmg the WiidlLilr capture c&r on wolves Wddl. SotBuU 211 221.223 I
Ue recommend that ‘problem wolves” associated with repeated Lvestock depredauon or closeasso~~afvx wrh humans not be translocated from Wh”e Sands Wolf Recoverv Area to the BluePage WoliRewveq Area or wee versa If wolves are habitutiy caurq probIer& m one area, theyare Lkely IO ~ontme such behavior NIL the area they are moved to, as studies from Minnesota havesugge,.ted Such wolves should be re-capwed, withheld from the czpuve breeding program, andperhaL s be used on educational dzplay in appropnately bcensed facditxs open to the pubLc
The DEIS should Include more emphus and deti on monjtoM8 and management of releasedsolve? For example. we would bke to see how many statTare going to be assig~~ed to the project,and the proped budget for tekmetq tI&u Rudget accommodauonr should also be made for statewldbtc agency paniclpatmx should such agcncles choose to partiapate
31
53
Anmna Game and Ftsb Commissw” October 24,1995Mexican Wolf DEIS Evaluation Pace 6
Tbe Se~cc needs to ,i”d ~othet vehicle for depredauan compensaoo”, other the” the Defmdersof Wddbfe pro@am I
3’(
This alternative also resembles the AGFD Wolf rclntrcductm” proposal. with the exceptwx, ofpreventing dispersal from the core primary recovery wne unto the secondary recovery zone TheAGFD propaal allo& for dispaxl t?om the core area imo the surrcu”di”g Apache Nattonal Forestwithin Arizona The god ofe&&hi”g 20 wolves tithm the primary recovery zone appears to bereasonable conside+ the avail&k hab”at However, this population size LS no, bkely to be self-sustainmg a”d fells far short of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan ob@ives
Alternative CThus ahemauve calls for reintroduction of a fully protected population of Mexican wolves L”IO ihepnmay wolfremveq zones, mth no restnaiow on dispersal of wolves outside of this zone Smcrthere would be no catfrol on where wolves could Cologne. wolf manageman activi”es could bespread out across the states. inneastng project costs a”d response time to document wolf-causeddepredations Control of depredatmg wolves would be limited and could only be conducted lfthecontrol were to somehow mhancc the suwval of the species Tbc Defendas of WildbfeCompensauon program would be available to ranchers expenencoq documented losses to wolves
In our wew. cmfIi~ts between wolf recovery and the current land uses would be much higher if thsaItemat,ve were implemented Since relntmduced wolves would be fully protected and allowed 10colotic anywhere, much less control of thar unpacts would be tiorded state a”d federal wildlifeagencies It could be argued that. by ailowng natural dispers& the wolfpopulauon could inneweat a faster rate. thus reachg recovery goals in a shorter period oftime, reducmg overall costs ofrecovery However, there is no empmcal evidence to ‘upport this contentm”.
The p<,le”tJ for additional Land use rewxtm~ under 011s eltematwe will likely cause unneededoppowion to wolf recovety tioom Livestock producers md the umber industry ConfLcts withmanagement for sponed owls and northern goshawks n&t complicate Seam” 7 consulta~ons
hhmal management of&s@ tmda this altfmative also re”wves flexibility in ma”qeme”t of thegmehc diversq of the wdd population Remuodunion with the abiity to .x”age gene% divcrsrtythrough orga”ued translocatmns would reduce inbreedmg co”cem
AkUteroative Dnus altematNc cab for co”ti”uadio” ofthe cumm Mcxial wolfrewveIy activities, which i3 passwenmagemcnt for ~t,,ral recolor&.tion md no reintroduction This altematiw would also maintainfull protection under the Endangered Species Act for any recoloniimg wolves However, since no
35
5-33
32. We agree.
33. Estimates of staff size are now presented
in Appendix B. The proposed staff could becomprised of any combination of federal,state, tribal, or other biologists depending on
future management agreements. If reintroduc-tion is authorized, estimated project costs will
be included in FWS budget requests. Thiswould include support for agreed-upon statewildlife agency participation.
34. The FWS is willing to consider anyplausible proposal for depredation com-pensation.
35. For these reasons and others, the FWSsupports the Preferred Alternative.
12
4567 Because ofthe rcaso~ stated above. this alternative does not seem ‘reaonable’ as dctined under8 NEPA process9
10II121314I51617
2223
293J313:31343536
6
89
10li1’I?1415I6I7I8192C?2:2:2;2-l2’262?282930313:333435363738394”41
Artmu Game and Fti Commksion onober 24. 1995Meucan Wolf DEIS Evaluaaon me7
woKpop&ionr hove been found along the U S -Meaco borderlands in many years, dcspi,c surveysand follow-ups of sighting reparts. it is highly unJikely ti this alternative would evex accanplishr~ovcry objectwes As stated in the DE%. nafllral recolonization occurred very plowly in theNorthwest and the Great J-&es regxoq even though these area are near a large, tuxithy source
3 5
population of wolves
In Table 2-9 on page 243, the headiig labeled ‘lmpacu on Recrcauon’ should be changed to“Impacts on Non-bunting recreation -
CE4PTER 3. .AFFEClXD ENVIRONMENTS
Ell”C llrogc Wolf Recovery AreaThe cna”on AGFD (1992) should be replaced with Johnson et al (1992) throughout this chapterThe complete cnation is listed III tie Literature Cited secuon already
Elk and deer populauan numbers (muumun, maxuoq and average) do not seem ro be con;istentudm the DEIS The Service mun clan@ whether these discrepancies arise from enors mrmkrnaucs or they retlcn compansans between population &males at different points m time over
3G
the lengrh of the proposed recovely and management &on I
species of spcnal CO”CCTnAn update on crmcal habitat destgatlon for the spotted owl is needed in this section
The iitdtmn for deslgnat”,S the water shrew and JumpmS mouse as species of spmai concern inAnwrta should be “Anona Game and Fish De~artmenf In prep Wddbfe of soecnl concernAmona Game and Fbsh Department pubbcatmn ”
‘Cows” deer should be “Cows.” wthout the apostrophe, here and throughout the DEIS
lhere are no crossbow seasons for elk except tluough spgtal pemutr for disabled hunters Elksasons occur m September, October, November, and December
Juimm Game and Flrh Comnudon oaobu 24, 1995Meucan Wolf DEIS Evaluanon Page 8
The f,ra paragraph on page 3-13 states that “old-goti areas wll be retamed. and uneven-agednmbx managenerd will be enqhszd . Howa. the current forest plan for the Apache-SitgnawsNarimal For&s (ASNF) empbaizs even-aged management and has not ban formally amended toreflect uneven-age management emphasis
On Table 3.2 I the source should read AGFD (1994b), not ADGF 1994b
Tbe Potential Nawal IUcoloakatioo AremWe bekvc thk hadinn should Lx boldcd sod underlined as *YZ done for the White Sands and BlueRange woKrec.nay area Subsequan senior, odes should alw, k Changed to address the hierarchyoforg&anon Immediately after the utle “Soutbeastem Arizona Potertul Natural RsolotitionArea.” there should be a subheading “Coronado National Forest south of&IO” as indxated m thetable of contents
On page 3-63. 3rd paragaph. rhere should be a better reference for ibe source ofthis Oat& such asClmwndonk (lY94b)
The Hunting xmon on page 3-S should menuon that black bear and ban hunting as well as smallgame hummg IS also pernutted in tbc Coronado Nauonal Forest It could be made more clear thatonly areas south of I- IO are belng conudaed here
Hunwlg samns are no, ,dent,cal m tis area and the BRWRA There are different seasons for thesame spener m some - and additional seascm for some species In additloh small game huntingIS more common south of 1.10 than in the BRWRA
In the Public access and recreation section on page 3-67 the citation for road de&ties should bethe arig& source, such as the Forea Sernce repo”
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
36. All elk and deer population numbers havebeen rechecked; they accurately present thedata provided by the state wildlife manage-
ment agencies.
37. This has been clarified.
5-34
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
38. The experts whose opinions were soughton this topic concluded that compensatorymortality would probably be between 15%and 47%. We used a similar range of values inour prey impact simulation models andpredicted a range of estimated prey impact
levels, with the high side of the range reflect-ing low compensatory mortality and the lowside reflecting high compensatory mortality.
2
4
67
89IO
I?II:41516171819?‘I212223242526272829?O31j2‘331
Ammu Game and Fti Comrmssion ocxokl24. 1995Meman Wolf DEJS Evaluation Page9
In the professional option of the Department’s brg game specialist& 41 percent compuvatorymod,ry seemed excessively optimtsac Pro,ection. of impacts on tk wild ungulate popuiatioru 3%should .herefore be based on compensatory levels clowr to the tammu,, estimate of 17 percen*
The DEIS %ates that wolves that se~erciy unpea big game popuieuons could be uptured and movedunda the Meown Wolf- Populatmn Rule. It would be very di5cult to dnemune wluchwlf(or wolvess) was responsrble for severely impacting e big game population Therefore, USFWSand cooperatmg agencies need to be prepared and have the wthotity to trap end move wveralwoIves If not the entue peck. to m&gate the impan on the local big game population if tbu II“KClS?Jy
I,, Box J-2 the underluxd rrord “necessmly’ should be deleted in the 3rd pare~eph Anwna Gameand Firh wdl defimtely rut reduce pernut numbers just because w&es ere mtroduced Pcmutnumbers are hued on populatmns and hunt stratefpcs I
39
Possible wolf dapredatxx rmpans to the bqhom sheep populauon in the Blue Range were notadequately addressed m the DEIS These sheep are usmg bab~tats that diier markedly tom those 40cxcuprzi UI other pans af the Rock) Mountams Wolfdepredanon on b&horns is more bkely UI these Iareas cfthe Blue than m more rugesd terram
nhe Depamncrlr undemands the dl5dty and ?swmpoolm thet KC requiRd in attempting to smulatepredauon retcs and npects We also reahze that the ranger Of PrOJKtd impMs to dm and ellt area, bes, an ‘educered guess ” Therefore. a more appropriate canclusmn would be -A’A:lhoqhconndrobie u7uemnn~ er~sr.% wdres are no1 expected to severely impact prey populations m theBXUR4 II
De stament %I estumta are adjusted to 1994 dollars” should be moved to the pengraphs wheredoUrn es&mates are g~even We awmte that Walsh’s study, whxh found the average net value for biggame hummg per penon pet day of 545 47. W,%S adjusted to I58 00 tn 1994 dollars
Valuer ,n Table ?-I should be ldentied es impacts spec&c to Anwna and to New Mexico Thefi.llou,ng tabie prowdes estimates of impacts to each state m proportmn to the wdd ungulatepopulations III each state. based on the total impacts erttmated bv Duffield and Neher (19941
Arizona Game and Fish Cnmtniseion cktokr 24.1995Mextcan Wolf DEIS Evaluation Page 14
We wggest the conclum be changed to ‘Hunter tie may &II (madmum projection of IPA.), butstate wildlife agencies would reduce hunta take only de measurable reduction in the dm herdocculTed ” Ths infotmation should be h@lighted in the document &tract end sumawj 10 providefor ,hose readers who may not c.erefuIly read rJl pens of the document and en concemed eboutimpacts on hunting
Impacts on livestocklbe fo”owing sent- should be added to the !.a paragraph on page 4-11 ‘In edditio~ coyote endlion d&es may be reduced by compention with rcimcduced wolves. which could reduce livestockdepredation losses &om coyotes and Lions .
The DElS should mcludc discussion on other possible methods of cornpawing ranchers forurdd depredetmn hssa to wotvea Figures cc&d be beeed cm data from reeearch conductedon released wolves m the Southwest whch would document the extent of undiscovered w~lfkillsthough intenswc momtotig of tie wolves’ food hebm
We agree wth ihe cmclusion that wolves wdl Likely take between one end 34 cattle pa year endshould not cause a mqor lmpacr to ranchng a a whole UI the area, but some individual ranchers mayexpmence sigmficant losses In additxn thtr conclusion should also be highlighted in the summaryand abstract
Predator cootro, pro@wt~,Impacts 01 predator control pro- I” Arizona will be msigttb%nt at P result of wolfremtrodunxm The uappq ban. approved by voters in 1994, disaUow~use of traps, snares andpow,nr on publx lands ,n .A-ucn,a l-be proposed nonersential cxperimmUd nde would not requireany trappmg or other land use renritnonr on pnvate land sa the presence ofwolves in an area tillnot change any predator control programs The use of hounds to control lions in not likely to impactwolf numbers
TIC DEIS establishes that rcstntio~ may be placed on use af spccdc depredation control measures(e e MMS) through coo-e rtmagement agreements with Animal D~rmge Control and perhapsother agencies The Service needs to a5im1 thet such e~eetnems will be cm&tent across publiclands and Tribal lends to the n&mum extent fcastble
Effects of wolf colo~tation an emsting bon and coyote populat~oru will be diiatit to document.However, ei~dencc tiom other areas suggests that wolves will reduce the exining predatorpopulatmnn, either through outright klllmg of horns and coyotes or by temtoriei exclusions
The Depanmen, behevcs that man>. perhaps most, large predators diepw by wol”ee throu%terntonal aggression wll either be killed by predators already inhabit& the dispcrd Arab or willdie m a relatively short tie due to interspecific compeutmn far food and space Ahh~tJgh some
39. This language has been changed.
40. The discussion of potential impacts onbighorn sheep in the Blue Range has beenexpanded based on new information receivedfrom AGFD.
41. Revised tables provided by AGFD havebeen included in the FEIS; some figures havebeen rounded. The tables are not reproducedhere to save space.
42. This change has been made.
43. See response number 34. We agree thatthe research suggested would contribute toestimating the level of undetected livestockdepredation by wolves, but cannot guaranteefunding for this research.
5-35
I234
6
89
IOII121314I5
;o5132
2
456
89
10III213I415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839434:
Armma Game and Fii Commksion cktobxl4, 1995Meucan Wolf DEB Evaluation Page IS
dispersing displaced predators may in tom displace othcn of the um.5 spai- uklidood predator
Agency policiu and plansThe following phrase should be added in front of the fust satmcx for the State of tina‘Ahhmgh the Departrnud cn Comnission has not t&ken an official sand on wourdntroducdon ”Wolf recovery as proposed in this altemauvc wll not wrioody impact existing AGFD policiu or
Pi=
Impact, on Iand useWe agree with the conclusion that Ahernauve A will result in only minor temporary land userestncuona wtbn a one-mile radius of acove dens and alive rendezvous sites
RecreationWe agm with the corwlwon that Alternave A may cause increased n&Zion to the wolf recoveryare& hut may reqmre minor temporay rcstrictionr on access to areu within a one-mile radius ofacuve dens and acove rendezvous sws
Regmoal ecooamiuWe drsagree wh the conclusion that the greatest negative economic &ecu will be in the Ion valueofhuntmg and reduced expcndrtures associated wth huntmg As stated above, the Department willnot reduce deer pernuts in the recovery areas just because wolves are present, ifno measurablechange m rhe unld ungulate population is observed The predicted change in the wild ungulatepop&non could he easily o&et by a number of envuonmental variables, the mosl important beingthe amount and oming of amud mdsture Habitat improvemenu through the use of prescribed tires,ior example. could also mitigate effects of wolves on wild ungulate populations Ifit is M, possibleto measure a redun,on io wild ungulate numbers, the Department will not raommcnd reducinghurmngpemutrmthrareaIt~arenotreduced.orarrRducedleythanpredintdinthcDEIS,the econoouc unpan of the lost value ofhoming and huntefs expenditure will be much lower thanpredxted m the DEIS If permits are reduced, there 1s concern for the dxcreax in revawes to theDepanment fr0.n a decrease in lxense and tag sales
The Serwce mu.,, cl&y ihe dmumion betwm axnorru~ benefits sod npendrnues The suveys on I
wh,ch these conclu.uo~ were basal (USFWS surveys) may not have mcluded children under age 16Hunrmg benefits (values and expmditures) seem very low. but u also seems redundant to includeactual (e?qxndmxesJ and hypothetical (aonormc values) costs for the same evmt I
45
The projsted negaove etTa,s could also he presented as a percentage of total hunting nrpeodltures
I
YG
m the area
AnwNGvneandFiicommwton
Mexican Wolf DEIS EvaluationCktoba24, 1995
Page 16
To- should not be used as juti6cation for wolfremtroduction. The people in the Blue do not Y7warn additional thaw ofvisiton I
Summary of advent &ecu of Alternative AAdverse emn~mc impacts shald also be expressed as a perceotqc of total huotiog expeodiruresor ranching revmu~ tn the reintroduction ama to pronde paspuztive on the total impact
Wolfpopulaoon goals are lower under tis alternative and thus prey impacts are projected to be lessthan under Altemativc A However. a angle large pack of wolves could oiert sevae pressure onlocahzed bighorn sheep herds in the wolf recovery area The tlexible nunaganeot guidelines of the~onesscntal upenmental designnoon are needed to mir~gate ti potential impact.
We suggest the conctw.ion be changed to ‘Hunter take may fall (maximum projsnion of 12%). buttht Anmm Game and Fish Deportment would reduce hunter take only if a meawable reduction inthe dm had ocarrred * The computa modd predicted a maximum reduction of the dm population I 4 $by about 2 percent per yea, under tis altemaove This change 1s too small to measure usingconvenoond - techniaues llus mfommhon should be hitiahted in the doamem ahstnn andumnwv to pronde for those readers who may not carefully &dalJ pats ofthc doament but whoare concerned about wnpacts on huntmg
tmpacu on livestockWe rcqum tha the cancluuon read ‘wolves should no, cause I measumble impact to raoctuoS asa whole in the area. but some ranchers may experience low ’ This cooclusi~n should .&o beh,gh&hted m the wnmaq and abruan
Impact9 cm predator control programsADC personnel have discontinued use of the most common method of predator control in theproposed ~emtmd~cuon area. the leg-hold trap, to comply with Arirooa Rev&d Statute 17-301@)(the anu-uappmg uxt~ative) M44s can not be used on National Forest lands which m&e up morethan 94 percent of the BRWRA Therefore, restrictions on the UIC of traps or M44s because of thepresace of Mexican wolves io M area would not pou any dgni6caot additional rabictions on thetwls or me!hods used by ADC to control other predators
Impacu 00 agency and local government pdieia axad pbnrWolf recovay as proposed m this dtemauve will not seriously impact msting AGFD policies orplans
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
44. This addition has been made.
45. In Box 4-2 and in the discussion underImpacts on Hunting we have added discussion
along the lines suggested.
46. All values are based on recognized sourcesand expert economist advice; there
is no redundancy between actual expendituresand the estimated value to the hunter (apart
from expenditures) of the hunting experience.
47. The FWS has never used tourism asjustification for wolf reintroduction. How-ever, the potential impacts of wolf recovery ontourism and related industries are qualitativelydiscussed in Chap. 4 of theFEIS (see also Appendix J.)
48. This change has been made with slightrevisions to the suggested language.
49. The phrase “may experience losses”is more conditional than our conclusionstatement. We did not make this change.
5 - 3 6
121314I5
222314:r26
I13456i89
10II1113141516I?I819201,222124:526272829303!323)3435363738394341
Ariwna Oame and Ftsb GmmusionMexxan Wolf DEJS Evaluation
Octoha 24, 1995Page 17
Impacta OD land “seWe agree wtb the conclu~lon that land ore restnct,ons under tbn altemative will be minor and anymcotl”er~ence3 WIJ not resuh in major ecO”OMS los.%s
We lagTee wlh the andyss of impact3 to reaeaoan except for the effect of road closurer in respooseto dlegll kilbng of wolves The animosq created as a result of road closures will bc much more
detnmemd to the rexwery program than the added protcctlon of road dower Situ wolf homeranges m emmated to bc about 150 mi’, road closures would have to be tmrwoabiy extensive toafford the wolves any u@icmt amouot of protrmon 6om humans Access to private mholdiigswhn the forest may be restnned, raisiog the possibility of pnvate taking litigation A&wsswecnforvmmt end long-tam oiwatiooal efforts would be more effectwe methods of diwouregiog andprevennng the lllrgd take of wolves
of humng and reduced +tures fwsom for our conclusion have been stated undet AhcmatweA
Alteroetivc C:
We behcve ,t 1s impossible ,o predxt impsctr <>,n the add prey of wolves under this dtematwe Smcewolves would be allowed to disperse outside the deslgoated wolf recovery area. due to a lack ofspecificity aswcnted wth poteotial cbspersal areas, impacts to the wild ungulates cannot beaccurately modeled Extrapolation of pro~ecuons from \ntbm the BRWRA to area ouwde therecoven zone are not valid due to obvious ddfermces in habitat @es and wild ungulate populationsu,thM tnese arca.
It could be argued that impans would be much lest because the wolf population would probably be Imore d,sper& and less dense io any pamcular area On tbc other hand, wolf populations wouldorobablv mow t&-t.% snce mortelw due to control measures would be lower Walfdensitren couldbe much &ber than predicted UI a.& wxb hipher prey densities Tw much uncertainty exlsn under
I
tlur altrrmtwe to pro,en wth any confidence rhe po~entml impacts I
Impacts ott hutttingSince we bebere that accurate prqections on ihe impact to wild ungulates is impozoblc. it IS also!m?ossible then to pred~i the ef%ct of wolves on hummg. Wolves would probably dinnbutethemse:ves wdely under ttur alternative. IO mearunng ~pacts would be even more d~%cult todocum*:nt
Armma Game and Fish Commission oMkr24, 1995Mexican Wolf DEIS Evaluation Page 18
lfwo~wcrrtorandncnnmlkat ed ut thx distnbutioq local dm herds may be unpactcd eoougbto measure P decline m the deer herd, necesutating a reduction to hunter permit, for that area
Siia there would be no providonr under ttas alternative to move w&c11 having. sigoif,c~t mtpacton wild ungulate herds. localized impacts an deer and bighorn sheep could reach very sign&xntlevels I
There will be only limited depredation control on wolves takmg livestock under this alternative,because oftbe fully-endangered status In addition ranchers end thw agents will oat be allowed toharass wolves near livestock and ADC will hve additional reetrictiotu pieced oo tbur controlaftivitieo Thzrefom livatock depmdation will be higher then under Altem&ves A & B We believemual livestock dqtedetion levels w%l be bigha than pmjected in the DEIS because livestock killiigwolves dl not be removed in all cases, and these wolves may train theit oftrptig to kdl cattleunlead of wld prey We agree that this Ievd of depredation is oat likely to xriwrly tmpact ranchinga a whole, but some ranchers could orpenence ngniticant losses
adop& of the anti-trapping i&etive whch &Gdy prohibrts trappiog an public lands in Anzone.thxs imlnct would occur on private lands only However, additional restrictioos on predator controlact~wt~es. especz.lly on private lands. would meet si&cant local opposition
Span siwo~ of coyotes has ban closed m \~~wxn%in during the deer season without ovewhdmingopposuon However, this coyote hunting in Wiscoosm IS ptimarily for sport, iu predator control toebmwate depredation pressure IS not a priority with the low level of cattle graitq in the regmn lothe Southw~ the pupae of coyote honing includes depredation control in addition to the spwtmmves Thereforg opposnion to any wyorc closure would surely be i.gniBcaot, and could distractmanagers born other aspects of wolfmaagcmettt Arizona Game and Fti Comttnesion would alsohxvt to approve this do= coyote bunon cc& be allowed, but an imeosive educaioMJ cempatgn,o make humus awe that an endangered wolf population eusted in the area might be the best wayto prorect the recovenog wolf populatmn People rmstakedy rhootlng a wolfwould be prosecutedIf CIrNmstMCeS warrant
lmpacrr on agency, tribal nnd local govcrament policia and platsImpaas to Department policies and plans could be signif~cent under this dtemative If low wddungulate populations were aupccted of aITeaing wolf recovery, the D!3IS stata that habitatrrumg- could be required to improve forage for the wild w The USFWS could alsorecommend changer in home% batvest strategy for the area to increase wild uogtdete populationsDuea USFWS involvement in state-coordmated bunting programs would med with qndicantopposition. not only 15om pnvate homers, but also from the Deperlment and Commission Vie
50
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
50. See response number 12 above. The FWS
agrees that enhanced law enforcement andpublic education would be more effective thanroad closures.
5 1. Because of the uncertainties and data
deficiencies AGFD has identified, quantita-tive impact analyses were confined to theBRWRA and WSWRA, for which data wereavailable. Potential impacts in other areas intowhich wolves would likely disperse generally
are addressed qualitatively.
52. Comments acknowledged.
sx
53
53. We agree.
54. We agree with the approach presented.However, if wolves were mistakenly killedafter implementation of these measures, theFWS might request limited coyote huntingseason closures through cooperative agree-ments with the States, under Ah. C.
5 - 3 7
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
4
x4
I(’
13
21.22”2:242’
4
I?I8I9x212223212’2c2’2x29303!3’33313’
Amona Clatne and Fii Commmmn Octobu 24, 1995Meucan Wolf DEIS Evaluation Page I9
understaod that USFWS involvement in the state’s hunt strategy is not bkely, but under thisaltemauve 11 appears to be more than lust a remote porsibiity
We a&r.% that a fully-prot&tcd wolfpoption could pose a potential management conflict betweenwolf recovery and habitat preservaoon for spotted owls and goshawh Habitat mmagement forwolves, ifrequired to ensure its recovery, would encourage early successional stage forests, whichIs higher quality habitat for the wolves primary prey mtmals Spotted owls and gashawks appear torequire older forests titb a more closed canopy
An ecosystem management approach may prove successful in dealing with ths potential conflictHowever. no such approach IS operational at this tne. and the complexity of the m&-agencycaordinauon that would be required would take conslderablc time to develop and impleme,,t Webelieve thrs ecosystem management approach needs to be operational before implementation of thisalterratrve
Impacts OP land useConsldmng the fan that wolves can wthstmd considerably more human land use disturbance thanprewusly thougl~ it is not likely that current and planned activities in the wolf remtroductian zonewould bar”, the wlw m my %qdicmt way Nevertheless, the fldly-protected status of the wolveswould regwre the USRVS to consult under Section 7 on activities that may affect the wolvesConsultarmns could require an mordlnate amount oftime and resources In certain uses involvingmanagement of old growth habitat ofspotted owls, management contlicts could arise over settingpnonues for one endangered spews over another Ln additioq restrictions on grwiog could bes1gm6cam tithe USFWS detenrued that livestock depredatioru by wolves led to illegal kdlings ofUOl”Ci
We b&eve that upfmm or pemmem land use rcstricho~ would be cuunterprcductive to MemanwoJfrsavety Unda this altematwe, 11 is unlikely that major land use restrictions would be needed,but sme the authority ad pxsiiility cons, we do not bebeve this is M appropriate alternative fromthe land use perspective
vve agree lha wolfreulud”&on nught ccsu.%c a shght increaw in visitation to the wolfrccovely areaMmor. temporary restnmonr in access to areas withm a one-mile radius of acfive dens and activerendezvous vtes to proiea wolves should not ca,,x major ~pacts to recreatmnists However, large-scale cixures could cause sign&ant impacts, would be di5mlt to enforce, and may not be helpful10 he uolves Gwen the Iweb ofwrdmr recreaion paronpation tn other areas of the Umted Statesthat are occupied by much greater numbers of wolves (e.g Mionaota, Wwosm), it semx veryunlikely tJ,at ux,,xm for personal safety would of ,tself dgn&wtly dish human recreational useof the proposed wolf recovery areas
Arizona Game and Fish Commission October 24, 1995Mexican Wolf DEIS Evaluation Page 20
Cdavlg the tidty i” estimatig mpacts to wdd ungtdate be& it will be r,ea to impaibleto make projezacm of the eaxwncc impact3 to lunttng. Wolves could cotivably kill enough deerorbighansheeptonaa.&te trdxiiorts in hinter permits under this aitawivc. Although it wouldbe diliicult to predict an accurate estimate of the economic impact to bunting resulting from thisalmrdve, we believe that this altemative would impose the most @b%,,t sonomic impacts ofall alternatives proposed
As stated prewuly utxkr impacts on Irvatod; wJfdepred&ons could become widespread withoutthe abrlity to control each and every depredating wolf This altematwc would cause the gearesteconomic impacts to the rancher, and could concervably exceed even the high estimates within theDEIS
We disagree that the rqatwe ssorumic impacts oftis &cm&ive would be predommantly in the lostvalue of huntmg and reduced hunter expmdnura Ahbough impacts 10 wild ungulates mayr,ezutitate tniumonr m hunter permits, we believe the value of livestock lost to wolves could be asSlgni6cant, Ifnor more
AIterlutivc D:We agree that the likelihood 01. natural rezolonizarion occurring tom suspected, but unproven,populauon reservoirs m Mexico IS exvemely remote In additios ifnatural recolonizatxx~ were to-. n would probably take place slowly and impacts would not be meawable in the foreseeablelkture 130.50 years) Even though Mcxlcan wolves have bem listed as an endangered species since1976. tius status has not allowed them to recolonize io the nearly 20 years they have hem Fully-protected Tllis altemabve does not describe any speafic methods that would ensue recolonizarionIn additmr+ the expected carrying upacinn of the natural recolotition uur would not meet theMeucan Wolfrecovery Plan population goals
ProJected unpacc on huntmg livestock, government policieo md pla”s, recreatior, aed the localeconomy under lhis altematwe are too vague to d~xuss
CONSL!LTATTON AND COORDINATION
This secoon IS complerr and well organized
APPENDICES
se suggest consecutive lettering of tbc appendices to avoid the appearance that Appendixes I& 1,I, K, etc are nusmg or were omitted
5-38
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
55. It does and that has now been made more
clear.
34
6
89
10II1213II15161:I819
3536373339a41
Anzotu Game and Fti Commission October 24, 1995Mexican Wolf DEJS Eval!xabon Page21
Complete
Appendix B:
Prq~on of costs are mx daded enough to make spa-if% comments. However, it appears that fieldstaf?md adminitie cmts could be reduced wmiderablv It is not clear if the amount for field ¶aEsalarxs in&da a full-me ADC agem assigned specfcally to this project Adequate funding mustbe available for the durabon of the projst.
.Momtonng and research funions could be conducted through P wopaative agreement vj.3 apnvate contranor or Umvernty, mahng outside sources of fundmg available
Appendix C:
Complete, although lust a draft
Append? D:
Listed \pecter included m “III Penmen1 Speues and H&tats’ should be defined u those species05c1dly lmed by USFWS for the area, many of which do not actually can in the areaOthewsc tis Appendu appears complete
Appendix E:
.4ccura.e
Appendix F:
Complete and accurate
Appendix G:
.Az stated above, “distwbance-causmg land use actinties” should he defined in detail
Appendix L:
Lnerature should be crted m ascending chronolog~al order for references by the same author
TBI DIG t)
Mr Bawd R ParsonMrx:can Wolf Recoverv ProgramU 5 Fish and Wildhfe ServlcrMeucan Wolf EISP C) BOX 1306Alb”quPrque, New Mc‘x” 87133-1306
Thank you for the chance to comment on the Fish and Wddhfe Serwce’sdraft Fnwronmenta, impact Statement (tIEIS on the proposed remtroduction of theMrucan wolf into the Southwest I oppose the various alternatives forremtroductmn outhned m the DElS Indeed, I do not thmt remtroduction m anyform would now serve the mterests of the people of Anzona My opposlhon stemsmanlv from concenu about the health and welfare of the people of my state Inaddloon, i have quesaons about the viabihty of the proposed nntroducbon andproblems with the way 11 would be admmisteted under the Endangered Spenes Act
A leadmg owxbcal expert m Aruona recently pointed out to me P agndicanthuman health ruk hkely to arIse from the remtroduction of wolves mto theSouthwest Dr. Peter Johnson. Chairman of the D~vwon of Neuropathology at theBarrow Nrurirlogicai inshtute in Fhcemx, warned tlm rabm. an almost unwersauyfatal daease, would probably make a comeback IIT the United Stat- after years 01exoenwe control efforts lie exolainfd that wolves moodwed in Arizona or New 1Mkro would almost certawd; roam to Mexico, where rabies 1s much morecommon. and carry the &sea& back to the “n,ted States. Rabid wolves. wlch Ibewme agreasive and err&c, would then spread the disease 10 humans wtherthrough durct attacks or mduect transmission from large game anun& that havesurwved wolf attacks Last ye&s statewde ban on the trapping of large predatorshas already appeared to spark an mcrease m the p,pulahon of bears, coyotes, andmountam boru. Tiw proh,b,bnn llkewse would make it d,fflcult to control the I
Arizona Office of the Governor:
1. We have reviewed Dr. Johnson’s com-ment letter and we strongly disagree. SeeAppendix A on Mexican Gray Wolf LifeHistory and Ecology, section on Pathogensand Parasites for a discussion of rabies. Somekey points: the small numbers of wolves arevery unlikely to affect the overall incidence ofrabies in the Southwest since rabies is alreadyfound in other numerous animals, such as batsand skunks; under the Proposed Action wolveswill not be allowed to travel to Mexico, ratherthey would be recaptured; and cases of wildwolves transmitting rabies to people areexceedingly rare in recorded North Americanhistory (only reported case in the Lower 48was in 1833). Of course, if anyone was bittenby a wild wolf, which is very un-likely, theyshould be examined for possible rabiesinfection, as they would be if bitten by otherwild mammals. Treatment to prevent rabies iscommonplace and very successful.
2. We are unaware of any data that otherpredator populations have increased due to thetrapping ban; detection of a broad one-yearincrease would be extremely difftcult. In anyevent, the trapping ban would not apply tofederal efforts pursuant to the experimentalpopulation rule which, if adopted as a finalrule, will specifically allow for wolf trappingfor control, research, and other needs.It would preempt conflicting state law.
5-39
pressure Under alternative A. for example. the negative economic impact iromreduced hunbn~ acnvitv would totaI more than 162 million per year The DUS also
dowipiays tbc tmpact on ranchers. a”“~, losses of up to <cattie -: coGde& $posslbdlty under sevrrai of the altematwes - would have a meanvlgful impact onihe cattl; .“dustry, I” parhcular because such kiUs almost certainly would beconcrntrated ,I, such a way that a small number of ranchers would have to copewith the losses The DE5 and the Defenders of Wddhfe have also been reluctant toguarantee bv conhact depredabon fund monies to be avadabie on a long term andcontwwny ban,
/ also nave a number of con~ems about the proposed remhoductm” that stemfrom the hmory and requvements of Endangered Speoes Act IESAI
The FWS acrordmg the DEIS. mtends to estabirsh a papvlati”” oi onlyI20 woLves m the Southwest, wth 100 L” Arvona and 20 ir. New.vexxu However. this populahon target could ruse substanhally,brlngmg addrtmnai risks and costs, d enwronmentahsts and Judgesconspm lo delermme that the FWS was not sufhnently ambmour. ashappened rrcrntlv wth the wolf remtroducaon program the FWq hadlaunched I” Mm”esa,a
. Fndiy, the proposed retntroducnon appears to be m conflict wtthprowstons of the ESA. mcludmg Sectmn 4 lb1 (1) IA) wlch requresthrt al, decwons be made on the bas,s of the best available snentthcand commernal data and Section 10 (2) ,A, wbxh calls on the Secretaryof the Intenor to determine prror to a release whether a populahon tobe remtroduced IS essentml to the rurvtval of P speoer
! agam urge yrw not to remtrducr the Mex,can wolf into the SouthwestThere are many better uses for $7 mUion oi taxpayers’ money than this dubmuscxperrment
3
‘1
5
b
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3. The $2 million per year “high scenario”
figure applies to the whole BRWRA, about2/3rds of which is in New Mexico. More than50% of the figure is not actual lost expendi-
tures, rather it is a lost intangible “value ofhunting.” In other words, it represents the lost
“willingness-to-pay” of hunters who wouldnot be able to hunt (most of whom would notbe from the BRWRA region). Thus, actual lostexpenditures in the Arizona portion of theBRWRA region are projected to be far lessthan the figure quoted. Most of those lost
expenditures would be spent elsewhere inArizona on hunting or other activities.
4. We strongly disagree that there is anyscientific consensus against the suitability ofthe captive population; see Appendix K -
Response to Mr. Dennis Parker, for evidencethat the overwhelming weight of expertopinion supports the suitability of the captivepopulation.
5. There has never been a wolf reintroduc-tion program in Minnesota and no determina-tion by a judge that we are aware of that theEastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan is “notsufftciently ambitious.”
6. We believe we have used the bestavailable scientific and commercial datarelevant to wolf recovery. Appendix Cdoes contain proposed findings that thereintroduced population would be considered“nonessential.” A Federal regulation contain-ing these findings and the special ruleestablishing the nonessential, experimentalpopulation will be issused prior to anyreleases.
Fife Symm@mGOVERNOR
5-40
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
New Mexico Department ofAgriculture:
1. New information has been providedabout these lineages, in Chap. 2 and AppendixK - Response to Mr. Dennis Parker, whichaddresses many of the same issues raised.
2. See response to USDA ADC, above.
5-41
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3. No, these 3 and 5 year evaluationsare not tied together. As far as programtermination, see response to USDA ADCcomment number 6, above.
4. The reintroduction goals are clear: 100wolves distributed over at least 5,000 mi’.Meeting this goal alone would not allowde-listing; other populations would need to bereestablished elsewhere in accordance withcriteria being developed in the revision of theMexican Wolf Recovery Plan. There is no planto ever change the designation of the reintro-duced experimental population or to designatecritical habitat.
5. See response #l to New MexicoGovernor Johnson, below. We have done therequired assessments under NEPA and we donot project any significant impact on NewMexico’s livestock industry.
5 - 4 2
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
New Mexico Department ofGame and Fish:
1. The FWS believes that a valid test of wolfbehavior in the wild could be obtained on the
BRWRA. Past and recent public opinion pollsdemonstrate substantial local support for wolf
recovery. Nevertheless, the FWS believes thatlocal support could be increased with localparticipation in management decisions.
2 . Thank you.
3. We agree and have proposed in thePreferred Alternative a cautious approach towolf reintroduction with periodic reviewsof success and opportunities for mid-coursecorrections and project termination, ifappropriate, through an adaptive managementprocess.
4. The FWS generally agrees with thesecomments. The issues raised would be fullyaddressed prior to wolf reintroductions byestablished management and advisory groups.
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
6. The quoted statement has been deleted inthe FEIS. There was no requirement that IDteam members be supportive of wolf recovery.
To keep the team to a manageable size not
every state or other agency with a potentialinterest was invited to be a team member. Due
to fairness, manageability, and legal consider-ations, ID team meetings were generally notopen to non-members, except for invitedconsultants and off&Is.
7. We will hold consultation meetings onthe proposed rule when it is published andyour Department will be invited.
5-43
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
5. Comment acknowledged.
6. See response number 1. We agree thatincreased local support and participationwould enhance the success of reintroduction
efforts.
7. Ungulate population ecology, predator-prey relationships, predator-predator relation-ships, and other ecological factors relevant towolf recovery are extremely complex andincompletely understood. The FWS believes itis an over-simplification to view wolf reintro-duction as just an addition of another sourceof ungulate mortality. We believe thestatement is not well supported by data fromareas where wolf populations are recoveringnor by expert opinion.
8. We acknowledge NMDGF’s concern;however, our impact analyses and the experi-ence in other states where wolf populations arerecovering suggest that the added burden oflivestock depredation cases should be manage-able.
5-45
I
I z
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
New Mexico Office of theGovernor:
I. We have been unable to identify anyrequirement under New Mexico law that this
federal proposal is subject to an economicimpact analysis. Still, we believe the FEISprovides the most detailed economic impact
projections that can reasonably be done. Wedid contract with an expert economics
consultant. We are unaware of any credibleinformation that wolf recovery will “devastatelocal economies.” As far as lack of informa-tion, see the previous comment from the
Department of Game and Fish that the DEISis based on the “best available information.”
2. NEPA guidelines were followed; seethe previous comment from the New MexicoDepartment of Game and Fish, whichparticipated in the EIS process, thatcommends the cooperative process usedin preparing the EIS.
Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment:
1. Thank you for your comment.
5-46
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Texas Department of Agriculture:
1. There is no plan to introduce wolves in
Texas. Please see letter from Texas Parks andWildlife.
5-47
moved”m,ay frcm fh,s area for a rea*o” The “ad I& bythe wolf ha* *,ntebe%” f,lled by other predator* *“cl, as coyotes, mou”,a,” konr. and bobcat*Cxmge ha, occurred, and “atwe has cmyxnsskd To a”~“‘,, to play ‘God‘and mtcrfere a, ,I?* pa,“, Will wreak havoc wvl a *y*tem that has alreadyquaked
I
;L
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Indian Tribes
Mescalero Apache Tribe:
I. We acknowledge that some vegetationand animal composition shifts have occurred
since wolf eradication. However, we do notbelieve that these shifts would limit wolfreintroduction in the areas proposed. On the
WSWRA, the removal of grazing since the1940s has likely enhanced the naturalvegetation and plant communities of the San
Andres and Oscuras. Similarly, in theBRWRA, the natural flora and fauna may bein better condition overall now than at thetime wolves were exterminated, when severeoverstocking of livestock and overharvesting ofthe native ungulates was occurring (see Ligon
1927).
2. We disagree that the wolf is equivalent toan exotic. The wolf has successfully returnedin the northern Rockies and elsewhere afterlong absences. The wolf did not “moveaway”; it was deliberately exterminated.
5-48
THE SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE*do c.rk* A”-“w“0 so”
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
San Carlos Apache Tribe - Monette
1. If a wolf reintroduction project is
approved, the FWS would enter into an
agreement with the San Carlos Apache Tribefor wolf management, if the Tribe desired.
5-49
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
San Carlos Apache Tribe - Brown
1. Wolf recovery has not been proposed for
the San Carlos Apache Reservation, andwolves that disperse there could be capturedand removed, with the Tribe’s permission andcooperation. Because the Tribe has stated itsopposition to wolf recovery, we assume the
Tribe would take advantage of this provisionof the proposed experimental population rule.Because wolves would not be allowed torecolonize the reservation under the PreferredAlternative, impacts to reservation resourcesare predicted to be minor. Input from the
San Carlos Apache Tribe has been soughtthroughout the development of the EISthrough the Tribe’s representative on theInterdisciplinary Team.
2. The suggestion that livestock depredationwould be higher than predicted on thereservation is speculative. Wolves would onlyoccupy the reservation temporarily until theycould be captured and removed. Wolves seenin the act of attacking livestock could be killedunder the management provisions. It is ourunderstanding that the Defenders of Wildlifecompensation program would pay forlivestock killed by wolves on the reservation.
3. The FWS lacks legislative authority tocompensate for livestock or other animalskilled by wolves.
4. The FWS believes that Tribal livestockassociations will not be significantly affectedby implementation of the Preferred Aherna-tive. Nevertheless, we anticipate that one ofthe duties of project personnel, especially theanimal damage control specialist, will be tohelp livestock owners improve managementpractices to reduce the potential for losses topredation.
5. The FWS supports the establishment ofan agreement with the Tribe and has initiatedefforts at the staff level to develop draftlanguage for such an agreement.
6. The FWS considers implementation of
the ESA to be consistent with its trustresponsibilities to the Tribe. We do not believethe law supports the suggestion that the FWS’strust responsibilities includes an obligation toreimburse the Tribe for wildlife lossesattributable to wolf predation.
5-50
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
7. See response number 6 above. Becauseof the number of variables and uncertainties
involved, it would be extremely difftcult toisolate the effects of a reintroduced wolfpopulation on the populations of deer and
elk that migrate between the Reservationand the BRWRA.
8. We agree that wolves might prey on wildturkeys. We lack clear information or data tosuggest how much. Where wolves are recol-colonizing in wild turkey range in Wisconsin,
little predation on turkeys has been observed(R Thiel, Wisconsin DNR, pers. comm.).
9. Suggested changes have been made in theFEIS, except for part of the suggestionfor p. 4-23. We have incorporated some ofthat information in Chap. 3 and Chap. 4,under Alt. C. We have pointed out in theIntroduction of Chap. 4 that the impacts ofAlt.s A and B could affect the adjacent reser-vations if the wolves are not promptly con-trolled, referencing the types of impacts dis-cussed under Ah. C. Information regardingmigration on and off the reservation appearsincomplete and the implications as far ashunting on the reservation are uncertain.
U.S. Congress Members:
Henry Bonilla:
1. Wolf reintroduction is not proposed inTexas and wolf reintroduction in Arizona andNew Mexico is not projected to cause anyimpacts in Texas, particularly since theWSWRA has been dropped from Ah. C.Natural wolf recolonization from Mexico isconsidered very unlikely. If it did occur, themost foreseeable place in Texas is Big BendNational Park. The wolf likely would enhancetourism and would not be likely to causemore than marginal impacts to ranchers inthe area.
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
State Legislators:Brown:
1. The wolf does not pose a significant
danger to humans or to the survival of anyother species.
Baca:
1. Thank you for your comment.
5-52
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
uorld he uouldn~~ hare created them ‘. lie alw remembered a nme when theI oh<) ran edd I” rhls area and provided a \en necessary function to the land,and nz remembered that UI the 1930’s , Xl s. and the 1950’s, the governmentpre a 101 of manq to the ranchers 10 get nd of them He sad to me WI)dlstmctly ‘The I&OS cams first. not the canle. dxretcn THEY are tbhe naW.esto Ihl, land and pla) a ‘en unponant iunction I” de dlrersit) ofdus Iwd”
I m \U r a rancher bj an> means. and I don’t know a lo1 about all of the,\sues 111 queslmn here. BUT I da understand that If ,t IS an ,ss”e ofeconormcsand thnt ,f the Meucan wolf k,lls ofl a rancher s Iwesf~k, that there ARE meansof compensatq the ranchn for the loss oftbe ihvestock that can be demonstrated,c, be due ICI wolf predawn
Vaughan:
1. The Alamogordo Zoo wolf exhibit isonly a small part of the captive breedingprogram, which includes an additional 23zoos and wildlife sanctuaries throughout theUnited States. One important purpose of theMexican wolf exhibit at the Alamogordo Zoois to educate people about the native speciesof New Mexico.
5-53
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Williams:
1. We disagree that the wolf disappearednaturally; it was deliberately exterminated.
Madla:
1. See response to Rep. Bonilla, above.Wolves are not proposed for release in BigBend NT?
2. The FWS does not propose to “attract”wolves to Big Bend, but would take steps toprotect any wolves that naturally recolonizedthat area to enhance their survival. In thatsense, the FWS would “encourage” wolf
recovery.
5-54
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
3 . The FWS also held a public meeting inAlpine, Texas, which is potentially affected
only by Ah. D, the “No Action” approachwhich considers natural recolonization. No
one in Texas would be affected by theproposed wolf releases. Please see TexasParks and Wildlife letter.
Black:
1. Wolf reintroduction into Big Bend is notplanned. No one in Texas would be affectedby the proposed wolf releases.
5-55
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2. This right to manage wolves could cometo landowners if the Mexican wolf is ever de-listed. But now, under the ESA, the FWS isrequired to work for recovery of the wolf. Thisduty would not be served by grantingunlimited private management authority.
Nevertheless, the experimental population ruledoes represent the FWS’s granting of limitedmanagement flexibility to private landowners,
including permission to harass wolves and,under certain circumstances, to kill them.
Gallego:
1. Thank you for your comment. Seeresponses to previous legislator comments.
5-56
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Sims:
1. Thank you for your comment. Seeresponses to previous legislator comments.
2. The suitability of Big Bend NationalPark for wolf recolonization has not beendemonstrated, and wolf reintroduction has
not been proposed there.
Turner:
1. Wolves are not expected to prey ondesert bighorn sheep to a significant degree.
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Local Governments
Apache County:
1. These are primarily legal issues that arenot the subject of the EIS process. The FWSdisagrees with ail of the assertions.
5-58
3
5
I‘1
I 8
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2. The EIS process is not required to fullyaddress all of the topics mentioned, although
the economic issues are covered. Where a clearinference as far as the sociocultural topics can
be made from the environmental impact
analysis, then it is made. There is no evidencethat recovery of endangered wolves elsewherehas had significant sociocultural impacts.
3. We disagree, see Appendix K - Response
to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on theDEIS.
4. The New Mexico opinion survey was
conducted last year (Duda and Young 1995).
5. Reported wolf sightings from the Blue areahave been followed up, but none have beenconfirmed. Even if the occasional lone wolfexisted in the area, the reintroduction effortcould proceed so long as there was not a“population” (i.e., at least two successfulbreeding pairs for at least two years). If in facta wild Mexican wolf existed in the area andinterbred with the reintroduced Mexican wolfpopulation, it would not destroy the geneticpurity of the reintroduced wolves, but it couldenhance their genetic diversity.
6. See rewritten Taxonomy and HistoricDistribution sections of Chap. 1.
7. Wolves may be attracted to garbage thesame way many other scavenging animalsare. The EIS does discuss what will occurif wolves leave the recovery areas and doesdisclose potential impacts on domesticanimals.
8. The Proposed Action allows ranchers toprotect livestock on their land if wolves attackit and to harass wolves in the vicinity of theirproperty.
9. We disagree; even under the fullprotection of Ah. C, the likelihood of suchsevere consequences occurring is very low.
10. Investigation has produced newinformation that is cited in Chap. 3.
5-59
Board of Supervisors
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
11. See response to Arizona Game and FishDepartment on this issue.
12. We disagree; see Appendix K - Responseto Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on theDEIS.
Cochise County:
1. That statement has been deleted fromChap. 5 of the FEIS.
5-60
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2 . We surveyed numerous experts beforedrawing the comparison between the northernwolf recovery areas and the Southwest as far asimpacts on livestock (see Box 4-3 andAppendix F). No northern areas were directlyconsidered to calculate wild ungulate
impacts; these were estimated through amodelling effort with expert input. It isunlikely that the ability of wild ungulates
co leap fences will allow them to escapepursuing wolves (who can also leap or gothrough fences) and extremely unlikely
that wild ungulates would flee the hugedesignated wolf recovery areas.
3. We have added more discussion of thespotted owl in the “Cumulative Impacts”
section.
4. We agree that uncertainty exists about theimpacts; identifying this uncertainty isappropriate under NEPA. We disagree thatpositive impacts were exaggerated; in fact, thepotential negative impacts are easier toquantify than the benefits. More discussion ofbenefits from wolf recovery in the NorthernRockies and the Great Lakes region isprovided in Appendix J.
5. We do not foresee significant cumulativeimpacts on the prey base outside the areaswhere wolf recovery is proposed.
6. See responses to USDA ADC, ArizonaGame and Fish Dep’t and Arizona Gov.Symington, above, on the trapping ban issue.ADC would still be able to use leg-hold traps.
7. Box 4-3 does discuss wounding anddifficult-to-find losses. Defenders of Wildlifemay pay for wounding and has paid apercentage in the Northern Rockies in somecases where wolves were in the area but couldnot be confirmed as the depredator. TheDefenders’ compensation fimd has paidout roughly $2,000 per year on averagesince 1987 in the Northern Rockies; theMinnesota state fund has paid between
roughly $23,000 and $43,000 per year inthe last 10 years in an area with approximately1,500 to 2,000 wolves. During afew years, claims against the Minnesota fund
exceeded the amount appropriated by theLegislature and claimants had to wait up to sixmonths for payment, but all approved claimshave been paid (B. Paul, USDA ADC, pers.comm.).
5-61
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
8. The plan is that the designation will endwhen the Mexican wolves are fully recoveredand removed from the endangered species list,
which will likely take several decades;this project is one part of the recovery effort.When recovery is achieved, and federal
protection no longer necessary, the designa-tion will be determined by state wildlife laws
at the time.
9. Chap.s 3 and 4 include descriptions ofrelevant state, tribal, and local laws andimpacts on them.
10. The sites were chosen because they are inthe probable historic range and possessfavorable characteristics for wolf recovery, asdescribed in Chap. 2 - Selection of PotentialAreas for Releasing Mexican Wolves. Theywere not chosen for wolf viewing.
11. No decision or regulatory action has beentaken yet. Appendii C contains the ProposedMexican wolf experimental population rule,the preamble of which contains a RequiredDeterminations section addressing the pointsraised.
12. See Appendix K - Response to Mr.Parker’s Comments.
13. We have been and remain open toconsidering any information relevant toMexican wolf recovery, no matter whatthe source. We did state we would notcontribute FWS funding to support researchby an individual we did not agree was anappropriate researcher, but we never havebarred anyone from conducting research onbehalf of the counties, or independently. Wehave not indicated that information providedby counties is tainted.
14. See response to similar comments in
Public Comment Summary, under GeneralComments on the DEIS.
5-62
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Graham County:
A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF GRAHAM, ARIZONAR E L A T I N G T O T H E MA?3 ENVlRONMENTAL MPACT S T A T E M E N T - P R O P O S A L PORRElNlRODUCllON OF T H E YEXlCAN W O L F W I T H I N I T S H I S T O R I C R A N G E I N T”ESOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES
WHEREAS. the Board of Superolsors of me County 01 Graham Arizona have genune co”cerns‘Mh t”e procosed AW,mt,“e A and A,,erna,ues B and C ou,,“ed in the above referenced docume”,
WHEREAS Graham Cou”ty as a member of the Coairt~on 01 Anzona/New Mexc Counnes forStable Ecovomc Growth and the Eastern tiuona Counties Or~an~zar~on. suppons the 9011s and
g”“ei”!ng body of the counry :he authortry 10 pie” f& the p,otecuor d the health. safe& con;e”,e”ceand genera v&are of the remem of Graham County and
WHEREAS. Graham Luunty bwg oire~fly ad,ace”t 10 the geograpnlc areas proposed andpotentially tncluded ir the proposal *se” are arenly Interrelated ,” terms of eco”om,c heahh andstablllb presewat~on of frad,t,“na, c”s,omf and c”,t”ral her,tage .e”d outdoor recreabona, and sp.,n,“goppon”n*Ps. and
WHEREAS. SeCtion 151X 2(f) “1 National Enwronmental Policy AC, (NEPA) Siates that neFederal Government I” cooperatto” vath State and local governments and other concerned and
WHEREAS Grahan Csunq h”d5 this ‘Dra‘t. Enwonmental Impact Statement to be ,“aoeq”ateunder the condltlons ~dentrtec I” NEPA case law whtch define the crRer,a of a” adequate and t”orough I
MEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. ,,,a, I” order to ,“w,e m,n,mal ,mpacts on ihe cou”cy s directrelatlonshlp to adjolnlng Anzona and New Mexrm coutites I” lerms of custom. wkure, econo”wc wellbmg. seal w&re, he surrounding enwronmenf and wildlife spews, the E3oard Of Supewuors ofGraham County. Armma suppan and enco~rqe mematlve VY, ttu ‘no Introduction rlwnativs’,a3 me OILY rsaSO”able OpbO” when coMWing preSeMtlOn of Ihe 9-e~. the 5e”o”S defiCZ”oeSwtiln The docume”t a”d tie direct m”i%c, wntl no, only Graham County’s Land Use and RevxxcePoilcy Plan but also the go& and objenrws ot the other twenty-two (22) counttee that are membersof the Coaltio” d Anzona/Hew Me&n Count,es 10‘ Stable Economtc Growth.
BE IT NRTHER RESOLVED, that me United States Fish and Wildliie Sewcs I” dweloplng 10final Enwonmenti impact Statement M mxordarce *h the Namn.3l Emnronmental Policy Act rnwCOnSldW and a”we both tie drec! and cumulatl~e ,mpacts o‘ Its decno” upon the socal custom andcuitwa. and ecnnom~c weI1 bang of the caens of the sotiwestern rqo” as well as Graham CountyThBt a”a@es must ,“dude but “a De lkmded to o,+,er publIshed and recognized suennfic da,?,, theeften (5) of each alternative on me eumng ~Memess designabons, munlple &es of pubkc landshabltat~ of “ar!o”s endangered and ,hreatened spenes. v.,,mer lIsted or bang considered for llsbngand other c~ls~deratlons reqwred b iaw to be ev&a,ed and wghed before rel”trwJ”cbon of Mexlca”wakes ocox s” the rqon wh,ch ,“c,udes Graham Ccx,“,y and ts “e,ghb.,rq m”“bes
PASSED WD mo~7-c~ this xrn oar of Dnober 1995
I
APPROVED AT TO FORM GRAHAM COUNPl BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1. With respect to the right-of-way issue, the
FWS has deleted the provision in the Pro-posed Action for closing backcountry, ForestService roads in the event of illegal wolfkilling.
2. Mexican wolf recovery will have no
affect on existing wilderness designations.We believe the FEIS satisfies the otherrequirements mentioned.
5-63
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Gteenlee County:
1. We have added discussion in Chap. 1regarding historical accounts of wolfdepredation. The wolf was also eradicatedfrom the Northern Rockies because itdepredated on livestock. Since its return innorthern Montana, very little depredationhas occurred, i.e., a fraction of 1% of thelivestock available, and the wolves do preferwild prey. Much of that region also is quiterugged. See response to the fence-jumpingissue also raised (#2) by Cochise County.
5-64
page 3 Of 7
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2. The FEIS does not say there will be an
overall economic benefit; indeed, we do notprovide a cost benefit ratio. We do say that thenegative economic effects projected likelywould be offset by economic benefits, butto an uncertain extent. The benefits aremore problematic to quantify than the costs.
3. The hunting-related losses are entirelyseparate from the government’s ProjectImplementation Costs, as set out, andmodified since the DEIS, in Appendix B ofthe FEIS. Much of the latter might be spentin ways that benefit local communities, e.g.,living expenses paid into local economies bywolf management field staff, hiring localtrapping assistants, local purchases, etc. Wehave not considered multiplier effects foreither increases or losses of expenditures in theregion for the reasons stated in response to thecomment on indirect and multiplier effects inthe Public Comment Summary, under
Impacts on Regional Economies.
4. We actually state, in Chap. 4 - Impactson Regional Economies, and under Cumula-tive Impacts, that ranch failures are conceiv-able but not expected. There is no evidence
that cattle ranchers have been put out ofbusiness by wolf recovery in the NorthernRockies or Great Lakes regions. On the other
issues, see the responses given in the PublicComment Summary sections on Impacts onthe Livestock Industry, and Compensation
for Livestock Depredation.
5-65
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
5. The Projected Wolf Population Growthtables in Chap. 2 do include reasonablemortality projections for wolves from bothlegal and illegal causes.
6. We have visited the Blue area and domention it in Chap. 3 of the FEIS. Wolfrecovery is not projected to cause severeimpacts to Blue residents. Wolves areprojected to help reduce the large elk popula-tion.
5 - 6 6
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
5 - 6 7
Page 2October 18, 1995ParsOIlS
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Catron County:
5-68
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
1. This is a legal interpretation issue.Our basic interpretation, as stated in Chap. 4
- Impacts on Agency, Tribal and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans, is that, tothe extent inconsistencies or conflicts existbetween local ordinances and the federal ESA,together with the Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Rule (if it is adopted as a federal
regulation), the local ordinances would bepreempted. We have pointed out where wesaw areas of inconsistency or conflict, patticu-larly for those counties with ordinances thatattempt to ban wolf reintroduction outright.
We agree that the NEPA CEQ regulationsdefine federal requirements as fat as coopeta-tion in planning with local governments andwe have complied with those regulations.While we have attempted to cooperace withthe counties, we have not agreed to submit tocounty approval processes under their variousplanning ordinances. We have stated toCatron and other counties in several lettersthat we believe we retain some discretion indeciding what constitutes cooperation to the“fullest extent possible,” given budget,stafhng, and time constraints. We have offeredto cooperate with counties in their ownenvironmental analyses on wolf recovery;offered to make background informationavailable; attempted to conduct joint researchand studies; considered research and studiesprovided to us by county offkials and others;had several meetings about preparation of theDEIS with county officials and reptesenta-tives; held open house meetings in virtually allof the counties affected; and held a jointpublic comment meeting on the DEIS withone county that requested to do so. Because ofthe large area involved in the DEIS analysis (3states, 3 tribes, 17 counties, and the jurisdic-tions of numerous state and federal agencies),it was not practically possible to involve all thelocal governments as joint or co-lead agenciesor for the FWS to participate in many detailed
local planning processes (which requirenumerous formal meetings) on top of theNEPA requirements. We believe this FEISfully addresses local impacts to the extent the
transitory impacts of wolf recovery can beidentified to a particular county; we havediscussed potential impacts in Catton County
in several parts of Chap. 4. When we havereceived information from the counties thatwas appropriate to include in the FEIS, wehave included it. We have offered to assist inlocal planning efforts and remain open to thatas well as to other avenues of cooperation.
I
durmg Lhe “pubhc comen, procels.” Under the law and re@e.,mns. Cahoncountv !s accorded more status than the walteral !mbhC catmn county Is to be I
5-69
Page SQcmber 18, ,995Parsons
demed 1,s lega, right and Ml pn, pa&patory oppc&tiae. under ,&‘A md theCEQ-NEPA regulahcne
Page 6October IS. 1995ParMM
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
2. We have identified all of the effects ofthe alternatives that are reasonably foreseeableand required under NEPA. No clear infotma-tion has been provided to us that impacts-direct, indirect, or cumulative-will occut
beyond those we have described in the FEIS.The cumulative impacts discussion in the
FEIS is mote detailed than the DEIS. Graywolf recovery in recent years in other parts ofthe country has not had significant negativeeffects, beyond the type of effects we havedescribed, on “free enterprise and a market
economy,” on local “heritage, customs,culture, and economy,” or on the other criterialisted later in the comment.
3. We do not project that any ranchers willgo out of business because of Mexican wolfte-introduction. Therefore, it would beinappropriate to do the suggested analysis.
5 - 7 0
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
4. The Proposed Action includes the fullextent of mitigation measures that the FWSbelieves appropriate and consistent with
achieving wolf recovery. The private compen-
sation fund has worked very well to mitigatefor wolf depredation in the Northern Rockies.It is not clear that an additional federal fundat this time would provide an additionalmeasure of mitigation, because it would be
subject to the uncertainty of the federalappropriation process. The livestock losses inthe BRWRA would, of course, not all occurin Catron County. We lack a reasonable wayto estimate unconfirmed predation losses (seeBox 4-3).
5. Under the ESA, critical habitat cannotbe designated for an experimental population,I6 USC sec. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii). Criticalhabitat has never been designated for wolvesand would make little sense for these wide-ranging habitat generalists.
5-71
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Page 9OctObeI 16. 1995PUSON
De Baca County:
1. Thank you for your comment. Wolfrecovery is not proposed for De Baca County.
5-72
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Eddy County:
1. No road closures were anticipated inor near Eddy County under the formerProposed Action. However, now the back-country road closure provision has beenremoved entirely.
5-73
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Grant County:
1. We believe our impact estimates arereasonable and well-supported. We areunaware of any studies made by wildlifebiologists stating that the Gila Nat’1 Forest isnot suitable for wolf recovery.
Otero County:
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
1. According to newspaper accounts thecoyote incident referred to near Los Alamosinvolved a boy who was bitten, not taken outof his backyard, after the family had beenunwisely feeding the coyote.
2. Wolves could contribute to reducing thehorse and oryx populations. Wolves will nothave any significant impact on the water.
3. The compensation fund is private,
not federal. A human mortality would beunprecedented and is extremely unlikelyto happen.
5-75
TC- jCounty of Sirrra
c ““X :3>r:l”.,.,rrrl;e Ye* *ex.-o 6-::
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Sierra County:
1. See previous response to similar com-ments by Catron County.
5-76
sp.cMc comments. Ihe geogroph~ areas. tlom which the data the FWS II using to derwe the impacts ondmes+,c and wild ungulates. bear llffle compauson to the s.o”thwest co”d,t,o”s Thereforethe estbnates 0, the waif take Of +heSe ,,re” IS R~lwed Also. the modekng does not take l”tOaccount the tot+ that wld ungulates wl be able to flee the boundaies of the prirrnry andseconda” zoner and lwve the domestIC IN‘?tiOck secured and vulnerab4e &de ot the par-ture tencer. The slated ob,ectwe to ml”h-“tze od”e,se impacts on the income pOtentlO, and current lkte~s+yter should a!so contain the ymds ‘ovdd/Or~ preceding the word ‘mlnini2e -. NEPA and Judge Muecke’s recent r”ll”g on protectlo” for the Mexlc.3” spotted owlrequive that an extenwe reg!on-wide cumtiative hpoct onaiv9.s be done on the human envi-ronmnt whch ,nciUdes the SOCIQI and eCoOormC knpocts- The obrect of an Environmental kr@ct Statement (EIS) 6 to prow&? wttlclent intolmoticrupon wh,ch to make on ,“‘O,med decJ0” lhe DEIS hOS 0 lot 0‘ i”formotio”. but most 01 d 15speculahon o”d exaggerated tXxi,we benefits. The tnforrmxtion on prey base is only ConRned to the p,mory and secondary zo?er. Werequest a short term and long ten cumulative rnpact anolyss for the entire expenmentolpopulattan orea.. Leg hoM trcqs nave bee” banned in Aruona Anun. Damage ContrO( (ADC) will hove 0more than ditttcult time attempting to Capture ploblwn wolves The DEIS does not oddrea thisissue. The presence of protected wolvel wll stop much of the ettorts by ADC to control othe,oledotorr because 01 the POtentiol ,lsk of harming the wolves The DEiS makes th,s clear bui‘o,is lo md”2Ote to “,ho+ extent this will lmp~C+ the oblllty 0‘ I,“estock OW”~R t-3 protect theironlmoh. While ‘nere IS proposea Q depledatlon COmpenSclt~o” fund, there IS no “M3ntlon of dom-aged or marned animls. The DE:S should pant out the dittfculty an identOwg kalls or evenlocotng the evidence ot 0 kill The DEIS should hove also Contaned the actual paymentsmode I” Montono and Mtnnesota and the fact that thele hove been ““melous complo~ntrobo”, getting pow, and being fold timely It should be panted out that the Ml”“ewt(l fundQQS twice wn out of funds before turther opw3pnations could be made frail the state ieg~&tuie. It ,s not ““reasonobie to ask when the no”-essenhal experrmenta, devgnatlo” “,,I, eno o”dwho1 will the stotds of fhe wolf b%? c11 that pant. The DE 5 does not ,nci”de the certolnty of clti~en wits altering the recovery pIon and l”tro-C,UC+,O” SI he”% G,“e” the FWS’s procll”l+y to se,tl,“g these clt,ze” su,ts thrO”gh generousogreemef ts. ther ~mulotwe impacts should be ncluded in the onolys(s.. There I! D toto, o”,,ss~o” of d,xusons oi stole. loco, 01 t,,bol gove,nme”+ plans. (jol,c,es 01lows In c~,n)unc+~on with that om~sion. 6 09 cmwlon of any d~xu&on ot any cons)stencles or~nconsis+e~c~?s wth those plans. policies 31 laws a what +he FWS will do to aWewate thoseI”co”s4r;ter~c~es. Both wes propaed for reieose are outside of the known hlsforic range of the Mexicanwelt We lnderstand tnot t”e preferred sites were located I” Claw proxlmty to high pop”io‘ton ond rr!creat~onai dewtles It thete if such on economic benetlt to be dewed fr3m ww-,ng these ,,PI”?&. why not put them closel to ‘hose who have S”ch 0 great desre to see andhea the” ‘7. lhs decison 1s a slgnrflcant regulatory actw s&ten fo the revww 01 the Ott- Or Managementand Budget pursuant to Execulivs Order 12866 Addrtionally. this dedsan has a slgnduant unpacfon a subs!anbaI number ot small entms which makes rt subpct to the Regulatory Flex~btbty Act(RFA)@ClSC MHetseq,
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Coalition of Arizona/New MexicoCounties for Stable EconomicGrowth:
5-77
5) Be responsible lo, detemmng I‘ wolves k,kd, qured 0, haossed by CI+U~“S protect-~ng therr property cons+l+uted Q lu+rf,oMe action:0; ay c,rd,nc,nce p,esc,,be tne CIYII f,nes and ~,munci punishment. pursuant lo thelritote ICIWI. for the kslllng. mlurmg or hor~ssng of wolves that is alleged lo be outsde of‘he g”,de,,“es es+c+blshed ,,I the experlmento, populotlo” rule. Any cl”,, and/o, C,l”InQlD,OE~CJ,,O” would only be conducted w+h,n the ,“,,fd,c+,o” of ++,e County Moglstrate7our+ IP which the alleged illegal killing, injury 0, hcwxsrnent 01 released wolves,ccu,,ed. and7) Based on the mnrto,,ng of the impacta on the h”“+~ng and ounl++e,igudlng Indus-xes. do”,est,C I,ves+ock, the p,eda+o, and prey base I” the release 0,~ and the e,flC~‘ICY 01 *he domestic h'estock depredation reimbursement program, hove the aufhorityro +erm,no+e the release program. captule any wolves !e” I” the wld and ‘e’“,” +hem to*hedr breeding rocilitiesThe implementa+lon of thts alternatIve would be predlcoted on’I) Pursuant lo tne Endangered Species Act. de+e~mt”o+,o”. tnrough Independent anal-<as. tre geneflc vtability of the coptlve-bred stocr.2) F’“,suc~“+ to the Endangered Spe?(es AC,. on <“dependent de+erm~“o+lo” 0‘ thepo+en+,ol lo, adverse impacts the re1ew.e of captive-bred stock may cleote on the wilda,pulo+~o”,a”d3) No p”bl,c access 10 any ore0 WOUIC 78 termnafed ““less abSoi”+ely “ecenor” loeffect repopulation and only through the luthowation of fhe Coun+y government pur-SUO”+ to the laws of the,, ,elpec+l”e s+cl+eS. Dro~lded that “0 clCt,ori will be fake” pilo, lo,,ubI,c heonngso- +he pro,,osed clo~~le
Attached 7e,nt,oduc+,on of the Mex,con Wolf’ i”~+,ume”+ Of Recover” 0’ lnStrU”,ent afM By Denms Porker. Biologtst. Applied Ecosystem Management Inc
xc Governors F,+e S”mmg+o” and Gory mh”so”. the A,Ix,“Q and New Mexico CongressionalDe egotlons. the Stcte Hose and Senate iecde,Sh,p 01 A,!Io”o and New MexlCO and the A,I.zero and Yew Mexico Game Commlsslons
-Agency et al. Comments and Responses
1. Up to the end of this paragraph, the textof the comment is the same as the commentsubmitted by Cochise County. See above letterand FWS responses.
2. The FWS is willing to cooperate withcounties on implementation of reintroductionand is exploring ways to enhance citizeninvolvement in wolf management. The FWShas no authority to delegate some of these
responsibilities as suggested.
5-79
Agency et al. Comments and Responses
Eagar:
1. Experience from other wolf recoveryareas, such as Yellowstone National Park, hasindicated positive, rather than negative,
impacts on recreation and tourism.
Lava Soil and Water ConservationDistrict:
1. Thank you for your comment.
Summary of Public Comments on theDraft Environmental Impact Statement on
Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf,with Fish and Wildlife Service Responses
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 5-82
Publication and Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-82
Comments on Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-82
DEIS Alternative A ............................................................................................................................. 5-82
Comments Favoring Alternative A .................................................................................................... 5-82Criticisms of Alternative A ................................................................................................................ 5-84Suggested Alternative A Modifications ............................................................................................. 5-87Other Comments on Alternative A .................................................................................................. 5-89
DEIS Alternative B ............................................................................................................................. 5-89Comments Favoring Alternative B .................................................................................................... 5-89Criticisms of Alternative B ................................................................................................................ 5-90Suggested Alternative B Modifications .............................................................................................. 5-90
DEIS Alternative C ............................................................................................................................. 5-91Comments Favoring Alternative C ................................................................................................... 5-91
Criticisms of Alternative C ............................................................................................................... 5-92
Suggested Alternative C Modifications ............................................................................................. 5-92
Other Comments on Alternative C ................................................................................................... 5-93
DEIS Alternative D ............................................................................................................................ 5-94
Comments Favoring Alternative D ................................................................................................... 5-94
Criticisms of Alternative D ............................................................................................................... 5-94
Suggested Alternative D Modifications ............................................................................................. 5-95Other Comments on Alternative D .................................................................................................. 5-95
Additional Alternative Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-95
Comments on Issues ............................................................................................................................... 5 -97
The NEPA Process and Public Involvement ....................................................................................... 5 -97
General Comments on the DEIS ........................................................................................................ 5-98
Comments on Policy and Laws ........................................................................................................... 5-99
Endangered Species Act, the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan,Endangered Status, and Experimental Nonessential Designation ..................................................... 5-99
Mexican Wolf Taxonomy and Historic Range ................................................................................... 5-101
Continuing Existence of Wdd Mexican Wolves ................................................................................ 5-101
Captive Population ........................................................................................................................... 5-102
Mexican Wolf Life History, Ecology, and Disease Concerns ............................................................. 5-103
Release Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 5-104
Wolf Recovery Areas ......................................................................................................................... 5-104
The Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 5 -106
Management Strategies ..................................................................................................................... 5 -106
The Draft Experimental Population Rule .......................................................................................... 5 -107
Research and Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 5-108
Strategies to Control Wolves ............................................................................................................. 5-109
Public Take and Harassment of Wolves ............................................................................................. 5-l 10
Illegal Killing of Wolves .................................................................................................................... 5-110
Law Enforcement .............................................................................................................................. 5-111
Private Property Rights ..................................................................................................................... 5-l 11
Human Safety ................................................................................................................................... 5-111
Impacts onWild Prey on Wolves ....................................................................................................... 5-l 12
Impacts on Hunting ......................................................................................................................... 5-l 15
Impacts on the Livestock Industry .................................................................................................... 5-l 17
Compensation for Livestock Depredation ......................................................................................... 5-120
Impacts on Predator Control Programs ............................................................................................. 5-121
Impacts on Other Predators .............................................................................................................. 5 -122
Impacts on Other Endangered Species .............................................................................................. 5-123
Impacts on Agency, Tribal, and Local Government Policies and Plans .............................................. 5- 123
Impacts on Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 5-125
Impacts on Military Activities .......................................................................................................... 5-127
Impacts on Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 5-127
Impacts on Regional Economies ....................................................................................................... 5 -128
Costs of Wolf Reintroduction ........................................................................................................... 5-129
Ecosystem Impacts ............................................................................................................................ 5-130
Animal Rights and Welfare ............................................................................................................... 5-131
Social, Cultural, and Philosophical Issues ......................................................................................... 5-132
Public Information and Education .................................................................................................... 5-133
Other Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 5-133
5-81
Introduction
The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) onthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposalto reintroduce the Mexican wolf was released forpublic review on June 27, 1995. The public commentperiod ended more than four months later, on Octo-ber 3 1. Public review was extensive, with participationby almost 18,000 people or organizations, in a varietyof ways (see Table 5- 1). Fourteen public open housemeetings were held throughout the potentiallyaffected areas; total registered attendance was 1,186.Three formal public hearings were held in Austin,Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Socorro, New Mexico;total registered attendance was 95 1. Each written andtranscribed oral comment has been reviewed andconsidered in the preparation of the Final EIS (FEIS).All public comments are on file and available forinspection at the FWS Regional Office in Albuquer-que, New Mexico.
Publication andResponse to Comments
Due to space and cost considerations, not all of thethousands of comments received on the Mexican wolfDEIS can be re-printed and responded to individuallyin the FEIS (see Council on Environmental Qualityregulations regarding keeping EISs to reasonable size,40 CFR 1500.4, and responding to comments, 40CFR 1503.4) . Those comments, and FWS responses,that are re-printed separately in Chap. 5 of the FEISare the comments of federal, state, local, and tribalagencies, members of the United States Congress, andstate legislators. Those re-printed comments and theirresponses are not summarized in this document.
This document summarizes the comments re-ceived from the general public, corporations, and non-governmental organizations (see list below). All ofthese comments were carefully screened for majortopics. These major topics are summarized, catego-rized, and responded to here.
The first section below, “Comments on Alterna-tives,” includes topics specific to Alternatives A, B, C,or D, and comments that propose new alternatives.Comments on topics that go beyond the alternativesare treated separately under “Comments on Issues.”Some representative quotes from comment letters are
Public Comment Summary
also provided. Where this is done the quote is fol-lowed by a number in parentheses indicating the FWSfiling number for the comment.
Non-governmental organization comments werereceived from: Arizona Wool Producers Association,Albuquerque Wildlife Federation, American Society ofMammalogists, American Zoo and Aquarium Associa-tion, Blue River Cowbelles, Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association, Defenders of Wildlife,Gila National Forest Permittee Association, Interna-tional Union for the Conservation of Nature-WolfSpecialist Group, Mesilla Valley Audubon Society,National Audubon Society, National Parks andConservation Association, National Wildlife Federa-tion, New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, NewMexico Council of Outfitters and Guides with GilaPermittees Association, New Mexico Wildlife Legisla-tive Council, New Mexico Wool Growers, PreserveArizona’s Wolves, Sangre de Cristo Audubon Society,Sierra Club-Albuquerque Group, Sierra Club-GrandCanyon Chapter, Sierra Club-Lone Star Chapter,Sierra Club-Rincon Group, Sierra Club-SouthernNew Mexico Group, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, Texas andSouthwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Tucson Rodand Gun Club, The Wildlands Project, and TheWildlife Society.
Comments on the Alternativesin the DEIS
DEIS Alternative A: Based on specific decisioncriteria, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pro-poses to reintroduce Mexican wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into the White SandsWolf Recovery Area or the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area, followed by a second reintroduc-tion into the other area if necessary and feasible.Wolves will be released into primary recoveryzones and allowed to disperse into secondaryrecovery zones.
Comments Favoring Alternative A
Comment: This provides: important managementflexibility, a lot of territory for the wolves to expand,and the greatest chance of survival for the wolves andachieves the best over all balance of conflicting issues.
Response: We agree.
5-82
Table 5- 1. How people commented.
PublicComment Summary
Form Number of Commenters
Mailed, Faxed, E-mailed and Hand Delivered Comments
Individual Letter, Post Card,
Form Letter or Form Post Card
Petition Signatures
Total
2 , 1 2 7
1 ,485
12 ,598
16 .210
Open House Written Comments
Alpine, AZ
Clifton, AZ
Douglas, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Pinetop, AZ
Safford, AZ
Tucson, AZ
37
5
21
47
5
3
73
Alamogordo, NM
Albuquerque, NM
Las Cruces, NM
Reserve, NM
Silver City, NM
Truth or Consequences
73
30
27
12
9
Public Hearings
Austin, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Socorro, NM
Oral Comments Written(transcribed) Comments
79 35
79 26
10.5 745
Sub-totals 263 806
Total 1 , 0 6 9
Grand Total: 17,874
5-83
Comment: “So far this type of plan has worked wellin both Yellowstone and the Great Smoky Moun-tains.” (592)
Response: The Yellowstone (and Central Idaho) wildgray wolf reintroductions have succeeded to date andthe reintroduction plans have proved workable. Thesame is true of the red wolf reintroduction project inNorth Carolina and Tennessee. The Mexican wolfprogram is patterned after these previous FWS effortsand has the benefit of learning from these efforts.
Comment: This alternative allows a reasonablepopulation density of wolves “while at the same timeconfining the wolves enough to minimize theircontact wirh humans and livestock.” (697)
Response: We agree.
Comment: “The Blue Range and Gila NationalForest combined represent the best and largest intactecosystem left that is capable of housing and nurturingthe Mexican grey wolves.” (712)
Response: We generally agree with this comment inregard to rhe U.S. portion of the Mexican wolf’srange. Additional suitable areas may exist within thesubspecies’ entire historic range, but these have yet tobe fLlly analyzed.
Criticisms of Alternative A
Comment: It is too expensive.
Response: We acknowledge that over seven milliondollars is a lot of money, but we believe that theEndangered Species Act (ESA) allows incurringsubstantial costs to restore a subspecies like theMexican wolf that appears to be virtually extinct inthe wild.
Comment: It takes too long.
Response: We believe the deliberate approach ofAlternative A is the most reasonable way to achievesuccessful wolf recovery in the long run.
Comment: The wolf recovery area boundaries areobjectionable and the areas are too small; the plan toreturn dispersing wolves means that they will only be
Public Comment Summary
allowed to reinhabit a small fraction of historic wolfhabitat in the Southwest within the experimentalpopulation area.
Response: The boundaries represent the areas mostlikely to successfully support wolf recovery, consistingpredominately of public land that has rated high forwolf recovery attributes. This would be the first phaseof Mexican wolf recovery; additional recovery areaswould be needed in the future to achieve the goal ofremoving the Mexican wolf from the endangeredspecies list. Such additional areas could be within thedesignated experimental population area or, possibly,outside this area, including in Mexico if inter-govern-mental cooperation is achieved. No decisions havebeen made yet as far as future areas.
Comment: The primary release areas should be morecentral to the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, i.e.,more towards the Gila National Forest, to allow fordispersal in all directions, i.e., the secondary zoneshould surround the primary zone.
Response: The proposed release areas were selectedfrom rkcommendations provided by the ArizonaGame and Fish Department (AGFD) and the NewMexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF).Delineation of the BRWRA (including the GilaNational Forest in New Mexico) represents an expan-sion by the FWS of a recommendation by the AGFDfor consideration of the Blue Range area in easternArizona as a potential wolf reintroduction area. TheNMGFD did not recommend a release area in theGila National Forest. In order to provide a recoveryzone buffer around actual release sites, the FWS haschanged the proposed action. Under the PreferredAlternative, wolf releases would be conducted in theeastern part of the BRWRA primary recovery zone.
Comment: The wolf should stay on the “endan-gered” list; there is potential confusion if experimentalnon-essential is used and wild wolves recolonize thesame areas; hurther, the plan to relocate any wildwolves from Mexico that disperse into the experimen-tal population area (outside the recovery areas) defeatsthe ESA goal of protecting such wild endangeredanimals.
Response: Substantial evidence is lacking that a wildMexican wolf population exists or will exist in the
584
future in the IJnited States. The likelihood of naturalrecolonization of a breeding population appears solow in the proposed wolf recovery areas that reintro-duction of experimental non-essential animals isjustified. If recolonization were to occur, those wolves,ifcaptured, could contribute important geneticdiversity to the captive population and could conceiv-ably be released within the designated recovery areas.It would be confusing and impractical to have twodifferent protection classifications for wolves withinthe vicinity of the recovery areas; people cannot beexpected to determine classification of an animalbefore taking management action.
Comment: If wild Mexican wolves were to naturallyrecolonize in areas where the FWS proposes toreintroduce captive-raised animals, this should not begrounds for postponing the reintroduction; instead itshould be considered a plus that would increase thechances ofsuccess of the reintroduction.
Response: lfa wild “population” (i.e. at least twopairs that breed successfully for two years, see defini-tion in Appendix G - Glossary) was detected in therecovery areas prior to the reintroductions, then thereintroduction of “experimental nonessential” wolveswould potentially violate the ESA. Such a populationmay recover more successfully than captive-raisedwolves. The FWS does not anticipate this outcome.
Comment: The low numbers of the Mexican wolfmean that it is essential; experimental nonessential isthe wrong classification.
Response: See response below under AdditionalAlternative Suggestions.
Comment: The possibility of using only one areameans that this project will not necessarily establisheven a minimally viable population; more than onearea and greater numbers are critical under conserva-tion biology principles, to recover the wolf.
Response: Preliminary population viability assess-ments, using the simulation model VORTEX, predictthat a population of 100 Mexican wolves in theBRWRA would have a high probability of survivingfor 100 years. Modern principles of conservationbiology suggest that multiple populations of the samespecies provide greater survival assurance than single
Public Comment Summary
populations. The original Mexican Wolf RecoveryTeam recognized that the re-establishment of onepopulation of 100 wolves in the wild would not besufficient to remove the subspecies from ESA protec-tion. The current Mexican Wolf Recovery Team isrevising the population objectives for achievingrecovery through the application of conservationbiology principles. This EIS covers only the initialreintroduction of Mexican wolves to the wild; futurereintroductions are neither assured nor foreclosed.However, any future reintroductions would requireseparate analysis under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA).
Comment: The listed criteria for deciding whichrecovery area to use and in what order “appear to leavea lot of loopholes available for not reintroducing thewolf. Is reintroduction of wolves a FWS commitmentor not?” (I,82 1)
Response: We have clarified our proposal in thePreferred Alternative of the FEIS. The initial reintro-duction would be conducted on the BRWRA. Asubsequent reintroduction on the WSWRA wouldoccur only if necessary to the objective of reestab-lishing a population of 100 wolves in the wild and ifdetermined to be feasible. The criteria appearing onpage 2- 16 of the DEIS have been deleted.
Comment: “Drop that ‘up to’ [lo0 wolves for theBRWRA and 20 wolves for the WSWRA] businessand go for the maximum number of individuals thatyou are confident the release areas (both of them) canaccommodate. The inevitable mortalities associatedwith this program will soon make up for any over-shoot and meanwhile, more wolves will be gaining theexperience necessary to function fully in the wild.”
(I ,034)
Response: We believe the recovery area goals arereasonably based on the areas’ projected carryingcapacities, while the actual populations will fluctuateabove and below these levels over time. If our projec-tions are far off - too high or too low - then the goalscould be revised under the adaptive managementapproach of the Proposed Action.
Comment: The level of legal protection is too low.
5-85
Response: The legal protections afforded under theproposed experimental population rule are consideredadequate. Except for narrowly defined exceptions,killing of the wolves would be a violation of the ESAand subject the offenders to severe penalties.
Comment: The land use restrictions are inadequateto protect the wolves.
Response: In other areas of gray wolf recovery, e.g.,Montana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, land userestrictions have proven almost entirely unnecessaryfor wolf recovery and such restrictions are counterpro-ductive unless they are clearly needed.
Comment: Too much emphasis is given to conflictswith ranchers and not enough to the biological needsof the wolf.
Response: Potential conflicts with the livestockindustry represent a major obstacle to successful wolfrecovery; the emphasis on avoiding or mitigating theseconflicts is for the purpose of reducing illegal killing ofwolves (and increasing tolerance ofwolf recovery bythe livestock industry), thereby enhancing the abilityof the wolf population to grow and sustain itself overtime.
Comment: Allowing grazing in the wolf recoveryareas will lead to wolf/rancher conflicts.
Response: Wolves and livestock grazing can co-exist;cooperation between the wolf management agenciesand the livestock industry will minimize wolf/rancherconflicts.
Comment: The provisions to kill and harass wolvesfor protection of humans and livestock will be abused;the numbers of breeding pairs required before thiscould be allowed is too low.
Response: We anticipate some level of abuse ofprovisions for taking wolves, but believe that extensivepublic education and information efforts, as well asstrong law enforcement, will keep the abuse levels low.The provisions on allowable take and harassment ofwolves are narrowly drawn so that they are only to beused in ways that enhance wolf recovery, i.e., byremoving depredating wolves and by conditioningwolves to generally avoid humans and livestock. On
Public Comment Summary
the question of the numbers of breeding pairs neededbefore allowing harassment or killing, we should pointout that there is no minimum number before non-lethal harassment is allowed. Non-lethal harassmentcan benefit wolf recovery by negatively conditioningwolves to humans and livestock. As far as the numbersbefore allowing private killing of livestock on publiclands, under narrow conditions, we believe threebreeding pairs on the WSWRA and six pairs on theBRWRA represent substantial progress toward recov-ery objectives for the areas. Furthermore, the numberof wolves killed under this provision is expected to bevery few, if any, and of minor consequence to theprogress of wolf recovery once the prescribed numberof pairs has been reached.
Comment: The allowance of unavoidable or unin-tentional take is unenforceable.
Response: We disagree. Notice ofwolf locations willbe publicized. Hunters are responsible to identify theirtargets before shooting so, with information andeducation efforts, illegal hunting take should be low.Information on how to avoid unintentional trappingwill be made available. The few trappers in these areaswill be on notice if they do trap a wolf that it likelywould not be considered “unavoidable or uninten-tional.“The other area of expected unintended killingof wolves is through roadkilling and we see little pointin making the unintended hitting of a wolf illegal.
Comment: Harassing or killing wolves on publiclands should not be allowed.
Response: Public lands are multiple use lands and thelimited harassment and killing ofwolves allowed isconsidered appropriate to protect the other uses andto lead to successful wolf recovery in the long run.
Comment: Public lands ranchers will be put out ofbusiness by the unacceptably high level of livestockdepredation, unless they are given more freedom tokill wolves.
Response: Although it is possible that some rancherscould be seriously affected in a given year, evidencefrom other areas where wolves and ranching co-existdoes not support the idea that ranchers on thesemultiple-use public lands will be driven out of busi-ness without greater ability to kill wolves.
Comment: Better definitions are needed of howwolves impact game populations and how wolveswould conflict with a major land use.
Response: The definition in the proposed experi-mental population rule and Appendix G of the EIS of“Impact on game populations in ways which mayfurther inhibit wolf recovery” is considered adequateand was developed in cooperation with state gamemanagement agencies. There was no definition of“major land use conflict” and we have decided to dropthat from the Preferred Alternative and the finalexperimental population rule, if one is needed. It is
‘.vague and adequate management flexibility existsunder other Proposed Rule provisions.
Comment: It is not feasible to recapture and returnwolves. Wolves will disperse to where they are catego-rized as endangered under the ESA.
Response: We disagree. In Minnesota and otherareas, the FWS and other agencies have many yearsexperience in trapping and translocating wolves.Wolves that left the large Mexican wolf experimentalpopulation area, and were known to have been part ofthe experimental population, would not lose theirexperimental status.
Suggested Alternative A Modifications
Comment: The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Areashould be definitely identified as the first area to beused.
Response: Alternative A (the preferred alternative)now identifies the BRWRA as the initial reintroduc-tion location.
Comment: White Sands reintroduction shouldoccur first, followed by the Blue Range if the wolvesare doing well. Lessons about wolf dispersal anddepredation control could be learned in a less volatilesetting; also, wild-adapted wolves from the WSWRAcould be used as reintroduction stock in the BRWRA,perhaps paired up with wolves directly from thecaptive population.
Response: All these points were considered indeciding which area to use for the initial reintroduc-
Public Comment Summary
tion (see discussion in Chap. 2). One very importantconsideration is that the objective of establishing 100
wolves in the wild could likely be accomplished onthe BRWRA; whereas, it almost certainly could not beaccomplished on the WSWRA. Considerable costsavings would result if only one area is used.
Comment: White Sands is too barren and inad-equate to support many wolves and should not bepresented as a stand alone option.
Response: The WSWRA is not presented as a standalone option in the FEIS.
Comment: Both areas should be used.
Response: Our revised proposal (Alternative A) callsfor both areas to be used only if the objective of 100
wolves cannot be achieved through reintroductionsinto the BRWRA.
Comment: The BRWRA and the WSWRA shouldbe combined into one big wolf recovery area,
Response: We believe that it will probably be unnec-essary to use both areas; however, if both areas areultimately used, they will managed as one population(sometimes called a metapopulation) consisting of twodistinct subpopulations. Management of such apopulation may include periodic exchanges of wolvesbetween the subpopulations.
Comment: “It appears to me that required releaseinto the primary recovery area of the BRWRA in thelater stages of the project would be counterproductive,as this probably would amount to artificial invasion ofan already occupied area. I believe this requirementshould be effective only in initial and intermediatestages.” (1,804)
Response: We recognize that aggressive, even fatal,encounters between wolves may occur if future releaseswere conducted in areas already occupied by previ-ously reestablished wolves. If suitable release sites arenot available because the primary recovery zone isfully occupied by re-established wolves, additionalreleases may not be necessary. If, on the other hand,additional releases are considered necessary at thattime, the FWS might propose an amendment to the
5-87
experimental population rule to establish release siteselsewhere in the designated wolf recovery areas,
Comment: All BLM and State public lands aroundthe BRWRA should be added as part of the wolfrecovery area.
Response: The FWS established definite boundariesaround proposed wolf recovery areas as a mitigationmeasure, primarily to reduce potential adverse effectsofwolfreintroduction on the livestock industry.Furthermore, we believe that lands surrounding theBRWRA, which are managed by the Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) or the States, provide generallyunsuitable habitat for wolf recovery. BLM and Statelands could be part of the unbounded recovery areafor wolves under Alternative C, if wolves foundsuitable habitat there.
Comment: Big Bend National Park should be addedto Alternative A.
Response: The capacity of this area to support wolvesis unknown, but it is apparent that it, alone, couldnot support a viable population of wolves. It is closeto Mexico where the wolves could disperse beyondU.S. protections. We consider Big Bend NationalPark; and it sis close to large private ranch holdings inthe U.S. to be an inappropriate place to try to reintro-duce a viable population without first securing thecooperation of Mexico, consulting with private U.S.land-owners, and then conducting a detailed feasibilitystudy.
Comment: Experimental status should not continueindefinitely but should be evaluated and possiblyupgraded.
Response: This approach is theoretically possible, butthe FWS believes it would be counterproductive towolf recovery and has committed in the proposedexperimental population rule that it has no intentionof changing the designation.
Comment: Back roads should be closed in the areasregardless of illegal wolf killing to avoid conflicts.
Public Comment Summary
Response: This would create unnecessary bad willtoward the wolf without adding a conservationbenefit.
Comment: For wolves that establish territories onpublic lands outside the designated recovery areas, themanagement approach should not be automaticremoval; instead, consultation should be entered intowith the land managers, similar to that provided forprivate and tribal lands outside the designated recov-ery areas. Also, allow for changes to the recovery areasboundaries.
Response: A limited and defined area is considerednecessary to allow the wolf the highest degree ofacceptance and recovery and to allow the FWS andcooperating agencies to plan for wolf management.Allowing the recovery areas to expand out continuallywould defeat this purpose. However, ifwe thought itwas important to survival and recovery of the reintro-duced population, it is possible that after thoroughevaluation we could recommend changes to therecovery area boundaries. These would have to beproposed as an amendment to the experimentalpopulation rule and be subject to formal agency andpublic review under rulemaking procedures and theNational Environmental Policy Act.
Comment: Long range management plans areneeded, including dispersal corridors to other recoveryareas.
Response: The present proposal was developed toachieve the current recovery objective, minimizepotential adverse effects of reintroducing Mexicanwolves, and enhance public acceptance ofwolf recov-ery. The establishment of corridors would requireacquisition of lands and/or easements and is consid-ered outside the scope of this proposal. The MexicanWolf Recovery Team is currently developing longrange recovery objectives for inclusion in the revisionof the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan.
Comment: “Permission for private parties to ‘take’[wolves] should d p de en on an ‘unacceptable’ level oflivestock loss - not simply previous loss or injury.”
(550)
Response: After the initial population goals areachieved (3 breeding pairs for WSWRA, 6 breedingpairs for the BRWRA), any livestock depredation by
wolves should be cause for taking the offendinganimals out of the population because depredation is alearned behavior that wolves pass on to their youngand it is a very counterproductive behavior for wolfrecovery.
Comment: The point should be made that theoccurrence of natural recolonization would notnecessarily eliminate the need for any reintroductionat all.
Response: Acknowledged, see additional language inAlternative A under “Actions Associated with theAlternative.”
Comment: A wider radius of public access restric-tions around release pens should be used - two to fourmiles; the radius should be on a case by case basis, notspecified in the rule.
Response: No basis for the larger area suggestion isevident now, but if such a change proved necessary theFWS could propose to amend the experimentalpopulation rule to increase the radius.
Other Comments on Alternative A
Comment: While Alternative C is preferable, AIter-native A is more realistic.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: Reintroduction into the second recoveryarea is necessary and feasible.
Response: The term “necessary” is used in the contextof achieving the reestablishment objective of 100
wolves; and the term “feasible” relates to potentialfuture management and biological constraints. There-fore, it is premature to determine if the use of a secondrecovery area is necessary or feasible.
Comment: How long would the population bemanaged as experimental?
Response: Until the Mexican wolf is taken off theendangered species list and management authority isreturned to the states.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: On the criteria to be used to decidewhether to use both areas, the amount of funding andsize of the staff are the most important. “What wouldoccur if the project was not fully funded before andduring the reintroduction? Are all funds governmentfunds?” (44)
Response: The reintroduction project would notcommence without adequate funding. The use of non-federal funds to supplement federal appropriationswould be consistent with the current Administration’spolicies regarding partnership approaches to achievingconservation objectives. Such an approach was used topartially fund the second reintroduction ofwolvesinto Central Idaho and Yellowstone National Park. Itis impossible to predict the FWS’s response to afunding shortfall sometime during the reintroductionproject. It would depend upon the magnitude of thefund shortfall and the degree of progress made towardthe wolf re-establishment objective. The responsescould range from terminating the project and recap-turing all reintroduced wolves to allowing wolves toremain in the recovery areas with some degree ofmonitoring.
Comment: Feral dogs present a depredation prob-lem, especially near Whiteriver, AZ.
Response: Acknowledged; however, the Whiteriverarea is not within the designated BRWRA.
DEIS Alternative B: Based on specific decisioncriteria, reintroduction of wolves, classified asnonessential experimental, into the White SandsWolf Recovery Area or the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area, followed by a second reintroduc-tion into the other area if necessary and feasible.Wolf dispersal from the primary recovery zoneswill be prevented.
Comments Favoring Alternative B
Comment: “I would prefer to see the Mexican wolfconfined to remote areas for at least lo- 15 years beforebeing allowed to range into areas of active huntingand recreation” (3).
Response: No areas exist where hunting and recre-ational activities are totally absent. The WSWRA
primary recovery zone does have limited huntingactivity and the BRWRA primary recovery zone hasboth hunting and recreation.
Comment: This alternative is preferable because it isleast costly and has the lowest overall impact onlivestock and wild prey.
Response: We agree Ah. B has the lowest impact ofthe reintroduction alternatives. It is least costlyoverall, but on a per-wolf recovered basis it is moreexpensive than Alternatives A and C and it does notachieve the Recovery Plan goals.
Comment: “The intensity of wolf managementrequired by the FWS is highest which would providegreater knowledge to the agency on issues evolvingfrom wolfreintroduction.” (3,556)
Response: We understand the point but believe thatthe high level of wolf recapturing and translocationunder this alternative would be disruptive to thewolves and the intensity of management wouldprobably not provide much information that wouldserve the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan goal of re-establishing an independently viable population.
Comment: “This plan seems to be the most viablefor the next five years.” ( 116) This alternative allowsevaluation to determine whether additional expansionof the wolf population is appropriate.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Alternative Aalso includes annual evaluation with a full review afterthree and five years.
Criticisms of Alternative B
Comment: The limited wolf recovery area bound-aries are objectionable and the areas are too small.“The prevention of natural expansion goes against thenotion ofestablishing natural populations.” (6)
Response: Comments acknowledged.
Comment: The projected wolf numbers are too lowand don’t meet the 1982 Recovery Plan goals; the lowpopulation could be easily extirpated. The highprojected mortality rate is objectionable.
Public Comment Summary
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: It will be impossible to confine thewolves to the primary recovery zones. It is not feasibleto recapture and return wolves and it is too costly.
Response: We believe this could be accomplishedwith adequate staffing and resources, but there wouldbe many instances ofwolves ranging beyond theprimary recovery zones for a period of time until theywere recaptured.
Comment: The wolf should stay or: the “endan-gered” list.
Response: The legal protections afforded under theproposed experimental population rule are consideredadequate. Except for narrowly defined exceptions,killing of the wolves would be a violation of the ESAand subject the offenders to severe penalties.
Comment: The land use restrictions are inadequate.
Response: In other areas of gray wolf recovery, e.g.,Montana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, land userestrictions have proven almost entirely unnecessaryfor wolf recovery and such restrictions arecounterproductive unless they are clearly needed.
Comment: “It represents a job half done and willcontribute to long term conflict in our communitiesas these issues remain unsettled.” (18)
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Suggested Alternative B Modifications
Comment: Blue Range reintroduction should occurfirst, followed by the White Sands if the wolves aredoing well.
Response: We believe that reintroduction must occuron both areas for this alternative to contribute sub-stantively to Mexican wolf recovery. Reintroductionscould occur on both areas simultaneously. However,this is not the Preferred Alternative.
Comment: White Sands is too barren and inad-equate to support many wolves and should not bepresented as a stand alone option.
590
Response: Large areas within the WSWRA, especiallyin the San Andres and Oscura Mountains, are notbarren. Studies have determined that habitats onWSMR could support about 20 wolves. We are notpresenting the WSWRA as a stand alone option inany of the alternatives.
Comment: IfAlternative B is successful, then expandit to Alternative A.
Response: Opportunities to assess the success ofMexican wolf reintroduction are similar benveenAlternatives A and B. If the reintroduction is initiatedunder Alternative A, there would be no need toexpand the effort. In addition, opportunities toterminate the project are similar between the twoalternatives, if the initial reintroduction is unsuccess-ful. We see no clear advantage to phasing the projectas suggested.
DEIS Alternative C: Based on specific decisioncriteria, reintroduction of wolves, classified asendangered, into the white Sands Wolf RecoveryArea or the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area,followed by a second reintroduction into the otherarea if necessary and feasible. Wolves will receivefull protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Comments Favoring Alternative C
Comment: The low level of control and allowingnatural dispersal are good. Limiting the amount ofmanagement and handling of wolves will be good forthe social structure and wildness of the wolves; theirpropensity to depredate may be less with this morenatural approach.
Response: Management and handling are considerednecessary for successful wolf recovery and have notbeen shown in other areas to substantially affect socialstructure, “wildness,” or depredation rates.
Comment: The wolf numbers and the speed ofrecovery are good.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: The grazing restrictions will reduce wolf/rancher conflicts.
Public Comment Summary
Response: We believe that restrictions on grazingunder the full-endangered alternative could increaserather than reduce such conflicts. Rather than impos-ing such restrictions, wolf recovery can be accom-plished through extensive information and educationefforts and effective response to reports of depreda-tion.
Comment: The potential land use restrictions underAlternative C as far as reducing grazing if it conflictswith wolf recovery are good measures in themselvesand should be supported regardless of whether wolfrecovery occurs.
Response: We do not see the Mexican wolf recoveryprogram as an appropriate vehicle for imposinggrazing reductions or other land use restrictions thatare not strictly necessary to accomplish wolf recovery.
Comment: Wolves are the best judges of what issuitable wolf habitat. It is not feasible to recapture andreturn wolves under Alternatives A and B.
Response: Humans have to play a major role indeciding what is suitable wolf habitat from a humanperspective because some areas the wolves may choose,e.g. next to a private sheep operation, are likely toincrease conflicts with humans. We believe it isappropriate to trap and translocate wolves in thesesorts of circumstances.
Comment: These captive-raised wolves will need fullprotection as they re-adjust to the wild.
Response: The first animals reintroduced fromcaptivity would most likely show some “un-wild”behaviors and therefore would be most in need ofmanagement, rather than a mostly hands-off approachas required under full-ESA protection.
Comment: This is the most cost-effectivealternative.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: Full ESA protection is important in viewof state/local legislation against reintroduction.
Response: Under the experimental nonessentialapproach, the FWS would adopt a federal regulation
5-91
known as the Mexican Wolf Experimental PopulationRule (Appendix C). This regulation and the otherapplicable provisions of the ESA would preemptconflicting local/state legislation.
Comment: The federal government should keep thislevel of “endangered” protection.
Response: As with the Yellowstone and central Idahoreintroductions, we believe full-endangered statusreduces management flexibility compared to experi-mental nonessential
Comment: This alternative means less illegal killingwill result.
Response: This is very difficult to predict, but moreillegal killing may result if greater resentment againstthe wolf results from the higher level of protection.
Comment: C is better than A and B because it willnot be possible to distinguish “nonessential experi-mental” wolves from wild wolves; this alternative willfacilitate natural recolonization as well as reintroduc-tion with the least harassment of the wolves.
Response: Under Alt.s A and B, any wolf that isfound within the large experimental population areawill be subject to management under the experimentalpopulation rule, i.e., there will not be two types ofwolves in that area. The likelihood of breeding popu-lations of wild wolves appearing in the designatedrecovery areas appears extremely low, but the FWSlikely would continue to research and support thispossibility regardless of which alternative is chosen.
Criticisms of Alternative C
Comment: This alternative is not politically feasible.“I do not believe this plan will work because I believeit will receive too much opposition from ranchers andland owners who live nearby.....it is important toappease their views as much as possible while stillensuring the successful release of wolves into thewild.” (14)
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: This alternative allows the FWS muchless management flexibility, for example, in addressingwolf impacts on its prey species.
Response: We agree.
Comment: This alternative could be the mostexpensive in the long run because the FWS may needto do a lot more to protect wolves from rural peoplewho don’t have recourse to protect their livestock.
Response: We recognize this possibility; the costestimates are approximations and we feel the lack offlexibility under Ah. C could drive costs highereventually.
Comment: “Wolves that leave the dispersal areaswould likely get killed.” (397)
Response: We agree that this could occur, but are notsure whether there would be more illegal killing underthis alternative, in or out of the designated recoveryareas.
Suggested Alternative C Modifications
Comment: Both recovery areas should be used.
Response: Wolf dispersal would be unrestrictedunder this alternative. Wolves would eventuallydiscover and occupy suitable habitats in the region.Additional reintroductions would significantlyincrease project costs.
Comment: The Blue Range Wolf Recovery Areashould be definitely identified as the first area to beused.
Response: Alternative C has been revised and theBRWRA has been identified as the only area for wolfreintroduction.
Comment: The recovery areas should be expanded inthe future.
Response: This would not be necessary under Alter-native C because there would be no definite bound-aries on where the wolves could disperse to under thisalternative. The main significance of the recovery areas
5-92
under this alternative is just to designate where thewolves would be initially released.
Comment: Wolves should also be reintroducedunder this alternative into Big Bend National Park.
Response: The capacity of this area to support wolvesis unknown, but it is apparent that it, alone, couldnot support a viable population of wolves. It is closeto Mexico where the wolves could disperse beyondU.S. protections. We consider Big Bend National Parkto be an inappropriate place to try to reintroduce aviable population without first securing the coopera-tion of Mexico and then conducting a detailedfeasibility study.
Comment: It should include recapture and return torecovery areas.
Response: Then the alternative would be much morelike Alternative A. The problem is that, except forcases of depredation or threats to human safety, theroutine recapture and return of the animals would beinconsistent with their full-endangered status.
Comment: The alternative needs to more clearly callfor land use restrictions and elimination of predatorcontrol devices in the wolf recovery areas.
Response: We believe that under this alternativethese sorts of restriction would more likely be im-posed, but the actual imposition would be pursuantto consultations under section 7 of the ESA andcannot be predetermined exactly here.
Comment: “Could some hybrid ruling/alternative beproposed, i.e., wolves are endangered within theprimary recovery zones and nonessential/experimentalbeyond?” (46)
Response: This is an interesting idea but seems toconflict with the guidelines for establishing experi-mental populations and would be confusing inimplementation.
Comment: This alternative should be implementedfirst and then a transition made to experimentalnonessential if the population becomes established.
Public Comment Summary
Response: We believe that the success or failure ofefforts to recover the Mexican wolf depends more onthe level of rural public acceptance than the classifica-tion (experimental vs. endangered) of the re-estab-lished population. It is not clear that recovery wouldbe more successful ifwolves were reintroduced withendangered species status.
Comment: This alternative should be used but withallowance for ranchers to shoot wolves in the act ofkilling livestock.
Response: This would conflict with ESA full endan-gered status.
Comment: This alternative should be used if takingofwolves becomes too much of a problem underAh. A.
Response: Law enforcement against illegal killingwould be expected to be just as vigorous under Ah. Aas under Ah. C. The main difference in terms of legalkilling of wolves by private parties under Ah. A is forcases of actual observed depredation by wolves onlivestock. If legal killing of livestock-taking wolves isso excessive as to prevent wolf recovery, then it maynot be feasible to recover Mexican wolves in areas thathave livestock.
Other Comments on Alternative C
Comment: On page 4-39, what is meant by “limitedcontrol of wolves that kill livestock” under full ESAprotection?
Response: As stated on page 2-34 of the DEIS underMitigation Measures for Alternative C, individualdepredating full-endangered wolves could be con-trolled only pursuant to a permit so long as the actionenhanced the subspecies’ survival, 16 USC sec.
1539(a)(l)(A).
Comment: “If history is any indication, the potentialfor man-wolf conflicts will be no greater under thisoption versus options A and B.” (94)
5-93
Response: We believe the nonessential experimentalapproach does offer more flexibility co address andreduce these conflicts.
DEIS Alternative D: No action/naturalrecolonization.
Comments Favoring Alternative D
Comment: Reintroduction will not work and is notjustified, so No Action is the best approach.
a Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: “I believe this is the best plan because: a.The wolves would truly be wild, b. These wolvesalready know how to survive, c. This is less interfer-ence with the wolves, d. The cost is less, e. Thewolves’ fear of man is already instilled.” (4 1)
Response: We generally agree that these are favorableattributes to have in wolves; the problem is the lack ofevidence that Mexican wolves still exist in any num-bers and could actually come back on their own.
Comment: Money would be better spent researchingthe wolves’ continued existence in Mexico rather thanreintroducing them.
Response: Field surveys to determine the status ofMexican wolves in the wild in Mexico were conductedin 1934 and 1995. No confirmed evidence of theexistence of wild wolves was found. Similar surveyswill continue in 1996. If populations of wild Mexicanwolves large enough to cause the recolonization ofhistgric wolf habitats in the United States existed inMexico, we believe that considerably more evidence oftheir existence would be apparent.
Criticisms of Alternative D
Comment: Even if it does occur, naturalrecolonization will be too slow to ensure Mexicanwolf recovery. There is no confirmation that a wildpopulation exists, let alone evidence of recolonization;this approach ignores the FWS’s duty to recover thesubspecies. “It is critical to proceed with reintro-duction now.” ( 18)
PublicComment Summary
Response: We generally agree.
Comment: Choosing this alternative increases thelikelihood of illegal wolf releases by radical pro wolfactivists.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: “The captive breeding program is largelywasted ifwolves can’t be reintroduced.” (550)
Response: If reintroduction did not occur, theprogram would preserve the Mexican wolf for publicviewing and education in zoos and wildlife parks.
Comment: Big Bend National Park lacks prey tosupport a wolf population.
Response: Our preliminary, somewhat cursory,analysis indicates the Park could probably onlysupport about one family group of wolves, or aboutfive animals, which would not be independentlyviable.
Comment: “I don’t really like the threat of land usecontrol proposed in Alternative D.” (683)
Response: We believe that if wolves recoverednaturally these sorts of restrictions would more likelybe imposed, but the actual imposition would bepursuant to consultations under section 7 of the ESAand cannot be predetermined exactly here.
Comment: This Alternative poses many threats toranchers, including that they may not be able to tellan “endangered” wolf from a free-ranging hybrid wolf.
Response: If Mexican wolves recolonize areas in theU.S. naturally, thus retaining their endangered status,the commenter’s concern may become a problem.However, we believe it is very unlikely that naturalrecolonization of Mexican wolf populations willoccur.
Comment: How can doing no releases be so expen-sive?
Response: We agree that this is confusing. Of course,if the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program was termi-
nated entirely, there would be no program costs. Inresponse to public concern, we have revised Alterna-tive D to more clearly separate the natural coloniza-tion scenario from the status quo scenario. Projectcosts are presented both with and without the occur-rence of natural recolonization. See changes in Appen-dix B and Table 2-8.
Comment: This is a waste of tax dollars, to have aMexican Wolf Recovery Program that does notreintroduce wolves.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: “If the wolves didn’t come back on theirown, then you would need to start the reintroductionmeetings again and how long would that take?” (26)
Response: If, say, we were to wait five years and thenre-propose a reintroduction, we would need to re-initiate the NEPA scoping and EIS process, whichwould probably take at least another two years to getto a Record of Decision.
Suggested Alternative D Modifications
Comment: The alternative needs to more clearly callfor land use restrictions and elimination of predatorcontrol devices and other steps should be taken inorder to facilitate natural recolonization.
Response: Restrictions on USDAAnimal DamageControl (ADC) activities must be based on reportedpresence of wolves in the area. Based upon pastsighting reports (which remain unconfirmed) andhistorically heavy wolf use, such restrictions are inplace only for Hidalgo County, NM, south of StateRoute 9. These restrictions are under review by theFWS. Given the lack of evidence of wolf presence, theFWS considers additional restrictions inappropriate.
Comment: This alternative should more clearly callfor “No Action” and not encourage naturalrecolonization.
Response: The no action alternative means no changefrom the status quo which has been to monitor andsupport the idea of natural recolonization. However,in recognition of the lack of clarity about the no
Public Comment Summary
action/natural recolonization alternative we havedropped “natural recolonization” from the name andtried to clarify the description in Chap. 2.
Other Comments on Alternative D
Comment: The sighting of wolves does not mean theestablishment of packs.
Response: Agreed. Before the FWS considered anarea to have “population” ofwolves, there would haveto be at least two breeding pairs of wild wolvessuccessfully raising young each year for two consecu-tive years (see definition under Appendix G.)
Comment: Natural recolonization should be sup-ported in the identified areas even if reintroductiontakes place in the other areas designated for reintro-duction.
Response: We agree and likely would continue toresearch and support possible natural recolonizationeven if reintroductions are underway elsewhere.
Additional Alternative Suggestions
Comment: Wolves should be released as experimen-tal essential.
Response: This is not addressed because the FWSdetermined that the nonessential experimental classifi-cation fits the Mexican wolf’s status. Only wolvessurplus to the captive breeding program will bereleased. (See Appendix C - Proposed Mexican WolfExperimental Population Rule, section on FindingsRegarding Reintroduction, and Appendix D - Section7 Consultation on Proposed Action, section onEffects on Mexican Gray Wolf, regarding definition of“surplus” wolves and significance of their removal fromthe captive population.) Their loss would not jeopar-dize the continued survival of the subspecies. Further,the nonessential experimental classification allows formanagement flexibility deemed vital to successful wolfrecovery (USFWS 1993a). We disagree with theargument that experiment essential status is legallyrequired for the Mexican wolf. This is essentially anargument that any reintroduction of a captive popula-tion, when no wild population already exists, must be
5-95
essential rather than nonessential. This is not requiredby ESA section 1 O(j) or the implementing regulationsand it accords neither with past reintroductionpractice in the case of the red wolf and black-footedferret, nor with currently proposed reintroductions ofcaptive animals.
Comment: “At least a third recovery area needs to beestablished (Animas/Peloncillo area?) to insure viabil-ity of the species.” (28)
Response: It is possible that additional recovery areascould be identified in future phases of Mexican Wolfrecovery efforts but no other areas are under consider-ation now.
Comment: Wolves should be released in: Big BendNational Park; Utah; Colorado; northern NewMexico; the bottom of the Grand Canyon; westernArizona; the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge;Albuquerque; JoshuaTree National Park.
Response: These are outside Mexican wolf historicrange or otherwise unsuitable.
Comment: “We support the No Action/Stop WolfWelfare Alternative. This Alternative is defined asfollows: 1. There will be no release of captive-raised(or wild) wolves. 2. No action shall be taken to ensureMexican wolf recovery. 3. Terminate immediately allpublic (taxpayer) funding of the captive Mexican wolfprogram, all associated studies and or/other expendi-tures” (152 et al., form letter)
Response: Alternative D incorporates points 1. and2. Additional analysis of point 3. appears unnecessary.The only additional impact of point 3. beyondAlternative D would be to eliminate all program costs,which have been revised and reduced for Alternative Din the FEIS. Also, the captive breeding program couldbe harmed by the lack of federal involvement andsupport.
Comment: “Wolves, if they are to be introduced atall, should only be established in remote areas out ofrange ofdomestic herds and flocks.” (584)
Response: Other than the WSWRA, no large live-stock-free areas exist in the wolf’s historic range in theSouthwest that are suitable for reintroduction.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: “Ship all the wolves to Mexico for re-establishment in Durango and Chihuahua, whencetheir ancestors came. Let the Mexicans worry aboutthe re-establishment program and any conflicts orproblems which may arise. If the program is successful,by the time the wolves migrate back to the U.S. theywill no longer be an endangered species, and we willbe able to take appropriate action to control themagain.” (62 1)
Response: If Mexico expressed interest in reintroduc-ing wolves surplus wolves might be made available.The rest of the suggestion is beyond the authority ofU.S. agencies. In the long run, though, full recoveryof the subspecies likely will require recovery efforts inMexico.
Comment: They should only be released in fullyfenced and carefully monitored areas.
Response: This is impractical, extremely expensive,and would not achieve the goal of restoring viablewild populations.
Comment: “On April 15, 1994, a reasonable alterna-tive was submitted....by [Applied Ecosystem Manage-ment] to the FWS for consideration as part of thisDEIS. To date, there has been no mention whatsoeverof this alternative in any FWS documents nor was anyexplanation given as to why this alternative has beendropped from consideration.” (3,263)
Response: The suggested alternative was not“dropped”; it was treated as one firm’s suggestion wellafter the alternatives scoping period was over. We didfully consider the AEM suggestion, which was in someways comparable to Alternative C. In addition to alengthy meeting between AEM and Mexican wolfrecovery staff, the FWS Regional Director, JohnRogers, explained the FWS’s response to the AEMsuggestion by letter dated Aug. 18, 1994 to PeteShumway, Chair of the Eastern Arizona CountiesOrganization (cc.‘d to AEM).
Public Comment Summary
Comments on Issues
The NEPA Process andPublic Involvement
Comment: The public open house meetings shouldhave included the opportunity to submit oral com-merits.
Comment: The decisions about wolf recovery shouldbe based on science and not politics or emotion.
Response: The 14 open house meetings were de-signed to foster information sharing and for acceptingwritten comments. They were considered moreproductive, in terms of generating substantive public
Response: We think this is what the NEPA process is comments, than formal hearings, of which three werelargely designed to achieve. also held.
Comment: “ [Wolf hearings] are held as lip service tothe ruse that there is public input into the fish andwildlife issues. That way, if something goes wrong itcan be blamed on the public.” (547)
Response: The meetings and hearings are an impor-tant part of the public comment process, which iscritical under NEPA and has resulted in many changesto the DEIS.
Comment: Because the captive management facilityis already under construction at the Sevilleta NationalWildlife Refuge, the hearing and public commentprocess is a waste. “This is a strong indicator that the
plan will be implemented regardless of hearings and/orcomments.” (590)
Response: The facility at Sevilleta NWR is necessaryto provide additional space for captive Mexicanwolves, not currently available in zoos and wildlifeparks. Building the facility is not a commitment toreintroduction. E,ven if the decision is not to reintro-duce animals at this time, the facility would house avaluable population of Mexican wolves that is notsubjected to the stresses and selective pressures of ahuman-dominated environment.
Comment: The stipulated settlement agreement inthe WolfAction Group lawsuit legally committed theFWS to reintroducing wolves, so the entire publiccomment process has been a sham.
Response: The settlement agreement did not committhe FWS to reintroducing wolves; it committed theFWS to completing the planning and environmentalimpact assessment processes, which may or may notresult in a final decision to reintroduce.
Comment: Formal hearings should not have beenheld in Phoenix and Austin, but in smaller townscloser to the areas and people affected.
Response: A total of 17 meetings and hearings wereheld to receive public comment on the draft EIS.Eleven of the meetings and one hearing were held nearproposed wolf recovery or potential naturalrecolonization areas. Hearings are expensive. We choseto hold only one per state in a centrally located city.Rural interests were well represented at all the hear-ings. We believe the distribution of meetings andhearings provided all concerned individuals andinterest groups sufficient opportunity to obtaininformation and comment on the draft EIS.
Comment: There should be public meetings in allparts of the United States.
Response: To save expense and to keep the issuesfocussed, the FWS decided to only hold meetings inthe affected areas. However, written comments werereceived from all over the country.
Comment: The open house meeting format was veryhelpful; organization was competent and impressive.“You have done a great job of letting all sides havetheir say.” (877)
Response: Thank you.
Comment: The open house meeting format waspoorly organized.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: The public notice to affected members ofthe public about the availability of the DEIS wasinadequate.
5-97
Response: We held four scoping meetings in 199 1
and 1992, held 14 public open houses and 3 formalhearings in the afhected areas, published notices inlocal newspapers as well as the federal register, issuedpress releases, maintained a 5,000 plus person mailinglist to which regular status reports as well as DEISsummaries have been sent, met with various countycommissions, met with private organizations andindividuals, sent DEIS’s to hundreds of agencies,elected officials, organizations, and individuals,distributed DEIS copies in public libraries, and tookother steps to communicate about the Mexican wolfreintroduction proposal. We have exceeded NEPA’spublic notice requirements and we plan to continue toprovide public notice through the final decision andbeyond.
General Comments on the DEIS
Comment: The DEIS was done well. It is compre-hensive, informative, and readable. Adequate and fairconsideration has been given to the ecological, eco-nomic and social impacts of the Proposed Action.
Response: Thank you.
Comment: The DEIS is conclusory; contradictory;speculative; scientifically indefensible; unsupported;thoroughly pro-wolf. “There are many portions of theDEIS that lack the detailed information necessary tomake an intelligent decision concerning wolf reintro-duction that will be subject to political or valuejudgments and not scientific evaluation..... Such‘uncertainty’, ‘incomplete information’, and ‘uncertainfuture trends’ falls short of the requirements in theESA. ” (906)
Response: We believe the DEIS, with the changesand corrections made as a result of the commentsreceived, will lead to a sufficiently detailed, andanalytical, FEIS to allow a rational decision. The FEISis based on the best available information. At the sametime, we believe good analysis includes pointing outuncertainties and information gaps where they exist.Projecting future impacts obviously involves uncer-tainty; we doubt that any wild animal recovery projectcould proceed under the ESA if complete certaintywas required.
PublicComment Summary
Comment: “The review of existing literature incompiling the DEIS was inadequate...the DEIS is aproduct of selective research aimed at justifying a pre-ordained conclusion.” (2,996)
Response: We reviewed every piece of literature thatappeared relevant to Mexican wolf recovery and itsimpacts, not all ofwhich was deemed useful forprojecting impacts and not all ofwhich is cited in theLiterature Cited Appendix. The FEIS does includemore discussion of the historical literature than theDEIS. The conclusion of the NEPA process is notpre-ordained.
Comment: “The draft environmental statement iscalculated to minimize the effect of wolf reintroduc-tion by emphasizing the experimental designation ofthe initial introduction. Once the introduction hassucceeded, the experimental classification will bedropped and the full impact of the cost of protectingthis species will be felt by the ranchers, hunters, ruralcommunities, the State of New Mexico, and thetaxpayers of the United States in general.” (3,400A)
Response: There is no plan to drop the experimentalclassification until the Mexican wolf subspecies isremoved from ESA protection and managementreverts to the states; this likely would not occur forseveral decades.
Comment: Impacts on humans should be consideredwhen considering impacts on the environment.
Response: Socio-economic impacts and impacts onthe built environment are required to be consideredunder NEPA and are considered in the EIS.
Comment: The first pages of Chap. 1 give the mis-impression that wolves will be recovered throughoutthe entire historic range.
Response: This has been corrected to clearly statethat this proposal will only occur in a portion of theanimal’s historic range in the United States.
Comment: Chapter 4 will be misleading todecisionmakers and the public because it over-empha-sizes negative economic impacts. This favors preserva-tion of the status quo.
5-98
Response: We acknowledge the DEIS focuses moreon the quantified adverse impacts, such as lost hunt-ing days due to reduced herd size, than on potentialpositive impacts like increased recreation that are verydifficult to project quantitatively. We believe we haveadequately pointed out the potential positive impacts.The EIS is not intended as a cost-benefit analysis. Keyqualitative issues are to be considered by FWS and theDepartment of Interior, including the goals of theESA.
Comment: “Chapter 4, though technical, provides awealth of good information as to the sources of thepredictions for the impacts that reintroduced wolveswill have on the prey and predator populations....Theassumptions were quite generous when calculatingworst case scenarios. Thus, my confidence in thisdocument for presenting the full range of impactpossibilities is quite high.” (3,2 17)
Response: The “high range” scenarios for the impactsare not technically “worst case scenarios.” Similarly,the “low range” projections are not technically “bestcase.“The ranges are the most reasonable estimates ofthe bounds on the actual impacts that will occur basedon a variety of sources, including actual observationsof impacts from other areas where wolves occur, expertsurveys, and computer modelling.
Comment: The livestock impact focus is too muchon cattle and not enough on other large and smalllivestock.
Response: The EIS does mention the potential forwolves to take other livestock, but we lack the meansto make a quantitative projection. Only one sheepallotment exists within the BRWRA and no privately-owned sheep are in the WSWRA. Thus, while somesheep may be taken by wolves, the numbers should besmall. Poultry and smaller livestock may be takenopportunistically by wolves, but the numbers shouldnot be high due to the normal care taken to protectthem from all kinds of predators.
Comment: “We are also concerned about the directconflict of interest of those writing the DEIS. Theconflict of interest arises from the fact that those whowrite the EIS’s for endangered species, choose thealternatives, conduct and edit the science, edit thecomments and make all the decisions, are the same
PublicComment Summary
ones who benefit directly from their own contriveddeterminations.” (2,000)
Response: We acknowledge there may be someappearance of conflict inherent in the process. That iswhy we have extensive public and agency review andopportunities for judicial review.
Comments on Policy and Laws
Comment: The discussion of the Convention onBiological Diversity in Chap. 1 does not support wolfreintroduction because the U.S. is not a party to theConvention in that the Senate has not ratified it.
Response: We did point out that the U.S. is not aparty to the Convention. We think this internationallaw does help put the restoration of endangeredspecies into a global perspective.
Comment: “The Mexican wolf reintroductiondemonstrates the viability of [the ESA and otherenvironmental laws] and their capacity to be fairly andeffectively implemented.” (39)
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: Reintroducing the Mexican wolfwill justgive the anti-ESA people more ammunition and putthe Arizona Game and Fish Department in a moredifficult position with its conservative legislature.Wildlife protection will be hurt in the long run.
Response: These political concerns are beyond thescope of this EIS process.
Endangered Species Act, the Mexican WolfRecovery Plan, Endangered Status, andExperimental Nonessential Designation
Comment: Wolves should be released as experimen-tal essential.
Response: See response to this comment above underAdditional Alternatives Suggestions.
Comment: “The finding ofwhether the wolf experi-mental population is, or is not, essential to the
5 9 9
continued existence of the species in the wild must bemade by rule making and not by an EIS.” (3,263)
Response: We have determined that the Mexicanwolf, if released, should be classified as experimentalnonessential. (See response to previous comment.)This determination appears in the Proposed MexicanWolf Experimental Population Rule (Appendix C),which would be formalized and finalized in a final ruleprior to experimental reintroduction ofwolves.
Comment: Designation of the Mexican wolf asnonessential means that it is not endangered, thereforethere is no reason to reintroduce it.
Response: The “experimental nonessential” terminol-ogy in section 1 O(j) of the ESA is confusing. It doesnot mean that the animal is not near extinction and itdoes not mean the reintroduction is just an experi-ment. It is a classification designed to make thereintroduction of endangered species more flexible andresponsive to public concerns to improve the likeli-hood of success.
Comment: The experimental nonessential designa-tion cannot legally be used because the reintroducedpopulation would not be “wholly separate geographi-cally from nonexperimental populations of the samepopulations.”
Response: We disagree; see comments and responsesunder Continuing Existence ofWild Mexican Wolves,below.
Comment: “The Mexican wolf is clearly a subspeciesand hence does not qualify for listing, let alonereintroduction.” (34)
Response: The ESA allows the listing and recovery ofsubspecies.
Comment: The gray wolf is not endangered or nearextinction, it is doing fine in zoos as well as in Canadaand Alaska; there are no gray wolf subspecies; the graywolf should be de-listed, and not reintroduced.
Response: This approach would conflict with scien-tific information on North American Canis lupussubspecies and with the FWS’s obligations under theESA.
PublicComment Summary
Comment: The DEIS is unclear on what number ofwolves is necessary for de-listing and on what theFWS’s long-range plans for wolf recovery are. Therecovery area goals are clearly inadequate to establishviable populations. “If it is anticipated that anotherpopulation will need to be established for recoverypurposes, this should be stated, along with an expla-nation as to why establishment of such a populationwas not addressed in this plan.” (3,368)
Response: Preliminary population viability assess-ments, using the simulation model VORTEX, predictthat a population of 100 Mexican wolves in theBRWRA would have a high probability of survivingfor 100 years. Modern principles of conservationbiology suggest that multiple populations of the samespecies provide greater survival assurance than singlepopulations. The original Mexican Wolf RecoveryTeam recognized that the re-establishment of onepopulation of 100 wolves in the wild would not besufficient to remove the subspecies from ESA protec-tion. The current Mexican Wolf Recovery Team isrevising the population objectives for achievingrecovery through the application of conservationbiology principles. This EIS covers only the initialreintroduction of Mexican wolves to the wild; futurereintroductions are neither assured nor foreclosed.However, any future reintroductions would requireseparate analysis under the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA).
Comment: “At least five populations with a mini-mum total population of 500 wolves should be thecriteria for genetic and population sustainabilitybefore delisting.” (28)
Response: See above response.
Comment: “Since the FWS is mandated by the ESAto protect all threatened or endangered species, howcan the agency state that the re-introduction of theMexican Gray Wolf will not force the agency toenforce sections 7 & 9 of the ESA once populationsbegin to increase?” (906)
Response: A nonessential, experimental populationof a threatened or endangered species, establishedunder provisions of section 10(j) of the ESA isgranted limited exceptions to the provisions ofsections 7 and 9 of the ESA. For example, formal
5-100
consultation with the FWS is not required for Federalactions that may affect such populations occurringoutside the National Wildlife Refuge System or theNational Park System. An informal “conference” isrequired. However, section 7(a)( 1) remains in fulleffect, I-equiring all Federal agencies to further thepurposes of the ISA. Limited exceptions for allowabletake of members of the nonessential, experimentalpopulation are defined in a special rule for the popula-tion. The FWS must find that the level of take al-lowed will not preclude the conservation of thespecies. Any take that is not authorized by the specialrule is In violation of section 9, and the violator issubject to prosecution for taking an endangeredspecies. Thus, nonessential, experimental populationsretain substantial protection under the ESA. This factis commonly misunderstood.
Mexican Wolf Taxonomy and Historic Range
Comment: The ESA requires the FWS to use thebest science available, yet the FWS dismisses thedisagreement among wolf taxonomists and the conclu-sions of experts that the Mexican wolf is indistinctfrom two other subspecies. The 1982 Mexican WolfRecovery Plan taxonomic discussion is clearly not thebest science available.
Response: ‘The EIS acknowledges the disagreementsamong wolf taxonomists and the conclusion of someexperts that the Mexican wolf is indistinct from twoother formerly recognized subspecies. The discussionon taxonomy in chapter 1 incorporates new informa-tion that has come to light since publication of the1982 Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan and it incorporatescurrent expert thought on the taxonomic status of theMexican wolf.
Comment: If the extent of the range is uncertain thisshould be indicated on the range maps with dashedlines.
Response: We agree. See the revised discussion ofhistoric distribution of Mexican wolves and therevised range map in chapter 1 of the FEIS.
Public Comment Summary
Continuing Existence of Wild Mexican Wolves
NOTE: See extensive separate FWS response tocomment submitted by Mr. Dennis Parker on thistopic in Appendix K.
Comment: The FWS has large numbers of wolfsightings from in or near the proposed wolf recoveryareas (e.g., Wolok 1994), thus the requirements ofgeographical separation of experimental andnonexperimental populations would be violated.
Response: Neither Wolok nor any other researcherhas confirmed the existence of wild Mexican wolvesanywhere. The FWS has undertaken directly, orfinancially supported, investigation into this issue,without any confirmed reports. “Probable” reports inWolok and other research are not confirmed, couldwell be released hybrids or other animals, are verysporadic, generally do not come from the proposedrecovery areas, and offer no support for the idea thatwolves are in the process of naturally recolonizingthese areas. Even if there were confirmed wolf reportsin these areas, there would have to be a “population”of wolves in the area before the FWS would consideran experimental introduction to be barred. Seedefinition of population in the Glossary, Appendix G.
Comment: What efforts are being undertaken to findremaining wolves in Mexico? Doesn’t trying toconserve wild wolves there make more sense thanreintroducing captive-raised animals?
Response: Surveys are underway to determine thestatus of the Mexican wolf in the wild in Mexico. Theexistence of wild wolves has not been confirmed.Surveys will continue for at least one more year. Whileprotected by law, wild wolves in Mexico, if they exist,receive little actual protection. If a viable populationofwild wolves were discovered in Mexico, it wouldmake good sense to make strong efforts to protect thatpopulation. Even if this scenario occurs, it may stillmake good sense to further secure wolf recovery byreintroducing captive raised Mexican wolves in theU.S.
Comment: The fact the FWS failed to cite Dr. JulioCarrera’s 1994 report on his wolf investigations inMexico is evidence the FWS is covering up the factthat he has found wolves there.
5101
Response: Carrera has not confirmed wolves to existin Mexico. His report was not cited as it was not inhand when the pertinent sections of the DEIS, Chap.1 (Status) and Chap. 3 (Alternative D), were drafted;he was cited in those sections by personal communica-tion. His written report is cited in the FEIS.
Comment: “What would happen if the reintroduc-tion efforts were underway and natural wolfrecolonization was determined to have occurred inSW New Mexico or SE Arizona? Would this halt thereintroduction process.? This does not seem to beexplicitly addressed in the DEIS?” (46)
Response: It would not necessarily halt the reintro-duction process. As stated on pages 2-l 5 and 2- 16 ofthe DEIS in the description of the Proposed Action, ifnatural recolonization of Mexican wolves were tooccur anywhere in the U.S., this would be an impor-tant factor in deciding whether future reintroductionswould be necessary to achieve the recovery goal of 100
animals ranging across 5,000 mi2.
Comment: “The possible existence of wolves alreadyliving in the wild in Mexico would mean that areintroduced captive, genetically different populationwould possibly be mingled with wild wolves, which iscontrary to the prescribed process.” (584)
Response: They would not be mingled if they are sofar separated as to have no interaction. If there arewolves in Mexico, it does not conflict with the ESA ifthis sort of co-mingling occurs; in fact, it wouldprobably add favorable genetic diversity to bothpopulations. The ESA’s concern with mingling isbasically that experimental populations not be reintro-duced in an area where a known wild, full-endangered,population exists. This is not the case here.
Comment: “Fish and Wildlife [should] negotiate fora travel corridor through the Peloncillos, allowing safepassage of potential recolonizing wolves from Mexicointo the Gila along historic wolf runways.” (Sot. p.144)
Response: This is outside the scope of the proposalbeing considered in this EIS. Furthermore, theexistence of a source population in Mexico has notbeen documented.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: Wild Mexican wolves already live in the:Sacramento Mountains, Burro Mountains, BlueRange, West Texas, and other areas.
Response: Evidence of this is lacking.
Captive Population
NOTE: see extensive separate FYVS response tocomment submitted by Dennis Parker on this topic inAppendix K.
Comment: The captive breeding program is a wasteof taxpayers’ money and should be terminated; thewolves should be sterilized.
Response: This approach would conflict with theFWS’s obligations under the ESA.
Comment: The wolves in captivity are not geneti-cally pure Mexican wolves, they are inbred, hybrid,and they are unlikely to be viable in the wild, thusunlikely to further the conservation of the subspecies;there has been inadequate peer review of these issues.
Response: On all of these issues, the FWS hasendeavored to obtain the best expert opinion avail-able; we disagree with the comment. See Appendix K.
Comment: The Aragon and Ghost Ranch lineagesare pure Mexican wolves and the EIS should reflectthis.
Response: Agreed. The discussion in Chapter 1,Status has been modified to reflect the FWS’s recentdeterminations regarding these lineages.
Comment: “The Mexican wolf should not become adomesticated ‘dog’.” (880)
Response: Comment acknowledged; there is aconcern that gradual domestication could occur if theanimals remain in captivity for many generations.
Comment: “Since its confinement to captivity, theMexican gray wolf has made a biologically remarkablerecovery. Now the most endangered wolf in the worldis at the doorstep to a long awaited future.” (1,074)
5 1 0 2
Response: Comment acknowledged; the captivepopulation has grown steadily and is healthy overall.
Comment: “Make sure you do not deplete thebreeding stock now in captivity.” (1,148) “The term‘surplus’ is misleading and should be changed to avoidconf&ion.....The death ofone Mexican wolfwouldrepresent the loss of one percent of the entire popula-tion.. . [This] does indeed represent a serious blow tothe survival of the species.” (1,543)
Response: The pertinent text in Chapter 2 has beenrevised to further clarify that “surplus” wolves aresurplus to the captive population, which may be thesource of confusion. Surplus wolves have enough closerelatives in the captive population to render themunimportant as future breeders and, therefore, poten-tial candidates for reintroduction. Until reintroduc-tion proves successful, the survival of the subspecies isensured entirely by the maintenance of a geneticallyand demographically healthy captive population.Surplus wolves have no significant role to play in thatregard.
Comment: Captive wolves are adapted to people andwill seek them out if they are released and theirbehavior will be abnormal and cause the program tofail.
Response: Wild Mexican wolves would be preferable,but none are available. The wolves taken from theSevilleta National Wildlife Refuge Captive Manage-ment Facility and other remote facilities will not beadapted to people in the way the zoo animals may be.Based on the red wolf reintroduction experience, wedo expect some abnormal behavior in the animalsreleased from captivity and are prepared to address itunder the experimental population rule. Pups that areborn in the wild should display more typical behav-iors of wild wolves.
Comment: Part of the scientific justification of thereintroduction is to determine whether there has, infact, been any deleterious effect on the wolves fromyears of captive existence.
Response: We agree that this will be an importantquestion to study as part of the research and monitor-ing efforts, as it was in the similar red wolf case.
PublicComment Summary
Mexican Wolf Life History, Ecology,and Disease Concerns
Comment: “Appendix A (and its referenced source inFWS 1994) (1) omits reference to the scientificliterature, (2) draws inferences from northern popula-tions which would better be represented as hypothesesregarding southern populations and (3) restatesgeneralizations from the popular literature which donot clarify the existing scientific evidence regardingbehavioral variation within wolf populations.” (3,656)
Response: Appendix A is an outline of Mexican wolflife history, ecology, and disease concerns and is notmeant to be a comprehensive treatise on the subject.We have qualified the Introduction to emphasize thepoint that the wild Mexican wolfwas not well-studiedprior to its extirpation and that many of the assertionsin Appendix A are based on studies of northernpopulations. There is little, if any, reliance on “popularliterature” in Appendix A; while not all the referencesare to peer-reviewed literature, all of the references areto recognized experts or experienced investigators inthe field.
Comment: “I can tell you that the larger wolves [in
the Sierra Madre Mountains] in those days consider-ably exceeded the 90 lbs. top limit given in yourreport.” (373)
Response: It may be true that wild Mexican wolvesgrow larger than the weights indicated, but clearevidence is lacking.
Comment: “The Mexican wolf is a dangerous animalwhich kills just to be killing and does not stop untilhe kills all available.” (620)
Response: While surplus killing is occasionallydocumented in wolves it is considered rare. It has beenfound with very vulnerable domestic animals, liketurkeys or sheep, and occasionally with yarded-up deerin snow conditions where the deer are unable to runquickly but enough crust exists to allow the wolves torun over the top of the snow.
Comment: Is hybridization of wolves with coyotesor dogs a risk as happened with the red wolf?
5-103
Response: In general, gray wolves demonstrate lessevidence of past cross-breeding with coyotes than dored wolves. Hybridization between Mexican wolvesand coyotes or dogs is biologically possible, butevidence suggesting that such cross-breedings fre-quently occurred in the wild is lacking. We considerthis possibility a slight risk, but do not believe it willjeopardize recovery of the Mexican wolf. Monitoringof reintroduced wolves should detect situations wherea wolfappears to be in a breeding situation withanother canine species. Ifsuch a situation were tooccur, efforts would be made to prevent the produc-tion of hybrid offspring.
Comment: “The wolf is a known carrier of rabies andcould easily make a tremendous impact on the condi-tions of the ecosystem.” (ALA-5)
Response: As stated in Appendix A, the presence of arelatively small number of wolves should not signifi-cantly affect the incidence of rabies or other diseases inthe recovery areas. Further, reports from the Lower 48states of human death due to getting rabies fromwolves have been exceedingly rare in recorded history(one case in Wyoming in 1833) (Johnson 1992).
Release Techniques
Comment: The suggested aversive conditioningtechniques lack a record of success on wolves else-where.
Response: We are aware of the mixed results ofvarious aversive conditioning techniques. The FWSwill conduct an extensive review of the literature andobtain the opinions of appropriate experts beforeaversive conditioning techniques, if any, are at-tempted.
Comment: Explain what the typical battery life is fora telemetry collar, on p. 2-2.
Response: Battery life of standard telemetry collarsused on wolves is typically 3 years or longer.
Comment: “if possible it may be wise to have abalanced representation of wolves from the severalproducing facilities in both the BRWRA andWSWRA . . . . since it may become obvious later on
Public Comment Summary
that wolves from some facilities have better survivabil-ity than do those from other facilities.” (845)
Response: To the maximum extent possible, wolvesthat are candidates for reintroduction would bemoved to the FWS’s wolf management facility, orother designated facilities, at a young age to begin theacclimation process and selection for a future life inthe wild. The suggested approach would be compli-cated by the fact that few wolves in the captive popu-lation spend their entire lives in one facility. Neverthe-less, the idea merits consideration.
Comment: Your release locations and times shouldgo unannounced, to give the wolves the best protec-tion.
Response: The FWS will consider this suggestionwhen detailed release protocols are developed.
Comment: The FWS is proposing to release toomany wolves in the early years. “If introduction is tobe successful and the side effects be controlled youshould slow the initial release so as to gain knowledgeof the process and provide sufficient mitigation for theproblems.” (1,787)
Response: Generally, the likelihood of success inanimal reintroduction efforts is positively correlatedwith the number of animals released. Larger releasesincrease the chances of reproduction in the wild andprovide a buffer against inevitable mortalities. Ournumbers are comparable to the numbers the FWSreleased successfully in Yellowstone and Central Idaho.
Wolf Recovery Areas
Comment: The areas are too large and will tie up toomuch land.
Response: The largest area, the BRWRA, is estimatedto be an appropriate size to support a sustainable wolfpopulation of 100 animals. The WSWRA is too smallto do so without active human management of thepopulation. The designation of the areas carries noland use restrictions with it.
Comment: White Sands never was and never will bewolf habitat; it is subject to drought.
5-104
Response: The Animals section in the Chap. 3description of the WSWR4 includes historicaldocumentation ofwolves in the area. In Chap. 2, thesection on Selection of Potential Areas for ReleasingMexican Wolves describes the favorable attributes thearea possesses as future wolf habitat.Scattered natural springs are available in the area;however, we recognize that severe drought conditionscould reduce the deer herd and water availability. Inthat case, wolf impacts on the deer population couldbe significant (see Chap. 4).
Comment: White Sands was chosen for political,rather than biological, reasons, which is in violation ofthe ESA.
Response: Biological assessments have documentedits suitability to support wolves. These assessments arebased upon the best available information. Ofcourse,an aspect of the area that is attractive for biological,management, and political reasons is the fact that it isfederal land with an absence of livestock.
Comment: “It is likely that the rugged easterncanyonlands of the San Andres Mountains [of theWSWRA] will be avoided by Mexican wolves. Thismeans, contrary to what the DEIS indicates, that notall of the San Andres Mountains may be suitable wolfhabitat. One ecologist suggested that free watersources in the desert may be a limiting factor, espe-cially to lactating females.” (2,030)
Response: We recognize that not all of the SanAndres will be suitable habitat. While there is littledoubt that at some point slope, alone, would limitthe suitability of a specific area for wolves, anecdotalevidence suggests wolves can hunt on terrain thatwould be considered by humans to be quite rugged.Whether this ability will be shown by Mexican wolvesis unknown. Our estimates of the number ofwolvesthat could be supported on the WSWRA were basedto a large extent on estimates of mule deer popula-tions. Generally, our evaluations incorporated theassumption that wolves would be limited by theavailability of water indirectly through the availabilityof prey, which is limited somewhat by the availabilityof water. We do not expect extensive use of the desertareas, based on historical accounts.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: “If the reintroductions are to occur, theWhite Sands area seems best because of the tightercontrol and lower cost of cattle killed.” (4 1) Also,
fewer wolves would be illegally killed.
Response: White Sands would involve fewer conflictsand provide learning opportunities for both wolvesand wolf managers. The chief concerns with this areaare the potentially major impacts on the deer popula-tion and the fact that the area probably will notsupport an independently sustainable wolf popula-tion.
Comment: The wolves are not going to respect theBRWRA western boundary and will immediatelydisperse onto the San Carlos and White Mountainreservations.
Response: We recognize that this could occur. Wewould conduct the initial releases on the east side ofthe primary recovery zone and would seek to have acooperative management agreement in place to allowremoval of the wolves from tribal lands if the tribesdesire their removal.
Comment: The primary recovery zone of theBRWRA should include the Gila and Aldo LeopoldWilderness areas.
Response: Primary recovery zones were establishedlargely on the basis of recommendations received fromthe States. The ultimate objective of the proposal isfor wolves to colonize areas they determine to besuitable throughout the designated wolf recoveryareas. At that point, the location of initial releasesbecomes unimportant. Another consideration is theoperational difficulties of conducting soft releases(with wolves in pens for long periods) in wildernessareas, where the use of motorized equipment isprohibited.
Comment: The ranking system used to select theBlue Range area lacked adequate investigation.
Response: This ranking was largely based on adetailed 1992 investigation and report by the ArizonaGame and Fish Department (AGFD 1992). Whilesuch a ranking is inherently rough, we are confidentthat the Blue Range area is superior to the other threeArizona candidate areas.
5-105
Comment: The ranking system should have included“weighting factors that note an emphasis on the moreimportant attributes.” (3,217)
Response: The use of weighting factors was consid-ered, but found to be inappropriate because of diffl-culties in assigning weights and the desire to avoid afalse sense of precision in the analysis. We believe thatthe method used resulted in an appropriate ranking ofthe areas.
Comment: The idea behind the Proposed Action asstated by the FWS in its 1992 Notice of Intent toIssue the EIS was to analyze the various classificationalternatives with respect to all five areas then underconsideration; this should have occurred.
Response: The FWS stated in the 1992 Notice thatthe five sites would be evaluated and considered in thescoping process and the results explained in the EIS asfar as how the five were narrowed down. This isexplained in summary in the section ofChap. 2entitled Selection of Potential Areas for ReleasingMexican Wolves and in more detail in a separate paper(USFWS 1993e). The FWS did not commit tocarrying all five through the EIS.
Comment: “There is no historical evidence that theseareas was part of the wolf habitat prior to the settle-ment of these areas.” (562)
Response: The Chap. 3 discussion under “Animals -History of wolves” for each area includes historicaldocumentation of wolves in the areas.
Comment: “Monitoring and protecting reintroducedwolves which roamed back and forth across the[Mexican] border would probably be impossiblydifficult.” (584)
Response: This is one of the reasons that the desig-nated wolf recovery areas are far north of the border.Under the Proposed Rule, wolves would likely becaptured before they could disperse to Mexico.
Comment: The potential natural recolonization areaswould be the best places for reintroduction.
Public Comment Summary
Response: Not according to our analysis (see Table 2-
1). These areas are generally too small to support aviable population. Also, see response to previousquestion.
The AfFected Environments
Comment: On p. 3- 15, it mistakenly says that theApache and Gila National Forests are managed foreven-aged stands; in fact, uneven-aged management isnow practiced.
Response: We have changed this in the FEIS toreflect that management has moved toward emphasison uneven-aged stands. This change has been drivenby recent guidelines and analysis of alternatives forForest Plan amendments to include protection ofMexican spotted owl and northern goshawk habitats.
Comment: On p. 3- 18, under Apache County, thereare at least three wood processing plants.
Response: Comment acknowledged; language hasbeen changed.
Comment: How much trapping occurs in the area?
Response: Little in the BRWRA in recent years dueto low pelt prices and the trapping ban in Arizona.None in the WSYVRA.
Management Strategies
Comment: The lack of definition of “problemwolves” gives too much management flexibility.“Harassment” must be more clearly defined. “Rendez-vous sites” needs definition.
Response: With the addition of a definition of“rendezvous site,” all these terms are now defined inAppendix G. We believe management flexibility ispositive. Refinement of the definition of “problemwolves” would occur under the FWS-approvedinteragency management plan that would be devel-oped (see provision (3)(vii) of the proposed experi-mental population rule, Appendix C).
Comment: “Sub-populations, demes, corridors,inbreeding, etc., these are all concepts that should bepresent in this DEIS.” (3,356)
Response: We believe that appropriate conceptsrelating to conservation biology have been incorpo-rated into the EIS.
Comment: Long term population goals are unclear;will they be capped at the numbers indicated?
Response: No, they will not be artifically “capped.”The overall goal is 100 wolves distributed across5,000 mi’. If both areas are used, the BRWRA isexpected to be suitable for approximately 100 wolvesand the WSWRA for 20 wolves. The actual numbersshould not greatly exceed those numbers, through acombination of natural mortality and managementactions. Further refinement of the goals may beneeded depending on actual territorial requirements ofthe wolves observed after they are released.
Comment: If they are reintroduced in Arizona andNew Mexico they will disperse to Texas in a relativelyshort time; their dispersal cannot be prevented.
Response: We believe they can be retrieved beforethey reached Texas.
Comment: A citizen advisory committee should beassembled to advise on management.
Response: We agree. See revisions in the descriptionof the Preferred Alternative (Chap. 2, Alt. A).
Comment: “The adaptive management approachseems reasonable and practical. It should allow for thenecessary flexibility to successhlly deal with the manychallenges, foreseen and unforeseen, that will surelyarise during the program’s implementation.” (3,340)
Response: We agree.
Comment: “There is a distinction between informaland formal adaptive management. To provide formalchannels of communication with grazers and hunters,I would encourage expansion of the concept to aformal procedure of long term management of preda-tor, deer, elk and livestock populations.” (3,656)
PublicComment Summary
Response: This suggestion goes beyond the scope ofthe less formal adaptive management approach weenvision. However, it appears worthy of considerationby the management group after it is formed.
The Draft Experimental Population Rule
Comment: The Proposed Action in the DEISemphasizes using BRWRA and/or WSWRA while thedraft Proposed Experimental Population Rule empha-sizes both areas being used; why the difference?
Response: The draft Proposed Mexican Wolf Experi-mental Population Rule was written to cover theProposed Action in its fullest application, that is, as ifboth areas are ultimately used. It should not beinterpreted as a statement that both areas actually willbe used.
Comment: Concerning the provisions allowing takeof wolves that attack livestock: they are too broad, thetime limit for the private permit should be drasticallyreduced from up to 45 days, and take should not beallowed unless depredation exceeds a certain percent-age of the herd present, e.g. 1 or 2%. Also, theallowance for taking nuisance wolves and for usinglethal methods are too vague.
Response: We believe the provisions are reasonableand will not impede wolf recovery. It would be verydifficult, if not impossible, to accurately monitorlivestock depredation rates attributable exclusively towolves. Protocols for various management measures,such as the taking of nuisance wolves and the use oflethal methods, will be defined in greater detail in theFWS-approved management plan referenced in theProposed Rule. This gives us the flexibility to adapt tosituations that may be difficult to perceive prior to thereintroduction of wolves.
Comment: The Mexican Wolf Experimental Popula-tion Area is about twice as large as needed to adminis-ter the rule.
Response: We disagree. No naturally occurringpopulations of Mexican wolves exist in or anywherenear the proposed Experimental Population Area(EPA). The most likely natural recolonization areashave been excluded from the EPA (see Ah. D). A
5-107
smaller EPA would have the potential of artificiallycreating “endangered” Mexican wolves by allowingexperimental wolves to disperse outside the EPA morequickly. We believe the proposed EPA provides themanagement flexibility necessary.
Comment: The statement on p. 2-22 and in( )(9) of the proposed experimental population rulethat the FWS would terminate the reintroductions, ifa court ordered the FWS to change the designationfrom nonessential experimental to a higher degree ofprotection, is illegal and has another major flaw. If thecourt required the FWS to proceed with the changedstatus then the FWS would have to proceed regardlessof that statement.
Response: The purpose of the statement is to committhe FWS as much as legally possible to its ProposedAction, ifit is chosen in the Record of Decision.There has been public and agency concern that theFWS would later change the nonessential experimen-tal designation to endangered. Ofcourse, the FWScannot commit itself to violating a valid court order.Nevertheless, the FWS believes the statement is validlegally and is good policy.
Comment: The DEIS fails to demonstrate that theFWS has consulted with affected landowners andagencies on the Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation.Rule.
Response: The DEIS review process itself has pro-vided some of this opportunity on the draft proposedrule; further, more focused consultations are to occurupon publication of the proposed rule in the FederalRegister.
Research and Monitoring
Comment: The use of capture collars should beminimized; they cause stress and potential injuries andhave other shortcomings.
Response: We agree, and do not plan to use thesedevices; references to them in Chap. 2 have beendeleted. In fact, they are no longer manufactured.
Comment: The scientific research aspects of thereintroduction should not be cut back; if inadequate
Public Comment Summary
funding is available for monitoring and research theproject should not be undertaken; research shouldinclude impacts of the wolf and the factors contribut-ing to success or failure of the reintroductions. “Wesuggest research needs include: (1) factors influencingmovements, reproductive success, hunting success andmortality of reintroduced individuals and theirprogeny, (2) factors influencing predator/prey dynam-ics in the proposed reintroduction sites, and (3)regional landscape analysis ofhabitat fragments . . .surrounding the proposed reintroduction sites, thepotential recolonization sites on the border and thepotential remnant sites in the Sierra Madre Occiden-tal.” (3,052)
Response: We agree that research is an important partof this effort, but it is not the purpose. However,monitoring the wolves is fundamental and we wouldnot support releasing wolves if we did not believe wecould adequately monitor them. We would workcooperatively with appropriate non-governmental(e.g. academic) researchers to implement essentialmonitoring and research efforts. The reintroductionsshould provide outstanding research opportunities onbiological, ecological, and socio-economic aspects ofwolf recovery.
Comment: Reintroduced wolves should not betrapped for scientific study purposes.
Response: The primary purpose of this proposal is tore-establish a wild population of Mexican wolves toprevent their extinction and promote their recovery toa more secure status. Research conducted on reintro-duced animals or reestablished populations must becompatible with that purpose. Intrusive researchcannot be legally conducted without permission fromthe FWS.
Comment: “Any thought of keeping track of wolfmovements after the second generation is laughable. Itwill be impossible to find the dens and cubs in thedensely forested wilderness areas.” (1,075)
Response: Wolf managers and researchers in otherremote and densely forested areas have been veryeffective in finding, capturing, and radio-collaringwild-born wolves.
5108
Comment: What will the FWS do when collars failor fall off? When will it stop radio-collaring wolvesthat it captures and will it remove collars from col-lared wolves after a certain period?
Response: We plan to monitor reintroduced popula-tions throughout the population growth phase andfor 5 years beyond attainment of the establishedpopulation objective. This does not necessarily meanthat every wolf will be radio-collared during thisperiod. Specific answers to these questions will beaddressed by the management group through theinformal adaptive management process.
Comment: How will the FWS keep people fromtracking and killing wolves by following their radiocollar signals?
Response: This has not been a problem in other areaswith radio-collared wolves. The FWS does notpublicly release radio frequencies. Even if someonehad access to the frequencies, it would take consider-able time, expense, and effort to locate a radio-collaredwolf and get close enough to kill it.
Comment: Aerial overflights will disturb bothwolves and other animals; other approaches shouldbe used.
Response: Decades of wolf research using aerialmonitoring of radio-collared wolves reveals no indica-tion that wolves are disturbed. We plan to use bothground and aerial tracking.
Comment: Incentives for the local public to monitorand report wolf activity should be used; this will notonly provide information but will help buildlocal support.
Response: This approach will be considered.
Strategies to Control Wolves
Comment: Given the known historic difficulty oftrapping Mexican wolves, why is the FWS confidentthat it will be able to control them through trapping?
Response: We disagree with the commenter’s inter-pretation of history regarding this issue. Trapping was
PublicComment Summary
one of many very effective techniques used to totallyeradicate the Mexican wolf from the United States.Trapping has been used effectively in other wolfmanagement programs. However, we do anticipatethat some wolves will be more difficult to capturethan others. In some cases other techniques may haveto be used, such as firing tranquilizer darts fromaircraft.
Comment: Wolves that eat livestock should not bekilled, but removed from the area.
Response: Non-lethal control methods will bepreferred and encouraged. Depredating wolves takenalive would generally be translocated to an area wherethey are less likely to depredate or put back into thecaptive population. Euthanasia is a last resort.
Comment: The FWS is too willing to kill or movewolves that threaten livestock or leave therecovery areas.
Response: We disagree; most of the managementstrategy has proved successful for wolf recoveryelsewhere and we believe it is appropriate.
Comment: Killing wolves that kill livestock willdisrupt the packs and the social learning necessary forwolf survival in the wild, thus will hurt wolf recoverywithout necessarily reducing the depredation rate.Young wolves from disrupted packs are more likely todepredate on easier-to-catch livestock.
Response: The comment is speculative. Anotherpoint to consider is that young wolves learn to huntand recognize prey from their parents and will passsimilar behaviors to their offspring. Thus, if livestockdepredating wolves are allowed to remain in thepopulation, the rate of livestock depredation mayincrease over time. In other areas where wolves arerecovering either naturally or through reintroductions,ongoing control of livestock depredating wolves hasnot prevented wolf population growth.
Comment: ‘What is the time frame for ‘recapturingwolves that ‘drift’ outside the recovery areas?” (906)What will the FWS do if the wolves repeatedlydemonstrate a preference for public land that isoutside the recovery area boundaries? More flexibility
5-109
is needed to reduce the costs and negative impacts ofrepeated trapping and moving of the wolves.
Response: As soon as we know that a wolf hasrelocated on public land outside the recovery area,capture efforts will begin. Wolves that “drift” out andback will not be considered for recapture until it isclear that they have relocated from the recovery area.
Public Take and Harassment of Wolves
Comment: Killing of wolves to protect livestockshould be prohibited; instead ranchers should becompensated for the cows killed in the attack.
Response: A private group, Defenders of Wildlife,has a depredation compensation fUnd. We believethat, under narrow circumstances, allowing ranchers tokill wolves with evidence that wolves were actuallyattacking their livestock probably will reduce the levelof illegal killing, increase public acceptance ofwolfrecovery, help to remove non-adaptive behaviors fromthe wolf population, and benefit wolf recovery in thelong run
Comment: Public take of wolves on private lands isacceptable but not on public lands.
Response: We agree that it is less acceptable onpublic lands, but do provide for the granting ofpermits to private individuals, who have public landgrazing allotments, to take wolves actually attackingcattle, under narrow circumstances where federaldepredation control efforts in the area have notsucceeded.
Comment: The provision for granting permits toranchers to take wolves that kill livestock on publiclands should not be construed as an entitlement bythe ranchers.
Response: There are several conditions that must bemet before such a permit would be granted, as spelledout in the proposed experimental population rule atsec. ( )(3)(v)(B), and the operative word is that theFWS “may” grant the permit, rather than “shall.”
Comment: The disallowance of rancher take ofwolves killing their livestock on public lands shows
Public Comment Summary
that the FWS intends to drive ranchers off publiclands. What will the Service do if ranchers pull alltheir cattle onto private lands to lure the wolves?
Response: As stated in the previous response, we willpermit some private taking ofwolves on public lands.We do not intend to drive ranchers off and have triedto tailor the proposal to minimize conflict withranchers, where possible and consistent with wolfrecovery. Thus, harassment of wolves on public landsnear livestock is allowed. The hypothetical situationappears very unlikely because the vast majority of thegrazing land in these areas is public. Also, the wolveswould not likely be “lured.”
Comment: Livestock owners are very unlikely toactually see wolves in the act of attacking livestock,thus giving them permission to kill wolves if they areseen in the act is meaningless.
Response: We agree that in open range grazingsituations this is unlikely. The provision shouldprovide some protection to livestock that are bunchedand observed regularly by the rancher.
Illegal Killing of Wolves
Comment: “Hunters and trappers are notorious liarsand could quite conceivably kill all the wolves” (2).
Response: We disagree with the comment and notethat this has not happened elsewhere where wolfrecovery has occurred.
Comment: This program will make criminals out ofcommon people who act to defend their livestock.
Response: Legal killing of wolves is allowed undernarrow circumstances; we do not expect that manypeople will kill wolves illegally.
Comment: The Yellowstone and Central Idahoreintroductions demonstrate that the compensationfund alone will not prevent illegal killing ofwolves.
Response: Agreed; at least three illegal killings haveoccurred in those areas. Yet, the funds’ existence,including payment already to at least one sheep
5-110
rancher, may have helped reduce the level of illegalkilling.
Comment: Drivers on public highways should beexcused from accidental hitting ofwolves, but off-roaddrivers in wolf habitat should not be excused.
Response: It is hard to conceive that an off-roadvehicle could be moving fast enough to hit a wolf byaccident before the wolf could move out of the way. Ifthis proves to be a problem, which we do not expect,the rule could be amended.
Comment: On p. 2-22 and in the proposed rule,prosecution for illegal killings should be mandatory,instead of the “may” be prosecuted language used.
Response: We disagree; prosecutorial discretion isimportant for successful prosecutions. As indicated inthe following response, we are committed to vigorousenforcement in appropriate cases.
Law Enforcement
Comment: Illegal killing of wolves should be vigor-ously prosecuted.
Response: We agree and intend to support this whenthere is evidence that illegal killing occurred.
Comment: More is needed in the EIS about penal-ties for violation of the taking provisions of the ESAand the experimental rule, and about the proposedenforcement measures and budget.
Response: The potential criminal penalties underSection 11 (b)( 1) of the ESA are a fine of not morethan $50,000 and/or imprisonment for not more thanone year. Depending on the violation other penaltiescould apply. Enforcement of violations would fall tothe Law Enforcement Division of the FWS, whichwould be aided by the Mexican Wolf RecoveryProgram field staffand cooperating agencies. Noseparate Law Enforcement Division budget isproposed.
Comment: “U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service must berequired to fully cooperate with local law enforcement
Public Comment Summary
agencies allowing local agencies to take a lead role inhow enforcement actions are to be initiated.” (S-23)
Response: Cooperation between federal, state, andlocal law enforcement agencies regarding violations ofthe ESA or the experimental population rule wouldbe generally the same for the Mexican wolf as it is forother violations of the ESA.
Private Property Rights
Comment: Wolf recovery and associated encroach-ment by government personnel and increased regula-tion are an infringement of private property rights.
Response: Under the Proposed Action there wouldbe no trespassing, wolf management, or land userestrictions imposed on private (or tribal) propertywithout the owner’s consent. Appendix C, the pro-posed Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Rule,includes a specific Required Determination that theproposal has been reviewed and found not to consti-tute a taking of private property under the 5thAmendment. If enforcement against illegal killing ofwolves is necessary on private lands it would only beundertaken pursuant to established federal law en-forcement procedures.
Comment: The reduction of property rights result-ing from depredation and federal regulation of use ofprivate land will make lenders less likely to extendcredit, with the land as collateral, to ranchers in ornear the wolf recovery areas.
Response: We have no evidence that this has oc-curred in other areas where wolves have recovered. TheProposed Action includes no regulation of privateland or restrictions of private land use. Further, theexpected depredation rates are unlikely to reduce thecreditworthiness of ranchers.
Human Safety
Comment: “The USFWS has set up its documenta-tion standards to exclude most if not all legitimatewolf attacks.” (TC-6)
5-111
Response: The FWS has no formal standards toinclude or exclude wild wolf attack reports, but we dolook for evidence of the reliability of the reportsreceived. We do not consider attacks by captive wolf-dog hybrids very relevant to the issue of human safetyfrom wolf attacks in the wild. We recognize that a veryfew documented wild wolf attacks have occurred inNorth America. We generally rely on the opinions ofwolf experts on this subject (see Mech 1992, USFWS1987).
Comment: “There may not be a verified record ofwolves attacking humans, but, it is only a matter oftime and you will have one or more.” (60 1)
Response: This is possible but considered extremelyunlikely by wolf experts.
Comment: The slight risk to humans can be dealtwith through minor precautions.
Response: We agree; these would include the samesorts of precautions as one would take when in blackbear or mountain lion country.
Comment: Who will be legally responsible if thewolf does attack and injure a person?
Response: This is considered extremely unlikely tooccur. The FWS position is that reintroduced nativewildlife are wild animals. Nothing in this proposal isdesigned to affect the law of legal liability or toprevent a person from suing the federal government ifthey think they have a valid case.
Comment: “Even though it is highly unlikely thatwolves will ever threaten human life, they should notbe prevented from recovering wild populations even ifthey do occasionally threaten human life.” (1,543)
Response: The recovery provisions of the ESA makeno distinction between life-threatening and non-life-threatening species. We do not believe this will be asignificant issue for wolf recovery.
Comment: “Their is a real [human safety] problem ifthe wolves should cross with domestic dogs.” (590)
Response: Wolf-dog hybrids are unpredictable andpotentially dangerous pets; they often lack the fear of
Public Comment Summary
humans that wild wolves exhibit. The FWS discour-ages possession of them. It is rare for wolves and dogsto interbreed except where caged together by humans.It has never been shown to our knowledge that a wolf/dog hybrid has resulted from wild wolves being in ahuman-settled area that has then gone on to attackpeople.
Impacts on Wild Prey of Wolves
Comment: Wolves will kill old and sick prey thatwould die soon anyway and this will benefit the herdoverall; also, wolves will keep deer and elk fromoverpopulating and exceeding the carrying capacity oftheir habitats. The EIS should discuss these pointsmore.
Response: Potential positive impacts of wolf preda-tion on its prey were mentioned on page 4-5 of theDEIS. It should be pointed out that wolves will notonly kill old and sick prey.
Comment: Wolves will not be selective for old orsick prey and will take as many or more healthywildlife.
Response: See answer to previous question. Themodelling ofwolf impacts on prey populations didassume certain rates of wolf predation on different ageclasses of deer and elk, based on knowledge of graywolf predation (see Green-Hammond 1994 andParsons 1994).
Comment: The Blue Range deer population isalready depleted and cannot handle increased depreda-tion. The herd should be replenished before wolfreintroduction.
Response: Our modelling included increasing,decreasing, and stable deer herd scenarios developedwith input from state game managers. Even under thedecreasing scenario for BRWRA deer, the effects onthe herd are not catastrophic.
Comment: The Blue Range elk herd has expandedand the range conditions and herd health have dete-riorated.
5-112
Response: Comment acknowledged, although theFWS has found no clear information that elk herdhealth has declined.
Comment: “Record populations of elk and deer inthe Blue Range Recovery Area attest to the lack of apredator to control populations.” (36) “Muchbiological research supports the thesis that deer andelk are much more numerous now than at any timeprevious to European settlement; predation by wolvesand by Native Americans kept large mammal popula-tions low.” (2,976)
Response: Comments acknowledged, although itdoes not appear that the BRWRA or WSWRA deerare at record high populations.
Comment: “I hunted New Mexico all 48 years of mylife. For the past three years I have hunted the GilaWilderness. The game management practices of theDep’t of Game and of New Mexico of the past 40years have resulted in the most healthy, flourishingheard of‘elk in the country. The mule deer and otherwildlife are producing more abundant number andhealthier animals than ever before. Why would weconsider interrupting the current successes with thereintroduction of the wolf is totally beyond me.”
(710)
Response: Our projections are that these populationscan withstand a resumption of the natural predationthey experienced from wolves without catastrophiceffects.
Comment: “The 1993 mule deer composition datafor the San Andres Mountains that is used in theAssessment of Impacts to Populations and HumanHarvests of Deer and Elk Caused by the Reintro-duction of Mexican Wolves ([Green-Hammond]I994), which was done for the DEIS, does not matchany of the available deer composition data. Theassessment uses a buck:doe:fawn ratio of 47: 100:43;but the actual empirical data from a helicopter surveyconducted on l/23/93 was 45: 100:37 and fromground surveys conducted during 12/1/93-l /24/94was 30: 100:27. Those surveys indicate lower buck andfawn ratios than what was used in the assessment. Ourmule deer composition data showed that a consider-able deer population decline occurred during the1994 droughth year-the buck:doe:fawn ratio was
Public Comment Summary
40: 100:7. Consequently, the results of the assessmentabove may not pertain to the conditions of the deerpopulation at the time of the wolf reintroductionplanned for 1997. Before wolves are released on theSan Andres Mountains, the deer population should bereassessed using empirical data in order to insure thatwolves are not being released into a prey poor envi-ronment.” (2,030)
Response: The differences pointed out between theempirical data on buck:doe:fawn ratios from Januaryand December 1993 and January 1994 and the initialratio used in our model would not likely broaden therange of effects predicted, because fawn:doe ratiosvaried in our model simulations and the limits of therange of effects result from the inclusion of increasingand decreasing herd scenarios. However, like thecommenter, we are concerned about the effects ofrecent drought conditions on WSWRA deer herds;and the data provided reinforces that concern. Thepredicted marginal capability of the WSWRA deerherd to withstand the predation effects of wolfreintroduction, disregarding possible effects of currentdrought conditions, was one of the reasons for recom-mending the BRWRA as the initial reintroductionlocation in the Preferred Alternative. Also, a provisionhas been added that would require a reassessment ofprey populations on the WSWRA before wolf reintro-duction could occur there.
Comment: Wolves would help reduce the too-highWSWRA oryx population.
Response: This is possible, but wolf predationexperts we polled predicted that wolf impacts on thenon-native African oryx population, while uncertain,likely would be light.
Comment: Wolves would probably affect the preyless on White Sands, where hunting is limited, than inthe Blue Range Area.
Response: While hunting is less, the deer populationis much smaller on White Sands. There are no elk andwe are unsure of the rate that wolves will take oryx.Thus, our projections show that wolf predation couldcause a major deer decline under the decreasing deerherd scenario.
5-113
Comment: The DEIS contains inadequate discussionof wolf impacts on pronghorn and management thatwill result if significant impacts occur.
Response: We lack sufficient data to quantitativelyproject wolf predation impacts on pronghorn. Weexpect it to be relatively light because pronghornprefer more open, lower elevation areas than wolvesare expected to prefer and their speed facilitates escape.
Comment: “Fig. 4-1, page 4-4: this schematic graphsuggests a declining trend in prey numbers for the‘stable with wolves’ case. Shouldn’t the trend becomeparallel to the “stable without wolves” trend after sometime as an equilibrium is established between the wolf-prey populations?” (46)
Response: That figure is a very generalized illustra-tion. The commenter’s suggestion is valid; that is, ifthe hypothetical population trend lines were extendedfurther into the future they would become horizontal,suggesting that an “equilibrium” condition had beenreached. Of course, true equilibrium rarely, if ever,occurs in natural systems; and future prey numberswould fluctuate up and down in response to a varietyof factors such as predator numbers, climate, humanhunter harvest, management of predator and preypopulations, competition for food, habitat condition,etc.
Comment: The impact numbers on the prey as givenin the summary and Chap. 2 tables are confusing, thetime reference is unclear.
Response: The “net impact” on prey is a picture ofthe prey population five years after the wolf recoverygoal is achieved. See note 1, added to Table 2 in theSummary, andTable 2-8 in Chap. 2. It is not theannual impact. The reader should refer to the full textof Chap.4, under Ah. A, Impacts on Wild Prey, for amore complete understanding of prey impacts.
Comment: Inadequate data are available to predictthe wolf/prey trends.
Response: We used data and expert opinions fromthe Arizona and New Mexico big game managers,which they use in setting hunts. We asked them topredict reasonable high and low population scenarios,as well as a stable scenario. We also examined data on
Public Comment Summq
game impacts from other areas where wolves haverecovered.
Comment: The estimates used for the amount ofprey taken by wolves are too high; wolves need nothave a negative impact on prey populations.
Response: The estimate for prey taken after therecovery goals are achieved is based on approximaterequirements of six lbs. of meat per wolf per day,which is based on studies of gray wolves in other areasand some assumptions about how Mexican wolveswill behave in comparison (see Appendix A - Preysection and Parsons 1994). Our model runs generallyproject that wolves would gradually reduce preypopulations over a period of years such that thereductions may not be readily observable. We dorecognize that culling and other potential wolf im-pacts on the prey herds are considered beneficial.
Comment: Wolves will devastate the recentlyreplanted Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep herds inEastern Arizona.
Response: We have added more discussion onbighorn sheep and impacts on them in the BRWRAto Chap.s 3 and 4, with the assistance of the ArizonaGame and Fish Department.
Comment: Wolves will devastate ungulate popula-tions and hunting as they have in parts ofAlaska,Minnesota, Alberta, and elsewhere; the DEIS esti-mates are too low.
Response: Many factors affect ungulate populations.Rarely can a change in ungulate populations beattributed to one single factor, such as predation bywolves. Experts generally agree that once suppressed,by whatever cause, the recovery of ungulate popula-tions to higher levels can sometimes be significantlyprolonged, and theoretically precluded, by continuedpredation. However, most experts agree that inhealthy ecosystems the effects of predators on theirprey is beneficial to the overall health and fitness ofprey populations. Notably, the deer population innorthern Minnesota has reached historically highlevels, as has hunter take, while the wolf populationhas increased steadily at the same time (M. Nelson,Nat’1 Biol. Survey, pers. comm.). The Proposed Rulecontains a provision that would allow wolf popula-
5-114
tions to be reduced if ungulate populations aresubstantially reduced due to predation by wolves.
Comment: The provision to capture and movewolves if they “impact on game populations inways which may inhibit further recovery” is unclearand that event is unlikely to occur.
Response: The quoted phrase is defined preciselyin the Glossary (Appendix G). We agree that sucha reduction in game populations caused by wolvesis unlikely to occur.
Comment: The DEIS is inadequate for failing tomodel impacts on species other than deer and elkand on hunting on these other species.
Response: Adequate data for constructing modelsfor these species is not available; and impacts tothese species are expected to be minor. Impacts tolarge ungulate species other than deer and elk arediscussed in qualitative terms.
Comment: More consideration needs to be givento other factors, such as disease, weather, andhabitat loss, that will impact prey populations.
Response: The modelling effort for wolf impactsdid include consideration of these sorts of factors.Generally, we agree that factors other than wolfpredation, particularly weather, will have a greaterinfluence on prey numbers.
Comment: “Research also indicates predation isadditive and not compensatory which will defi-nitely have negative effects on ungulate popula-tions..... Ungulate populations suffer becausewolves destroy the replacement segment of awildlife population.” (906)
Response: We found the published research to beinconclusive as to whether wolf predation isadditive, partially compensatory, or full compensa-tory. Several experts were polled on this issue; andtheir collective opinion was that from 15% to47% ofwolf-caused mortality would be compen-sated by reduced mortality from other sources.Model simulations included both ends of thisrange, which is reflected in the range of projectedimpacts to deer and elk populations.
PublicComment’iummary
Comment: Wolf predation may stimulate higherbirth and twinning rates; also, deer in wolf territoryare larger and fitter than in areas where wolves are notpresent.
Response: These phenomena could be expected,based on generally accepted ecological principles.
Comment: Wolf prey a lot on mice and otherrodents; this will reduce the threat of rodent-borndiseases.
Response: Small mammals are estimated to make uponly a small percentage by weight of the wolf’s dietand the wolves are expected to displace coyotes tosome extent, which depend on small prey more thanwolves. We lack evidence that wolf recovery has theeffect suggested.
Comment: Wolves displacing of coyotes, which preyon many deer fawns, may mean that the deer herdsincrease.
Response: This is possible, but we lack sufficient datato make such a prediction.
Impacts on Hunting
Comment: Wolf reintroduction may bring morehunters on the chance they could kill a wolf (illegally).
Response: We lack evidence to support this. Poach-ing of wolves could be a problem, but it is unlikely toattract many more hunters.
Comment: The decline in hunting is overstated.
Response: We admit uncertainty in predicting theimpacts on hunting. In other parts of the countrywhere wolves have come back there have not beenhunting reductions, but our modelling efforts suggeststhere should be such reductions in the Southwest ifthe deer and elk herds are appreciably reduced. If thegame managers don’t reduce the level of hunting, thenhunter success should drop.
Comment: The FWS should impose huntingrestrictions in the wolf recovery areas to provide moreprey for wolves.
5-115
Response: Regulation of hunting is a state, not afederal, role.
Comment: The DEIS overemphasizes impacts onhunting in the BRWRA in relation to non-consump-tive uses. Hunting only represents about 10% of therecreational visitor days.
Response: We acknowledge that the DEIS focusesmore on quantified adverse impacts, such as losthunting days due to reduced herd size, than onpotential positive impacts like increased recreationthat are difficult- to project quantitatively.
Comment: “It won’t take a rocket scientist to seeyour cutting off a large part ofyour income fromhunters.” (470)
Response: The projected reduction in huntingshould mean that the state game agencies receive lessin license fees than they would otherwise. This wouldnot directly affect the federal FWS or its MexicanWolf Kecovery Program.
Comment: The reductions of game and hunting willhurt “private land owners who depend a great deal ondeer a< a source of revenue.” (55 1)
Response: This private land deer hunting is primarilyan issue in Texas, where no impacts on hunting areprojected to occur.
Comment: If there are too many elk or deer it isbetter to give more hunting permits to sportsmen.
Response: The purpose ofwolf reintroduction is notto reduce the deer and elk herds, rather this is aprojected effect.
Comment: Wolf predation could force game manag-ers to ban or greatly reduce hunting; the DEIS doesn’trecognize that this could occur.
Response: To our knowledge, this has not occurredin other areas where wolf populations have re-estab-lished; and game managers in Arizona and NewMexico do not anticipate reductions in permittedhunting effort as a result of wolf reintroduction. Aprovision in the proposed rule would allow control ofwolf populations if game populations significantly
Public Comment Summary
decline as a result of wolf predation. Our analyses dopredict a decline in game populations compared towhat they would be without wolves, and somereduction in hunting opportunity in wolf recoveryareas could occur 1 O-l 5 years after initial wolf reintro-ductions. These reductions are not projected to bedrastic, as the commenter has suggested.
Comment: The projected herd reductions will meanfewer permits will ultimately be given out and it isalready too hard to get hunting licenses. “The com-ment on p. 11 of the summary to the effect thathunters may not actually hunt less overall because offewer deer and elk in the recovery areas but insteadturn their attention to substitute areas or species isclearly erroneous.” (10)
Response: We agree that it is likely that the presenceofwolves will ultimately mean fewer licenses will begiven out than if there were no wolves. The numberswe present for hunting losses in the DEIS assume noeffort by hunters to substitute for these lost opportu-nities by pursuing other hunting opportunitieselsewhere (including, perhaps, in other states or onIndian reservations or for less popular species thandeer and elk.). We believe there would be somesubstitution, though we lack information to project itquantitatively.
Comment: Hunters kill prime animals while wolveskill old, young, diseased, and other non-primeanimals.
Response: Generally this is true, but wolves may takesome prime animals as well, just as hunters may takesome old or diseased animals.
Comment: The reduction in deer and elk should becompensated for as livestock depredation is.
Response: The livestock depredation fund is a privateeffort designed to offset losses of privately ownedlivestock. The taking of wild deer or elk by wolvesdoes not affect anyone’s private property and is part ofthe natural predator-prey relationship, which hasnever been compensated for financially anywhere else,to our knowledge.
Impacts on the Livestock Industry
Comment: It is clear that in order to restore viablewolf populations in the Southwest they will eventu-ally have to be put where there are livestock, so thefact that no livestock are on the WSWRA should notmake that area more preferable than the BRWXA,which has livestock.
Response: The New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish has cited the absence of livestock onWSWRA as one of the reasons it is opposed to wolfreintroduction in that area. The BRWRA, whichcontains livestock, has been selected as the preferredreintroduction area for various biological reasonsbeyond just the presence or absence of livestock.
Comment: Historically, cattle losses to wolves werehigher than those projected; the livestock depredationestimates are too low.
Response: It is likely true that historic livestock losseswere higher than projected losses in the EIS becausecattle were more plentiful and native prey were lessplentiful around the turn of the century. However,data on historic livestock losses, wolf abundance, andnative prey abundance are incomplete and unreliablein some cases, but we have added more discussion ofthe historic data in Chap. 1, under Reasons forListing.
Comment: The reasons for high historic depredationrates were depletion of the wolves’ native prey andoverstocking of cattle within the wolf range.
Response: See response to previous comment.
Comment: Gray wolves prefer cattle as prey becauseof their similarity to bison, their preferred prey.
Response: This interesting idea lacks historicalsupport for the Mexican wolf. Most of the historicMexican wolf range was not in the historic bisonrange.
Comment: The rates of depredation from SimonetteRiver, Alberta, (Appendix F) were quite high and ifrates that high occurred in the Southwest the livestockindustry would be decimated.
PublicComment Summary
Response: The Simonette River case showed thehighest documented wolf depredation rates during afew years (1975- 1978) when control of depredatingwolves was experimentally withheld. It was a relativelysmall area with a high wolf to cattle ratio. This sort of“worst case scenario” could be observed in portions ofthe southwestern wolf recovery areas, but, as inAlberta, would not likely be duplicated over a largearea. Active control of depredating wolves under theProposed Action would help prevent such worst casescenarios from occurring. The Simonette Riverlivestock industry was not decimated.
Comment: Wolves will prefer easy-to-get calves todeer or elk.
Response: Observations of gray wolf behaviorelsewhere indicate that wolves prefer wild prey,although they would be expected to take some calves.Under the proposal, wolves that do so will be con-trolled.
Comment: The livestock depredation estimates aretotally speculative.
Response: They are based on the best evidenceavailable regarding rates ofwolf depredation onlivestock in Minnesota, Montana, and Alberta.Observations from those areas were adjusted fordifferences in the Southwest, with the aid of an expertsurvey on these issues (see Appendix F - Summary ofLivestock Depredation Survey Responses).
Comment: The livestock losses are projected assmall, such as 1% of the livestock, but this is mislead-ing. The percentage of total livestock in the state lostto depredation is not relevant, but the percentageshould be based on the number of livestock in thewolf recovery areas.
Response: Our depredation projections are notpercentages of livestock in the whole state. Rather, likethe comparison studies our projections are based on,they are percentages of the total livestock in the wolfterritories, i.e., the livestock available in the designatedwolf recovery areas.
Comment: How can you have a fraction of a cowkilled per year, such as .Ol for the WSWRA?
5117
Response: This means that on average one cowwould be killed every ten years.
Comment: More explanation is needed in thelivestock loss projections about how the average valueof cattle and calves was arrived at.
Response: Additional clarification has been added tothe notes ofTable 4-4, pointing out that this value isbased on state agriculture department figures as to theaverage value of all cattle in the state including every-thing from bulls to calves and high value cattle toculls.
Comment: Using depredation rates from Minnesotato project rates in the Southwest is unrealistic due tothe very different industries.
Response: We recognize the differences and tried totake them into account in our projections and ourexpert survey, (see Box 4-3 and Appendix F). The datafrom Minnesota is very complete and considered bymany experts to be relevant to other areas despite thedifferent circumstances. In the grazing season inMinnesota, when the vegetation is thick and theanimals are not tended regularly, livestock even inrelatively small pastures are exposed and vulnerable toattack by the many wolves present.
Comment: Wolf recovery in Minnesota since 1979has resulted in a great reduction in the number offarms and sheep in the wolf range.
Response: We disagree. Certainly, other socioeco-nomic factors have had a far greater contribution toreduction in farm numbers, a national phenomenon.There is no evidence of wolves putting cattle ranchersout of business. Wolves do depredate on sheep inMinnesota more than cattle and in a few cases sheepranchers over the last I5 or so years have claimed theystopped raising sheep due to wolf predation (B. Paul,USDA ADC, pers. comm.). However, there is onlyone sheep allotment in the proposed wolf recoveryareas in the Southwest.
Comment: “The figures presented as possible wolfkills are not correct. They are so high that the ranch-ing public will be up in arms.” (547)
Public Comment Summary
Response: The figures are consistent with experiencesfrom other areas where wolves and livestock andranchers co-exist, without excessive illegal killing ofwolves by ranchers.
Comment: The depredation projections are realistic.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Thank you.
Comment: As the wolf population grows anddepletes the wild game it will turn more to livestock.
Response: This could occur to a minor extent, butthe wolf is not projected to cause a major depletion ofthe wild game herds in the BRWRA, which is wherethe potential for livestock depredation is greatest, i.e.,few livestock exist in the WSWILA.
Comment: Wolf reduction of big game herds willprovide more grass for cattle.
Response: This is a possible, but uncertain, effect.
Comment: It will be hard for ranchers to tellwhether a calf death resulted from wolves or naturalcauses. Lost newborn calves won’t be discovered at all.
Response: If wolves are suspected (and their presencein an area will usually be known through monitoringefforts), then a specially-trained ADC wolf specialistwill assist in determining the cause of the kill, usingevidence on the carcass and in surrounding areas aswell as information from the wolf monitoring efforts.This approach has worked fairly well in Minnesotaand the Northern Rockies. However, not all kills canbe found and identified, especially newborn calves.
Comment: Cattle ranchers are already strugglingeconomically and predation contributes to this; anywolf depredation will make it worse.
Response: The level of wolf depredation is notexpected to be high enough to cause major economiceffects, although if individual ranchers sufferuncompensated losses they may face economic prob-lems.
Comment: The livestock impact focus is too muchon cattle and not enough on other large and smalllivestock.
5-118
Response: The EIS does mention the potential forwolves to take other livestock, but we do not considerthe potential impacts on them to be significantenough to attempt to make quantitative projections,which would be quite difficult. Only one sheepallotment exists within the BRWRA and no privately-owned sheep are in the WSWRA. Thus, while somesheep will likely be taken by wolves, the numbersshould be small. Poultry and smaller livestock couldbe taken opportunistically by wolves, but the numbersshould not be high due to the normal care taken toprotect them from all kinds of predators.
Comment: Ranchers in the BRWRA are having theirgrazing allotments severely reduced; wolf recovery ontop of this will ca.use major economic stress.
Response: Those reductions are not across the boardand have not been finally implemented yet, as mostare under appeal. We have mentioned this underChap. 3, Livestock Grazing, and Chap. 4, Ah. A,Cumulative Impacts.
Comment: “I have lost livestock topredators....Th ere are so many predators killing somuch livestock that I cannot believe that the Mexicanwolf can affect livestock production.” (2,995)
Response: We agree that the impact of wolf depreda-tion will be relatively minor in comparison to thecurrent rates of depredation from other predators andthe effect on overall livestock production will bemarginal.
Comment: “The ranching lifestyle is not economi-cally viable, it will decrease over time, and the reintro-duction of the wolf will not make a difference in that.”
(Sot. p. 179)
Response: We have no opinion on the overalleconomic viability of ranching, but agree that wolfdepredation will be a marginal factor in relation toother factors that affect the viability of ranching suchas beef prices, grazing fees, cost of supplies, otherpredators (see response to previous question), govern-ment programs related to ranching, competing landuses, rancher demographics, climate, and so on.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: The statement on p. 4-25 that ranchersprobably would not place irreplaceable breeding stockout on the open range is wrong.
Response: The range livestock industry is aware ofthe existing depredation rates caused by predatorsother than wolves. “Irreplaceable” breeding stock isnot often left on the open range subject to depreda-tion, at least without insurance. Full-grown, healthy,breeding stock is less likely to be depredated uponthan smaller stock, especially calves.
Comment: More discussion of federal grazing fees isneeded and how the fee formula already takes depreda-tion into account.
Response: We have mentioned this in Box 3-l of theFEIS, but this is a very broad accounting of depreda-tion rates nationally, which the limited wolf depreda-tion described in this document will not affect.
Comment: Ranchers will need to spend their owntime or money to hire someone to do “wolfwatching”to protect their herds.
Response: Ranchers may wish to take additionalsteps and spend additional funds to protect theirherds, but we do not believe, based on experienceselsewhere in North America, that each herd willneed a “wolf?vatcher.”
Comment: Ranchers will need to implement moreadvanced herd protection techniques, like guardingdogs, which will defend not just against wolves butalso against other predators, thus reducing overalllosses; burying carcasses; using horned cattle; and soon.
Response: Guarding dogs have not yet been shownto be effective in large, open range, cattle operations;nevertheless, we agree that better techniques should besought and that open dumping of carcasses encouragesdepredation.
Comment: Why not try using aversive baits, such aslithium chloride wrapped in sheep or cowhide, tonegatively condition wolves to livestock?
5-119
Response: See response to a previous comment onaversive conditioning, above, under Release Tech-niques.
Comment: The mitigation measures suggested by theFWS to reduce depredation are unrealistic. Further,the costs of implementing such measures are notincluded in the reintroduction cost estimates.
Response: The measures suggested come from expertsfamiliar with wolfdepredation on livestock in Alberta(Bjorge and Gunson 1985). We concurred, on p. 2-24 of the DEIS, that some of the measures may not besuited for the Southwest. A learning process will benecessary to find which, if any, depredation mitigationmeasures will work. The cost estimates for this sort of“wolf extension” work are included in the estimates inAppendix B under the categories of Field Staffsalariesand Information/education.
Comment: The FWS or Defenders ofwildlifeshould provide financial incentives to ranchers toundertake husbandry changes that will reduce depre-dation rates.
Response: This is outside the current authority ofthe FWS. However, the Defenders of Wildlife hasprovided some financial assistance to ranchers fordepredation prevention measures in the northernRocky Mountain area.
Comment: Livestock grazing should be reduced inthe wolf recovery areas, which have been damaged byovergrazing. Wolf predation will help reduce cattlenumbers that are too high anyway.
Response: Wolf depredation will not affect overallcattle numbers; any cattle lost to depredation could bereplaced.
Comment: “The cowman who cleans his range ofwolves does not realize he is taking over the wolf’s jobof trimming the herd to fit the range.” (2,8 19)
Response: Comment acknowledged; see response toprevious comment.
Comment: Public lands are not “leased” for grazing,grazing is a public land privilege that is “authorized.”
PublicComment Summary
Response: We have made this correction.
Compensation forLivestock Depredation
Comment: The DEIS under-emphasizes the com-pensation fund and overemphasizes the impact of asmall number of lost cattle.
Response: The EIS focuses on the federal aspect ofwolf recovery, rather than on related private initiativesthat are beyond federal control. The DEIS doesmention the Defenders of Wildlife fund and the FWSrecognizes this has been a valuable aid to wolf recoveryin the northern Rockies.
Comment: Make sure enough money is available tocover losses. The Minnesota compensation programwent bankrupt.
Response: The Defenders fund is a private programthat the FWS does not guarantee. The amountcurrently in the fund appears adequate to coverprojected depredation losses for several years and weunderstand more money may be raised for the fund.The Minnesota compensation program is funded bythe state legislature with an annual appropriation ofabout $45,000, for a state with about 2,000 wolves.The fund has not gone “bankrupt”; every loss claimedand approved has been paid (B. Paul, USDA ADC,pers. comm.). During a few years, the claims haveexceeded the appropriated amount. Thus, some claimshad to wait until the following year for payment.
Comment: The compensation program should existinitially, but then the responsibility turned over toranchers to protect their animals; the compensationprogram will be held out as bait to ranchers, but thencut back and eliminated; the compensation fundshould be conditioned on ranchers not illegallyshooting wolves; the fund should post a bond tocover losses; the fund should not apply if wolves arereleased or recolonize with full ESA protection; itshould pay a flat percentage fee to ranchers based onthe number of livestock they have in the wolf areas;the fund’s existence will encourage over-reporting oflosses and discourage proper livestock protectionthrough husbandry techniques.
5120
PublicComment Summary
Response: As a private fund, these matters aregenerally up to the Defenders of Wildlife to decide.Comments should be directed to this organization,headquartered in Washington, DC, or to its fieldrepresentative in Tucson, AZ.
Comment: If the compensation fund runs out offunds, the project should be terminated.
Response: ‘The FWS Mexican wolf recovery programis not conditioned on the existence of the privatecompensation fund.
Comment: The compensation program is unwork-able.
Response: The same sort of program has provedreasonably workable in Minnesota and Montana.
Comment: Wolves may feed on carcasses of cowsthat died of other causes; all the dead cattle will beblamed on the wolves because of the financial incen-tive.
Response: Defenders of Wildlife requires the opinionof an animal damage control or wolf expert who hasexamined the carcass to determine whether wolveskilled it, before compensation will be paid.
Comment: “I believe the wolves would displaceother livestock predators that ranchers currently arenot compensated for. Therefore, I see [the compensa-tion program] as a net benefit to ranchers even if alllosses cannot be verified.” (ALP- 14)
Response: This could occur, although we lacksufftcient evidence to project the ultimate impact ofwolves on the overall predator make-up of a givenarea.
Impacts on Predator Control Programs
Comment: ADC activities should be completelyeliminated in recovery areas.
Response: This has not proven necessary to accom-modate gray wolf recovery elsewhere.
Comment: ADC is not an appropriate agency to beinvolved in recovering wolves as they helped eliminatethem initially and still kill many predators.
Response: We disagree. ADC brings importantpredator control knowledge to the program and hasbeen a key player in gray wolf recovery in Minnesotaand the Northern Rockies.
Comment: Indiscriminate predator control methodsshould be removed.
Response: In occupied wolf range (see definition inAppendix G - Glossary), ADC use of M-44s andlethal snares would be restricted and there could bechanges in trapping techniques.
Comment: A steel-jawed leghold trap can injurewolves even if it doesn’t hold them. We shouldconsider eliminating them.
Response: Modified steel-jawed leghold traps havebeen shown to be one of the most efficient andhumane ways to capture wolves for research andmanagement purposes. Injury and mortality can occur,but the rates are very low.
Comment: The discussion on page 4-40 regardingrestricting the private shooting of coyotes if wolves are“mistakenly shot” should be discussed for eachalternative.
Response: This was discussed also under AlternativeD for each potential natural recolonization area underImpacts on Predator Control Programs. It was notdiscussed under the experimental non-essentialalternatives (A and B) because the FWS believes thathunter education would be a more effective approachthan imposing restrictions. If hunters are on noticethat wolves are in an area, then they are responsible formaking sure of their target and could be prosecuted ifthey shot a wolf and unreasonably claimed theythought it was a coyote.
Comment: Not enough predator control is beingdone on coyotes now and adding the wolf will justmake things worse. There should be no restriction ofpredator control methods.
5-121
Response: Some restrictions on non-discriminatingpredator control methods are necessary to ensurecontinued recovery of reintroduced Mexican wolves.Wolves will likely reduce the numbers of coyotes in anarea themselves. ‘While, it is true that wolf presence inan area would reduce the use of non-discriminatingcoyote control tools, the Proposed Rule does notrestrict the use of traps, aerial gunning, non-choking-type snares, calling and shooting, and possibly othertechniques which are effective in the control ofcoyotes. However, the use of some of these tools ortechmques may be limited by mutual agreementbetween FWS and ADC if such limitations aredetermined necessary to protect Mexican wolves. Webelieve that effective control of coyotes, if necessary,could continue in areas that become occupied bywolves.
Comment: The White Mountain Apaches are usingM-44s for coyote control adjacent to the BRVVRA;allowing this does not make sense as the expensivewolf recovery program will be harmed by unnecessarywolf mortalities.
Response: EPA label restrictions prohibit the use ofM-44’s in areas known to be occupied by Mexicanwolves. If reintroduction is authorized for theBRWIU, the FWS will attempt to enter into acooperative management agreement with the WhiteMountain ApacheTribe for purposes including thecapture and removal of wolves that enter their reserva-tion.
Comment: On p. 4-49, Bednatz (1988) is incor-rectly cited for the suggestion that wolves may dis-place lions into cattle-grazing areas outside WhiteSands Missile Range, possibly increasing predatorcontrol needs in these areas.
Response: While we agree that we incorrectly citedBednatz, and have changed that reference, we do thinkthat the competition from wolves could displace someof the mountain lions and not only into the moreprecipitous areas, which are already densely populatedby lions. Inter-specific competition and aggressioncould result in some lions and coyotes leaving thearea.
Comment: The proposed restrictions on predatorcontrol activities in wolf recovery areas would reduce
Public Comment Summary
the costs ofADC operations; this cost-saving shouldbe reflected in the EIS.
Response: We question this conclusion. Wolfreintroduction should result in greater ADC costs,which the EIS reflects in the projected cost estimatesin Appendix B. The reason for this is the need to hirea full-time wolf control specialist. While wolves maycause some reductions in other predator numbers in agiven area, the presence of wolves will not eliminatethe need for animal damage control actions againstthese other predators altogether. The presence ofwolves will reduce the availability of neck snares andM-44’s as a control measure, thus the lower availabili-ty of control tools may increase the cost of ADCefforts.
Impacts on Other Predators
Comment: Wolves will not necessarily displace lions.
Response: We agree that inadequate data exists toconfidently project this effect and we have not done soin our calculations of overall effects on hunting,livestock, etc. We do occasionally point out thepotential for this to occur.
Comment: Wolves will eliminate lions and bears.
Response: Evidence to support this is lacking fromother areas. While anecdotal evidence exist of wolvesdisplacing lions, wolves and bears clearly can co-existwithout major conflicts.
Comment: The restrictions on predator controlmethods will cause other predator populations toincrease, which will harm ranchers and wildlife.
Response: Limited restrictions on predator controlprograms will be imposed only in areas known to beoccupied by wolves. It appears very unlikely that, inareas occupied by wolves, other predator populationswould increase, given our current understanding ofinter-specific aggression between wolves and otherpredators, and the fact that the presence ofwolveswould increase competition for food resources. Also,see our response in the previous section to the com-ment on inadequate predator control.
Comment: Wolves will reduce coyotes, which willthereby enhance the deer herd.
Response: We agree that this may occur, but lacksufficient information to project this impactquantitatively.
Impacts on Other Endangered Species
Comment: Wolves will kill other endangered species.Wolves will eat many “candidates for federal protec-tion. Specifically the Arizona black-tailed prairie dog,Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk, White Sandswoodrat, and the hot springs woodrat. How can therebe ‘No Effect’?” (S- 1).
Response: Other than the possible impact on state-listed desert bighorn sheep in the San Andres, dis-cussed above, no other impacts on populations ofendangered species are foreseeable (see Appendix D -Section 7 Consultation). Small mammals collectivelymake up only a very small percentage of the Mexicanwolf’s diet; and wolves would be more likely to catchcommon than rare small mammals. Wolves mayreduce numbers of coyotes, which are more apt toprey on small mammals. Category 2 candidate specieswere not legally protected by the ESA; in fact, thisclassification has been eliminated by recent revisionsto ESA procedures (Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 40,
February 28,1966).
Comment: “Under the alternatives discussed, whichendangered, threatened, or sensitive species would takeprecedent if wolves impact otherT&E species.” (906)
Response: Under Alternative A and B, managementfor all other T&E species could take precedence overmanagement for the wolf. The only species actuallyprojected to potentially require translocation of thewolf is the state-listed desert bighorn sheep in the SanAndres. Under C and D, the agencies would be put ina multiple species management situation, with feder-ally-listed species having priority over non-listedspecies if management conflicts actually occurred. As afederally endangered species, the wolf would takeprecedence over the state-listed San Andres desertbighorns.
PublicComment Summary
Comment: Reintroduction in White Sands shouldbe done at a time when the desert bighorn sheep is nolonger endangered.
Response: Wolves are not expected to take largenumbers of these rugged-terrain animals. If they did,the Proposed Rule allows wolf trapping and relocationif necessary to protect the herd.
Impacts on Agency, State, Tribal, and LocalGovernment Policies and Plans
Comment: “Supposed conflicts with county laws isridiculous and should not be recognized and certainlynot entertained.” (21)
Response: NEPA directs the FWS to considerconflicts with county laws resulting from federalprograms and to discuss any federal preemption thatoccurs, which Chap. 4 of the EIS does.
Comment: “The states and counties should havebeen included in any and all endangered speciesreintroduction programs and should be permitted tobe cooperating agencies in all early planning anddecision making. It is against Sierra and CatronCounties land use planning ordinances to leave thecounties out of any land planning that concerns itcitizens.” (TC-6).
Response: The FWS has attempted to cooperate withthe counties, however, we previously advised thepotentially affected counties by letter that formalcooperating agency status was not considered appro-priate. The counties may conduct their own wolfrecovery planning if they wish - as some already have -and the FWS is willing to cooperate with them, ifrequested. See response to previous comment.
Comment: Implementation funds should be given tocounties to assist in the reintroduction efforts and todefray costs imposed on thecounties.
Response: It is not clear now that funding countyinvolvement would aid wolf recovery and the FWSdoes not normally defray county costs. Nevertheless, ifwolves are released, the FWS would consider organiza-tional arrangements for involving county and citizen
5 1 2 3
interests in wolf management decisions. See thediscussion of this concept in the description ofAh. A,in Chap. 2.
Comment: Tribes should agree on the number ofwolves in a designated area. Active involvement withaffected tribes is needed to reduce managementconflicts.
Response: Wolf recovery is not proposed on triballands therefore we do not think it is appropriate toseek agreement with tribes on allowable numbers.Because of the likelihood of some dispersal on to theWhite Mountain and San Carlos Apache reservations,if wolves are reintroduced, the FWS would pursuecooperative management agreements with the tribes.
Comment: “How can the FWS ‘compel’ a sovereignnation [the tribes] to develop wolf management plansthat are approved by the “FWS” or even to compel asovereign nation to enter into a cooperative wolfmanagement plan directly with the FWS?” (906)
Response: The tribes would not be compelled by theFWS to do anything; nevertheless, ifwolves arepresent on or near the reservations, the tribes maychoose to work cooperatively with the FWS on wolfmanagement.
Comment: “Proceed with the Mexican wolf releasesirregardless of the level of cooperation you get fromthe states ofArizona or New Mexico.” (658)
Response: The ESA, implementing regulations, andFWS policies support our attempts to cooperate withthe states on endangered species recovery efforts.
Comment: “The US Fish and Wildlife [should]consult with the new New Mexico EndangeredSpecies Act, which requires coordination down at thecount)- level on any type of plan.” (Sot. p. 149)
Response: While the wolf is listed as endangeredunder New Mexico law, this is not a New Mexicoaction that would be subject to the new WildlifeConservation Act amendments. Nevertheless, we haveconsulted and coordinated with the New MexicoGame and Fish Department and with county officials.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: The states will not want to become theprimary wolf managers after delisting, if it occurs.
Response: It is hard to predict how the states willrespond far into the future, if de-listing occurs. If thelaw remains the same as now, the non-endangeredwildlife of the country generally will be subject tostate management.
Comment: The DEIS is devoid of a “review of theland withdrawal that established White Sands MissileRange. Until a legal review is completed, the release ofthe Mexican wolf on White Sands Missile Range maybe outside the authority of the Department of De-fense.” (2,867)
Response: We have reviewed this issue in consulta-tion with the Department of Defense and find no legalimpediment to wolf reintroduction on WSMR.
Comment: The Bureau of Land Management shouldbe involved as a cooperator in the DEIS; the BLMmanagement plans for the lands to the west of theWhite Sands Missile Range have not been adequatelyconsidered.
Response: BLM was invited to be a cooperator, butdeclined. Not much BLM land is involved in thedesignated wolf recovery areas. BLM has cooperated inproviding information on those BLM lands that areinvolved, including management plans. Impacts onthese were discussed under Chap. 4, Ah. C, Impactson Agency and Local Government Policies and Plans,for the WSWRA. This discussion has been dropped inthe FEIS as the WSWRA has been dropped from Ah.C (see Appendix L). Impacts on BLM’s plans for theWSWRA are not anticipated under the otheralternatives.
Comment: “At a time when the management agen-cies are attempting to embrace an ecosystem manage-ment approach to their management, refocusing onsingle species, such as the wolf, diminishes the abilityof the [Forest Service in the BRWR4] in its attemptto practice more holistic management.” (1,745).
Response: Under the full-endangered reintroductionapproach at least the potential would exist for the wolfconflicting with broader forest management goals.However, under the Proposed Action, the wolf would
S-124
not impose any management conflict with existing orfuture management, except in the limited, temporary,closure areas. We think wolf recovery would generallybenefit from ecosystem management (which is asomewhat loose term), but does not depend on it, andecosystem management would benefit from the returnof this native top predator.
Comment: A Sept. 30, 1994, Memorandum ofUnderstanding [MOU] exists between the FWS andthe Forest Service and other federal agencies in whichthey agreed to “conserve” listed species. Does thisMOU obligate the Forest Service to use, for example,its discretionary permitting authority to deny rights-of-way or their renewal in the BRWRA?
Response: The intent of an MOU is to mutuallyagree on and define the parties’ responsibilities in amutual action. No MOU supersedes law or othermanagement requirements. Wolf reintroduction andrecovery actions not addressed or covered by the finalRecord of Decision or the Mexican wolf experimentalpopulation rule, such as release pen siting, would needto undergo scrutiny and analysis for compliance withother applicable laws and regulations. Nothing in theProposed Action, the Proposed Rule, or in the MOU,would support the denial of rights-of-way to protectthe wolf. It is conceivable that such denial could berequired ifAlternative C was adopted in the Record ofDecision and the Section 7 consultation processdetermined that the rights-of-way jeopardizedthe wolf:
Comment: The informal Section 7 comment processcalled for under the proposal is vague and couldchange to a formal consultation process.
Response: Formal consultation under provisions ofSection 7 of the ISA is prohibited by the Section 10
provisions for nonessential, experimental populations,except on lands within the National Park System orthe National Wildlife Refuge System.
Impacts on Land Use
Comment: The failure to define when the wolves areconflicting with a major land use, such that theirremoval would be justified, leaves too much of a
Public Comment Summary
loophole for terminating the recovery, e.g., ifwolvesconflict with livestock.
Response: We agree that the provision is vague andwe also believe it is redundant with other provisionsthat give sufficient management flexibility, thereforewe have deleted the provision from Alt.s A and B. Wealready have provisions for management of depredat-ing and “problem” wolves (see Glossary), and for otherpurposes deemed necessary in the future; further, wedo not anticipate that wolf recovery will conflict withother land uses.
Comment: Most of the public lands involved aremultiple use lands and wolf recovery is an appropriateuse; cattle grazing should not prevent other uses.
Response: We agree.
Comment: “Land use practices that promote diver-sity by the nature of their sustainability in relation tothe overall health of the bioregion should be imple-mented in concordance with wolf reintroduction.”
(45)
Response: We agree that such land use practices arefavorable generally, but they are not a prerequisite forwolf reintroduction.
Comment: Wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho andWyoming has demonstrated that no significant landuse restrictions are needed.
Response: We agree.
Comment: The wolf will cause much public land andmany land uses such as grazing, hunting, and loggingto be closed down; the wolf is a vehicle for restrictingland access and use.
Response: We disagree; no substantive land userestrictions have been necessary or imposed in otherareas where endangered, threatened, and nonessentialexperimental populations ofwolves are recovering. Seeprevious comment and response.
Comment: The so-called limited closures are in factnot minor and will virtually shut down the denningand vaguely defined rendezvous areas to human use,such as logging for many months, at least for April
5-125
through October. This, together with possiblebackcountry road closures, could devastate the alreadythreatened Southwest timber industry. Also, theclosures around dens, etc., could result in roadclosures.
Response: We believe that proposed closures or userestrictions would be minor. They would be imple-mented only if deemed to be necessary to protectMexican wolves from harm; no closure would exceedan area of about 3 square miles (i.e., a circle with a 1
mile radius which is about 2,000 acres); no closurewould be in effect for more than 4 months, exceptpossibly those around release pens; and release penclosures would only be necessary in the primaryrecovery zones when releases are actually being made.Only one active den site or one active rendezvous sitewould exist at any given time (except for a possibleoverlap of l-2 weeks) in each active pack territory.Pack territories are expected to include about 250square miles. Therefore, on average, no more than 3-6square miles out of every 250 square miles (1.2-2.4%)of the total public land area would be closed orrestricted at any time. Furthermore, no closures or userestrictions would be imposed on private or triballands without the consent of the owner or tribalgovernment. Nevertheless, the level of concernexpressed regarding this provision has caused us todefine “disturbance-causing land use activities” as it isused in the Proposed Rule (see appendix G). The newdefinition specifically exempts certain land use activi-ties from the closure provision. In addition, we haveeliminated the “back-country road” closure provisionfrom the rule because it is not clear that it would beeffective in addressing the problem of illegal killing.Instead, more emphasis will be placed on publiceducation and law enforcement.
Comment: The road and den and rendezvous siteaccess closures would prevent Phelps Dodge fromaccessing wells and equipment on the Upper EagleCreek and prevent other legitimate access to, and usesof, private property in the BRWRA.
Response: The road closure provision has beendeleted. Closures around den and rendezvous siteswould be flexible and on an as-needed basis. Thesewould not occur in such a way as to prevent anyprivate property owners access to any private property.See response to previous comment.
Public Comment Summary
Comment: “Loss of use of back country roads hasresulted in the lack of access to many areas of NationalForest Land in Arizona in recent decades and is a trendwhich should be reversed not encouraged.” (10) Roadclosures would backfire and turn people more againstthe wolf. Any road closures should only be after apublic comment period and consultations withaffected agencies.
Response: The road closure provision has beendeleted.
Comment: “The Draft EIS does not include anadequate analysis of the applicability of ESA sec.7(a)( 1) to federal agency permitting of land uses. Forexample, would the granting or renewal of a right-of-way across Forest Service lands be permitted if Mexi-can wolf habitat would be disturbed? Similarly, theDraft EIS does not include any analysis of whethermodification of habitat by land uses in the recoveryareas would be considered a ‘take’ of wolves underESA sec. 9(a) and Babbit v. Sweet Home Chapter ofCommunities for a Greater Oregon et al.” (2,565)
Response: See response to the comment in previoussection regrading the FWSlUSFS Memorandum ofUnderstanding and permitting rights-of-way. Noformal ESA Section 7 consultation would be requiredregarding potential impacts of land uses on nones-sential experimental Mexican wolves. Under theProposed Action, there is no provision for preventingdisturbance of Mexican wolf “habitat” and no criticalhabitat is designated. The proposed experimentalpopulation rule, under Section 1 O(j) of the ESA,already allows for (limited, temporary) restrictions onhuman access and disturbance-causing activities nearoccupied release pens, dens, and rendezvous sites.Enforcement of the experimental population rulewould make enforcement of the Section 9 takingprovisions redundant. Any harm to wolves resultingfrom pure habitat modification caused by authorizeduses of public lands. i.e., not in violation of theclosure provisions or other provisions regarding takeor harassment, would be a legal take under the pro-posed rule. Illegal take could not result from habitatmodifications occurring on private or tribal lands.Based on evidence from other areas, the FWS does notbelieve that Mexican wolves will be harmed byauthorized land uses. This important point has beenclarified in the FEIS, under Chap. 2, Alt. A, section
on Management. With or without wolves, additionalagency permitting actions (e.g., new mine, roadconstruction, or timber sale) would require compli-ance with applicable laws, including the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. A complete analysis of aproposal under NEPA may disclose potential effects -both direct and long-term - on wolves and theirhabitat and appropriate mitigation of such effectscould occur.
Comment: Cumulative impact on populationdensity and growth are specifically required by therules, yet no such analysis is found in the report.”(2,677)
Response: Wolf recovery is not expected, alone orcumulatively, to impact human population density orgrowth.
Impacts on Military Activities
Comment: “To release wolves in White Sands wouldcreate a security nightmare. The biologists would haveto have a security clearance and I’m sure they wouldn’tapprove of any weapons tested anywhere near wolfhabitat.” (619)
Response: Under the Proposed Action biologistswould not have to “approve” weapons testing. Evenunder Alternative C it is unlikely that the testing thatoccurs on White Sands would jeopardize wolf recov-ery or vice versa. Getting a security clearance forbiologists does not present a major problem; for tenyears an intensive lion study has occurred on themissile range without major conflicts.
Comment: “The DEIS claims that impacts fromtesting in the WSWRA will not (or should not) affectthe wolf. What about tests scheduled to be run duringthe denning season? Will wolf denning take prece-dence over such tests?” (906)
Response: Under Alternative C, if consultationsshowed that tests could jeopardize wolf pups thenpossibly such conflicts could occur. Under A and B,the testing or other activities on the range would notrequire consultations with the FWS. The ProposedRule (Appendix C), par. (j)(3)(ii), states: “no Federalagency or their contractors will be in violation of the
Public Comment Summary
[ESA] for take of a wolf resulting from any authorizedagency action.” The FWS believes that the probabil-ity ofwolves being harmed by authorized activities onthe White Sands Missile Range is very remote.
Comment: Isn’t there a lot of radioactive debris onthe White Sands Missile Range that could affect thewolves’ long-term health?
Response: Some debris exists, but it has low levels ofradioactivity. Testing activities are monitored toremove most debris, but some is widely scattered. Thesmall amount of low level debris that exists is notconsidered a biological hazard, thus no areas havebeen closed to human access because of it.
Impacts on Recreation
Comment: The projection of increased recreationalvisitation is unsupported and overstated. The chancesof seeing a wolf in the wild will be low. The peoplewho see them the most will be the ranchers, who don’twant to see them.
Response: Actually seeing them may be uncommon,but in other areas such as northern Minnesota peoplecan go on howling trips and the wolves frequentlyhowl back. Many people are interested in looking forsign of wolves or just being in an area where they arepresent. Increased visitation associated with wolfreintroduction, visual sightings, and photography hasbeen reported from Yellowstone National Park.Surveys from Arizona and New Mexico indicate themajority of people would enjoy seeing or hearing awolf in the wild.
Comment: “If you close roads, recreation isn’t goingto increase.” (388)
Response: The road closure provision has beendeleted. The only restrictions on motorized publicaccess now being proposed would be very limited,temporary, and site specific for the purpose of protect-ing wolves from disturbance or harm in release pens,at dens, and at rendezvous sites. The impact onrecreation should be minor.
Comment: The minor closures around wolf dens andso on will not significantly impact recreation.
5-127
Response: We agree.
Comment: The primary focus of impact evaluationfor recreation in the BRW’RA should be on non-consumptive uses, because these uses constitute 75%of the recreational visitor days. Wolf recovery willenhance these.
Response: We do say that recreational visitation forthe BRWRA could increase because ofwolves, but welack a basis for making quantitative projections. (Mostof the WSWRA is closed to the public.)
Comment: Like bears, wolves will congregate aroundcampsites and cause danger to campers, which willscare the campers away.
Response: We lack evidence that wolves have donethis elsewhere.
Impacts on Regional Economies
Comment: The benefits of people coming to visitwolf areas, to buy wolf-related items, to study wolves,and to take tours and howling trips will offset theeconomic losses; this has been observed in the Yellow-stone area after reintroduction there as well as innorthern Minnesota.
Response: We agree that to some extent this is likelyto occur, but did not make a quantitative projectionof this in the DEIS. Additional information has beenprovided in the FEIS, in Appendix J.
Comment: The DEIS should have quantified thebeneficial impacts of increased visitation and non-usevalues.
Response: See previous response. We do refer to theYellowstone/Central Idaho wolf reintroduction EISthat does this sort of quantification but three mainfactors led to the FWS decision not to try to projectsuch impacts in the Southwest: 1) conducting thenecessary public surveys and analysis by professionaleconomists was considered prohibitively expensive; 2)questions remain about the accuracy of these indirectquantification methods, and 3) NEPA regulations donot require a monetary cost-benefit analysis (see pages4- 1 and -2 of the FEIS).
Public Comment Summary
Comment: Wolf recovery will have a negativeeconomic impact. The wolf will threaten food produc-tion regionally and nationally.
Response: Some negative impacts are projected,largely due to lost value of hunting and lost huntingexpenditures. Only a very marginal impact on live-stock production regionally or nationally is projected.
Comment: Indirect and multiplier effects of thehunting expenditure losses have not been adequatelyconsidered; for some small rural retail establishments,hunter expenditures make the difference betweenprofitability and closure.
Response: Effects were considered to the extent theywere foreseeably and reasonably related to wolfreintroduction, based on advice from the FWS’seconomics consultant. A multiplier for huntingexpenditure losses was not used for the followingreasons. The large majority of deer and elk hunters inArizona and New Mexico are residents of the twostates (96% residents in Arizona and 74% in NewMexico). As a response to reduced deer and elknumbers in the recovery areas, these resident huntersmay hunt other big game areas in their state, hunt thesame areas with lower success rates, or spend themoney they would have spent on hunting on someother purchase in the state. Changes in residenthunting expenditures likely would not result inappreciably less money being spent in the state, butcould result in changes in the distribution of thatmoney. The businesses that would likely feel the effectsof this shift in spending most acutely are those closestto the recovery areas/hunting areas (and some of thosebusinesses may obtain economic benefits from wolf-related visitation). These areas are very rural andsparsely populated, thus any multiplier of recreationalexpenditures in these areas likely would be very low(T Power, Dep’t of Economics, U. of Mont., pers.comm.). U.S. Forest Service economists have notcalculated recreational expenditure multipliers forrural areas of Arizona and New Mexico (W. Stuart,USFS, pers. comm.).
Comment: Less income for ranchers means higherunemployment and less tax payment to government.
Response: The private compensation program isdesigned to minimize lost income to ranchers, but to
5-128
the extent that losses are not fully compensated therecould be income losses and related economic losses. Itis unlikely that this would rise to a level that wouldresult in job losses. Some job creation from the actualimplementation of the project is expected, e.g., forfield personnel.
Comment: The analysis in Chap. 4 of the economicimpact on guides and outfitters of reduced huntingopportunities is inadequate, particularly with respectto Catron County, where this is an importantindustry
Response: The Regional Economic Impacts sectionof Chap. 4 does state that Catron County guidescould be affected by reductions, but these could bemitigated by additional opportunities to guide peopleinterested in hearing, seeing, and photographingwolves in the wild. There is little basis for concludingthat the guide business would be significantly hurt.The EIS does cite to one economic study on theguide/outfitter business in Catron County (SWCenter for Res. Analysis 1994). We believe that studyoverstates the magnitude of these businesses in CatronCounty by extrapolating based on a small surveyresponse (20%). Further, the study does not establishany link between wolf recovery and harm to theindustry.
Comment: Negative wolf impacts combined withspotted owl and other endangered species impacts willdevastate rural economies.
Response: We have added more discussion to Chap.4, Ah. A and C, Cumulative Impacts, regarding theimpacts from these other endangered species. There isno basis for concluding that adding the wolf willdevastate local economies. Most of the impacts of thespotted owl on the timber economy have alreadyoccurred.
Costs of Wolf Reintroduction
Comment: The cost estimates are too low; the costestimates should be carried out for 30 years or so likeAlternative D; the likely long-term costs will beseveral times the projected $7 million.
Public Comment Summary
Response: Costs are reasonably projected to theestimated time of attainment of the reintroductiongoal plus five additional years of monitoring toestablish that the population is secure. TheAlterna-tive D costs estimates have been revised (see AppendixB). We agree that, if wolves are successfully reestab-lished, ongoing management costs will be incurred,but we cannot estimate those future costs now withreasonable confidence.
Comment: Wolf recovery is a waste of taxpayermoney, particularly in times of massive public debtand in view of the fact that taxpayers paid for itseradication. All wolf related expenditures should end.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: All wolf related expenditures shouldcontinue; this is a small amount of money in compari-son to other government expenditures.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: “Congress won’t support wolf reintro orwolf keeping, so where will the money come from?”
(114)
Response: All FWS expenditures have come fromCongressional appropriations; without them wolfrecovery would probably not occur. Most of the costsofwolf keeping are borne by non-government entities,such as zoos.
Comment: Wolf recovery money would be betterspent on beneficial wildlife.
Response: Recovery provisions of section 4 of theESA do not set different requirements for “beneficial”and “non-beneficial” wildlife, which seem very subjec-tive terms.
Comment: “Whatever [the cost] is estimated to be,we can expect that figure to be doubled because thegovernment never stays within it’s budget.” (724)Yellowstone officials have already asked for larger wolfbudgets than their EIS projected.
Response: Budget requests for the YellowstoneNational Park reintroduction project have been withincost estimates presented in their EIS. The actual
5-129
appropriated budget for that reintroduction effort isless than the projected costs.
Comment: In reference to Appendix B: why are costsgreater per year for less hands on management (Ah. C)than for Alt. A? Field staff salaries should be lowernot higher.
Response: Wolf movements would not be restrictedunder Alternative C. We assumed that livestockdepredation control activities would occur as they doin other areas with threatened and endangered wolfpopulations, thus higher ADC costs were projected.Wolves are expected to colonize the White Mountain,San Carlos, and Mescalero Apache Reservations, thushigher tribal staff costs were projected. Wolves wouldbe distributed over a larger area, thus more fieldequipment and monitoring costs were projected.
Comment: The value of the wolf is not monetary.
Response: We agree that the benefits of wolf recoverydefy easy quantification.
Ecosystem Impacts
Comment: Restoring a more natural balance to ourwilderness areas is good and enhances long-termsustainability.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: Is the food chain broad and strongenough to support a new predator in these areas?
Response: Much of the food chain in these areas isrelatively intact, except for the top predators.
Comment: There are other predators that have takenover the wolf’s ecological role that are less threateningto human interests.
Response: The wolf is the only large, coursing, pack-hunting, mammalian predator native to southwesternecosystems. That role has not been filled by coyotes,lions, or black bears, although the wolf’s demiseprobably allowed these species to expand their distri-bution and increase their populations. Those species
also cause some damage to human interests.
PublicComment Summary
Comment: Wolf predatory behavior has a positiveecological effect by causing herbivores to congregate,thereby concentrating and facilitating the recycling ofcarbon in the environment.
Response: Comment acknowledged; we lack clearinformation to support or refute this idea.
Comment: “In the DEIS, the USFWS has created anew multi-predator system which may not be ecologi-cally sound.” (906)
Response: We believe that restoring a native predatorwill make the area more “ecologically sound”, by mostdefinitions of the term. The multi-predator systemthat would be created by the proposed action is onethat previously existed in the proposed wolf recoveryareas.
Comment: Before the wolf is restored, better under-standing of the impacts of restrictions caused by otherthreatened and endangered species in the recoveryareas is needed. To move coward ecosystem manage-ment, we need to understand the cumulative effects ofall these recovery actions.
Response: We agree that continued analysis of theimpacts of having multiple endangered species isneeded (see Cumulative Effects discussion in chapter 4for Alt.s A and C). We disagree that any potentialconflicts of wolf management with the management ofother species under Alt.s A or B, the nonessentialexperimental approaches would just+ further delay-ing wolf reintroduction.
Comment: “Good range restoration could enable usto have healthier soils, better vegetation, more cows,more game, and wolves.” (Sot., p. 108)
Response: We agree that these are good goals;however, we also believe wolf recovery can occur asrange restoration occurs and is not dependent on it.
Comment: “If we are able to successfully establishpopulations of this large carnivore, I think it will bean important demonstration that we can truly managelarge, intact ecosystems.” ( 1088)
Response: Comment acknowledged.
5-130
Animal Rights and Welfare
Comment: It was injustice to exterminate Mexicanwolves; reintroduction would make up for this.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: It will be cruel to reintroduce an animalthat is used to captivity, and may violate anti-crueltylaws.
Response: We are not aware of any violations of anti-cruelty laws, but recognize there are humane issuesinvolved and will try to avoid or minimize suffering ofwolves prior to release and during any handling. Thecaptive animals are expected to largely re-adapt to lifein the wild although some will fail and those wolvesmay die.
Comment: It would be inhumane to reintroducewolves in the very marginal White Sands habitatwhere they will starve or die of thirst.
Response: Our analyses predict that the habitat,water, and prey available on the WSWRA couldsustain a population of about 20 wolves. However,recent concerns over the effects of prolonged droughtconditions would cause us to reanalyze the status ofprey populations before a reintroduction wouldoccur there.
Comment: Wolf reintroduction involves so muchhandling, mortality, and harassment that it ultimatelycauses suffering and does not benefit the wolves.“They will be persecuted, slaughtered and tortured todeath, exactly as they always were.” (2,997)
Response: Recovering populations in the wild mayinclude as a cost the possible suffering or death ofindividual animals. We would implement handlingprotocols that support humane treatment of indi-vidual wolves, we would use the most humane trap-ping and management technologies available, and wewould enforce laws against unauthorized killing orunnecessary harassment.
Comment: “Page 2-23 mentions euthanasia forcontrol of problem wolves.... you can address animalwelfare concerns by being sure to follow AmericanVeterinary Medical Association (AVMA)-guidelines oneuthanasia.” (3,659)
Public Comment Summary
Response: We have added a statement that anyeuthanasia would be done in accordance with theAVMA guidelines, where feasible.
Comment: The agencies plan “to train the wolves tohunt before they are released, by putting live animalsinto their cages for them to kill.” (2,997)
Response: Live animals regularly enter wolf enclo-sures with no assistance from humans providing somehunting opportunities for captive wolves. An abilityto hunt is vital to released captive wolves’ chances forsurvival in the wild. If feasible, some trials in huntingskills may be conducted at the FWS’s captive wolfmanagement facility. However, if conducted, it wouldbe limited to small animals. Exposure to larger preywould be accomplished by providing dead carcasses(e.g., road kills) of deer and elk).
Comment: Keeping the wolves in captivity causessuffering and should be terminated promptly.
Response: We believe that the establishment of acaptive population has probably prevented theextinction of the Mexican wolf and has made the re-establishment of wild populations possible. A goal ofthe captive population management program is toprovide Mexican wolves an environment that is asnatural and stress free as can be achieved in a captivesetting. Pens are generally large and contain a varietyof natural landscape features and hiding or escapecover. Any suffering by captive Mexican wolves servesthe cause of long-term preservation of their subspecies.
Comment: Wolves cruelly hamstring their prey andoften eat them while they are still living.
Response: We don’t dispute that this occurred, butwe don’t know how much; hamstringing is not welldocumented in the scientific literature. It may occurincidentally as a result of attacking from behind ratherthan being an “intentional” hunting strategy. Charac-terizing long-established wild animal behavior as“cruel” seems debatable, i.e., a subjective judgement.
z-131
Social, Cultural, and Philosophical Issues
Comment: Public opinion polls show the majorityof people surveyed support wolf recovery.
Response: We agree,
Comment: Wolf recovery is just to appease a fewradical environmentalists.
Response: Wolf recovery is not to serve any group ofcitizens, rather it is to meet the goals of the Congres-sionally-approved ESA.
Comment: The majority of rural people are againstit. Wolf recovery will have a negative impact on thecustom and culture of the rural areas involved. Thelivelihoods of ranchers and the security of theirchildren will be destroyed.
Response: Chap. 4 of the FEJS acknowledges thatmany rural people are against it and that some nega-tive impact on their custom and culture may occur,although as suggested by the following comment,some positive effects could also result. According topolls, many rural people support wolf recovery.Wolves and ranchers (and their children) co-exist inother areas without severe impacts.
Comment: “ [W Ifo recovery] will have a positiveeffect on our Custom, Culture and the economy ofSierra County.” (690 et al.)
Response: See previous comment and response.
Comment: “If we can get through the first few yearswithout a major “people problem’ I think everyonewill be able to adapt (including the wolves!).” (712)
Response: We generally agree.
Comment: “Wolves are an important part ofArizona’s history.” (586)
Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: Eliminating wolves was necessary toallow settling of the west and their absence is an
Public Comment Summary
important aspect of the “custom and culture” andhistory of the rural areas involved.Response: Comment acknowledged.
Comment: We should not let the Mexican wolf togo extinct because it may have as yet undiscoveredvalue. Future generations should not be deprived ofthis animal. As the ancestor of dogs we owe much tothem and should preserve them for possible geneticenhancement of dog breeds.
Response: Comment acknowledged; we think thecomment reflects some of the ESA’s goals.
Comment: Humans have dominion over the animalsand that includes not restoring an animal that isdetrimental to humans.
Response: The ESA does not limit restoration to so-called “beneficial” species, a subjective judgment,Indeed, the ESA supports the concept that restorationof viable populations of virtually all native species is ahuman benefit.
Comment: The only people who will benefit are thewolf breeders, government trappers, and bureaucrats.
Response: No commercial wolf breeders are involvedin the Mexican Wolf Captive Breeding Program. Thisprogram is not to benefit government workers. Thereare many easier, less controversial, ESA recoveryprojects that these workers could do if they were notworking on the wolf.
Comment: The major cost in terms of hate andhuman conflict is not worth it.
Response: Social conflict, while certainly present, hasnot proven to be excessive in other areas where wolveshave been restored. Continuing public involvementand education, the depredation compensation fund,and responsive, professional, wolf management shouldhelp to reduce the conflict.
Comment: The wolf is important symbolically toshow human willingness to control “development”and to share the earth with other species.
Response: Comment acknowledged.
5 1 3 2
Public Information and Education
Comment: Wolves should be restored so people canlearn from them. Both public and scientific under-standing would benefit from the opportunity toobserve southwestern ecosystems with the top preda-tor restored, and to compare these areas to thosewithout wolves.
Response: We agree that recovery would provideeducational and scientific opportunities.
Comment: The FWS should listen to local ranchersfor suggestions and input, and should work closelywith them to try to get their cooperation and support.An advisory committee could go a long way towardhelping this.
Response: We agree. We have talked with manyranchers and are considering the establishment ofsome type of advisory committee. This concept hasbeen incorporated into the description of the Pre-ferred Aiternative, in Chap. 2.
Comment: “The wolves’ only chance for a safe andsuccessful return to the wild is through massive publiceducation and support.” (548) Hunters, trappers,drivers and others need strong education programs toreduce unintentional killings.
Response: We intend that such efforts would be partof the reintroduction program.
Comment: The projected costs in Appendix Bshould have greater expenditure for public educationto ensure wolf recovery.
Response: The projected costs for information/education are for actual materials development,printing, etc. Staff and administrative costs are in-cluded elsewhere in the cost tables. We believe theseestimates are realistic.
Other Issues
Comment: “All agencies involved in this effortshould be willing and ready to provide just compensa-tion for physical and emotional pain if it is a result ofthe wolf reintroduction.” (41) The FWS should
PublicComment Summary
create a guaranteed right of indemnity for all lossesthat occur.
Response: This sort of “insurance” approach hasnot occurred with recovery of other species and isnot planned here. The FWS would be subject topotential liability under this proposal in the sameway it is for other governmental actions.
Comment: Domestic dogs will go “outlaw” andrun with wolf packs.
Response: This might occur with some dogs, butlittle historical evidence exists of this phenomena(Young and Goldman 1944). Wolves are morelikely to kill domestic dogs than to associate withthem beyond brief encounters.
Comment: What veterinary measures will betaken?
Response: This has been explained in Chap. 2 ofthe Final EIS, under The Soft Release Approach,and in Appendix A.
Comment: “Many of the fears expressed by thenorthern tier of states in reintroducing the greywolf have proven, in reality, to have little or nofoundation. So, I believe, will be the case in ourSouthwest.” (588)
Response: We generally agree, but believe thatthose fears should not be ignored.
Comment: The reintroductions in Yellowstoneand Central Idaho should be fully studied to besure it is working before any reintroductions in theSouthwest.
Response: We are closely monitoring the resultsof recent reintroductions of gray wolves toYellowstone National Park and central Idaho (seeAppendix J). Relevant knowledge gained fromthose projects and the red wolf reintroductions inNorth Carolina and Tennessee (see Phillips 1992)will be applied to the Mexican wolf reintroductionproject, if it is approved.
Comment: The FWS already has released captiveMexican wolves in the Southwest.
5 1 3 3
Appendices
APPENDIX AMexican Gray Wolf Life History and Ecology
Introduction
This summary is adapted closely, without furthercitation from Appendix Two to the Final Environ-mental Impact Statement on the reintroduction ofgray wolves to Yellowstone National Park andcentral Idaho (USFWS 1994~). Informationspecific to Mexican gray wolves, where available,is referenced separately. The Mexican wolf was notwell studied in the wild prior to its extirpation.Therefore, many of the assertions herein are basedon studies of northern populations. Topics cov-ered are: pack organization, mortality, prey,influence on ungulate populations, influence onother predators, livestock depredation, attacks onhumans, pathogens and parasites, hybridization,and wolf movements.
Pack Organization
The basic social unit in gray wolf populations isthe pack. This usually consists of five to 15individuals with strong bonds to each other.Bailey (193 1) noted that the Mexican wolf wascommonly found in groups of up to eight animalsprior to the advent of intensive governmentalcontrol efforts; after that it appears that group sizebecame smaller (McBride 1980, Bednarz 1988).Bednarz reviewed the range of wolf pack sizes inother areas in which deer are the primary prey, asprobably would be the case for the Mexican wolf,and estimated the latter’s pack size would average5.5 animals. McBride (1980) had followed manywolves in Mexico and never reported tracking agroup larger than five individuals, with threebeing the most frequent group size.
New packs are formed when two lone wolvesof the opposite sex find each other, develop a pairbond, breed, and produce a litter of pups. Centralto the pack are the dominant (alpha) male andfemale. The remaining pack members are usuallyrelated to the alpha pair and constantly expresstheir subordinate status through postures andexpressions when interacting with the dominantanimals. Changes can occur in each wolf’s social
position in the pack.
Breeding usually occurs only between thealpha male and female. Wolves become sexuallymature at two years of age. Although courtshipbehavior occurs in varying degrees throughout theyear, actual breeding takes place around February(McBride 1980). During the breeding season inlate winter the pack may move extensively withinits territory.
Pregnant alpha wolves complete digging ofdens as early as three weeks before the birth of thepups. Mexican wolf dens are often dug under rockledges (McBride 1980); or they may be dug underthe roots of an upturned tree or, if in open coun-try, under a bush (Bailey 193 1). Water is usuallynearby. Some dens are used by the same wolf packyear after year. Also, certain areas (on the order of5 mi2) may contain several den sites which areused in different years by the pack. Some wolfpacks can be sensitive to humans during thisseason and may abandon the den if disturbed.This poses a risk to younger pups that cannotregulate their body temperature.
Pups are born around April after a 63-daygestation period. Sizes of 16 wild Mexican wolflitters examined by McBride (1980) averaged 5.6pups. With the denning area established in thespring, pack movements center around the den.However, adult pack members may travel longdistances from the den for food. The maternalfemale is usually at the site more than otheradults, but she may also range several miles away.All pack members may help feed the female andyoung. Pack members also provide play andprotection for the growing pups. Pups are weanedat five to six weeks of age.
In northern regions, a pack will usually movefrom the den site (or occasionally from a secondden site) to the first rendezvous site when thepups are six to ten weeks old, which is in late Maythrough early July. The first rendezvous site isusually within one to six miles of the natal densite and often consists of open areas interspersedwith timber, with water nearby. A succession ofrendezvous sites are used by the pack until thepups are mature enough to travel with the adults,usually by September or early October. Each
A-l
successive rendezvous site is usually one to fourmiles from the previous site. Occupancy timesvary from ten to 67 days. As with dens, rendez-vous sites may be used by wolf packs year afteryear. Wolves appear less sensitive to humandisturbance at later rendezvous sites than they doat the first one. It is not known whether, or towhat extent, Mexican wolves use rendezvous sites.
By about October pups are mature enough totravel with the adults and the pack wandersthroughout the territory. As the pack travels,preying primarily on ungulates, the alpha wolvesusually lead the pack and choose the direction.Wolves often travel along established routesincluding game trails, roads, and waterways,occasionally cutting across from one such route toanother. Daily travel distances for packs aretypically in the range of one to nine miles, whiledistances between successive kills vary from eightto 34 miles. Some Mexican wolves in southwest-ern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona fol-lowed “runways”, i.e., well-established loop routesof 70 to 100 miles along favored hilly terrain(Young and Goldman 1944).
In most wolf populations packs occupyexclusive territories. These range in average sizesfrom 80 mi2, as in Minnesota, to over 660 mi2 asin Alberta. Bednarz (1989) suggested Mexicanwolf territories would average around 200 mi2. Ofcourse, actual territory size of Mexican wolf packswill vary with each pack and over time dependingon numerous factors. Lone wolves may range overareas in excess of 1,000 mi2.
As pack members are traveling they leaveurine and scat markers which identify theirterritories. Foreign wolves entering establishedterritories are occasionally killed.
Mortality
Wolves die from a variety of causes: disease,malnutrition, debilitating injuries, interpackstrife, and human exploitation and control. Inareas with little or no human exploitation theprimary causes of mortality are disease and mal-nutrition in pups or yearlings. Deaths of adultsoften result from other wolves. Mortality rates inunexploited populations can average about 45%for yearlings and 10% for adults. Ten years is anold age for a wild wolf.
Life History and Ecology
Fall and winter are critical periods for wolf sur-vival. Beginning in the fall, wolf mortality ratesare most influenced by the degree of exploitationand control by humans. Overwinter (October-March) mortality rates within packs range from0% to 33% for a minimally exploited populationto 14% to 88% for a heavily exploited popula-tion. Established wolf populations apparently canwithstand annual human-caused mortality rates of28% to 35%.
Prey
The wolf was the primary predator of largeungulates in most of North America, a role it nowshares with humans. No other predator in thewestern United States replaces its ecological role.Although the coyote occasionally preys uponyoung, old, and vulnerable ungulates, its maindiet consists of rodents and rabbits. Other preda-tors that regularly prey on large mammals inNorth America include mountain lions, blackbears, and grizzly bears. The mountain lion’smethods of hunting (primarily “ambush”) andsocial organization (solitary) contrast sharply withthe cooperative ways of the wolf. Bears, usuallysolitary by nature, sometimes stalk and kill ungu-lates, taking mostly calves, but occasionally takingvulnerable adults.
Wolves depend upon ungulates for food year-round, although smaller mammals can be impor-tant alternatives. On average northern wolves eat9.0 pounds of meat per wolf per day duringwinter. The lighter Mexican wolf is estimated toeat an average of 6.1 pounds of meat per day(Parsons 1994). Although the wolf is capable ofeating large quantities of food in a short time,such quantities are not always available. Thus,wild wolves may go for several days withouteating. They appear able to fast for periods of twoweeks or more while searching for vulnerable prey.When food is available, wolves can replenishthemselves to prepare for another period offasting. The frequency of kills by a pack varies,depending on many factors including: (1) packsize; (2) diversity, density, and vulnerability ofprey; (3) terrain and snow conditions; and (4)degree of utilization of the carcasses.
The natural prey of the Mexican wolf areexpected to be mule and white-tailed deer, elk,javelina, and, occasionally, pronghorn, bighorn
A-2
sheep, jackrabbits, cottontails, turkeys, and smallrodents. They also may take two types of non-indigenous prey present in the ‘White SandsMissile Range area-feral horses and oryx. Be-cause the wolf’s expected prey varies in size, thekill rate of each species varies according to theamount of food each provides. Smaller ungulateprey are preferred (Mech 1970). Wolves consumean average of 75% of the live weight of theungulates they kill (Peterson 1977). About 5% ofthe ungulate weight consumed by wolves consistsof scavenged carrion (Fuller and Keith 1980).
In Minnesota, where wolves eat white-taileddeer almost exclusively, estimated kill rates rangefrom 15-19 deer per wolf per year. In areas whereelk are the dominant prey, kill rates are generallylower. In Riding Mountain National Park,Canada, an average of 14 ungulates per wolf peryear were killed, consisting of deer, elk, andmoose. It has been estimated that the wolvesreintroduced to Yellowstone National Park willeach kill an average of twelve ungulates annually.The average Mexican wolf is expected to kill acombined live weight of 2,823 pounds of preyannually, which will be mostly deer and elk withroughly 15% to 25% consisting of alternate prey(Parsons 1994). The composition of prey speciesin the diet will vary depending on speciesavailability and vulnerability.
Influence on Ungulate Populations
Wolf predation on larger ungulate populationsusually reduces the fluctuations in ungulatenumbers over time. Smaller die-offs from winter-kill may occur when wolves are present becausewolves are preying on weakened animals beforethey die.
Predation is one component of total annualungulate mortality. Wolves can, but typically donot, deplete their prey; but, they may keep someungulate populations at low levels if the popula-tions are already low and other limiting factorsexist. Computer models predict that the wolvesreintroduced into the Yellowstone National Parkarea will eventually cause ungulate reductionsranging from 5% to 30% for different popula-tions, but they will not have devastating effects.(See Chap. 4 on Environmental Consequences for
Life History and Ecology
discussion of modelling of Mexican wolf impactson ungulates.)
Influence on Other Predators
Wolf impacts on other predators can vary. Coy-otes may be less abundant where Mexican wolvesare present (Leopold 1959); however, historicalanecdotes about Mexican wolves on this subjectcited by Brown (1983) are contradictory (see alsoPaquet 1992). Ligon (1927) did indicate that thecoyote’s range in New Mexico expanded markedlyduring the same period that the wolf was extir-pated; this range expansion took place in themountainous areas formerly favored by wolves.Red foxes and other small carnivores may benefitfrom increased scavenging opportunities createdby wolves, although wolves may attack themopportunistically. Black bears and wolves usurpcarcasses from each other and wolves occasionallyprey upon black bears, but no published informa-tion suggests populations of either species aresignificantly affected. Bears and gray wolvescoexist throughout much of Alaska and Canada.
Some evidence suggests the Mexican wolf’sdemise lead to expansion of mountain lions intohabitat formerly occupied by the wolf (Bednarz1988). These two predators compete; researchershave observed several instances of wolves chasinglions, driving them off their kills, and even killingthem (Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute1993). Wolf re-establishment may compel lions tolimit their activities to areas where they arerelatively safe from wolf attacks.
None of the other large predatory mammalsin the Southwest are threatened or endangered(although the grizzly bear is regionally extinct),except for the extremely rare ocelot and jaguar,which have been sporadically reported fromsoutheastern Arizona (USFWS 1990). Noinformation exists regarding historic interactions,if any, between these species and Mexican wolves.
Livestock Depredation
Accounts of depredation stress that in the late1800s and early 1900s the Mexican wolf preyedheavily on cattle, causing intolerable losses toranchers (Gish 1977, McBride 1980). Brown
A-3
(1983) asserted that, of 4 1 Mexican wolf stom-achs examined by federal predator control agentsin the early 19OOs, 19-or 46%--containedlivestock. Bednarz (1988) noted that Brown didnot report the qualification made by Ligonincluded with the original summary of these data@‘red. Animal and Rod. Cont. Serv. 1918):“Many trappers fail entirely to report stomachcontents, while others are careless, and recordsthat are made by them have little value.” Thesepredator control agents had an incentive toexaggerate the extent of depredation to justifytheir programs (Dunlap 1988). Nevertheless,McBride (1980) also reported high proportionalrepresentation of livestock in wolf stomachs andscats he analyzed in Mexico from 1958 to 1968,while trapping on ranches where depredation wasreported.
High historical depredation rates are inconsis-tent with the situation now in other areas wheregray wolves and cattle co-exist, such as the north-ern Rocky Mountains and northern Minnesota,where depredation is quite uncommon relative tolivestock numbers available (range: 0.004% to0.09% of available cattle killed by wolves annual-ly; Mack et al. 1992). One explanation offered forthe apparently high historical depredation rates inthe Southwest is that new settlers greatly reducedthe natural prey base of wolves through over-hunting and habitat degradation at the same timethey introduced large numbers of livestockthroughout the region (Brown 1983, Scudday1977 j. Bednarz (1988) suggested other possiblecause.s for the actual or perceived high wolfdepredation rates, including, 1) overstocking ofrangelands (see Ligon 1927) resulted in wide-spread cattle mortality and the availability ofcarcasses for scavenging (see USFWS 1993d); 2)extensive killing of wolves disrupted natural socialunits leading to a high proportion of lone wolvesthat depredated more heavily; and 3) livestockkilled by coyotes and dogs were attributed towolves. Also Gipson (quoted in McIntyre 1994)questions the validity of historic accounts of wolfdepredation rates. (See Chap. 4 on EnvironmentalConsequences and Appendix F for discussion ofprojecting future Mexican wolf depredation ratesin the Southwest.)
In addition to cattle, wolves may kill sheep,horses, donkeys, turkeys, and other domestic
Life History and Ecology
animals, including household pets. They may alsoscavenge domestic animal remains.
Attacks on Humans
Very few reliable accounts exist of attacks byhealthy wild gray wolf on humans, none involvingdeath (USFWS 1987, Mech 1992). This is despitethe fact that millions of people work and recreateeach year in wolf range in Canada, Alaska, Min-nesota, and other areas. Rabid wolves have, onextremely rare occasions, attacked people, whothen died of rabies. Johnson (1992) refers to twocases from Alaska (the last one 53 years ago, in1943) and one suspected case in the Lower 48states, from Wyoming in 1833. (See discussionbelow under Pathogens and Parasites.)
No accounts exist of Mexican gray wolfattacks on humans. Nevertheless, humans shouldbe aware and cautious when travelling in wolfrange, as they should when near any wild preda-tor.
‘Pathogens and Parasites
The Mexican wolf in the wild is not likely totransmit parasites or disease-causing pathogensthat are not already carried by other canids (L.Munson, Univ. of Tenn., pers. comm.). Thewolf’s contribution to the overall parasite orpathogen problems in any given area is expectedto be slight because of the relatively smallanticipated population size of the reintroducedwolves. Even so, the pathogens that wolves couldpotentially be exposed to in the wild will beaddressed here. The pathogens include canineparvovirus, canine distemper, infectious caninehepatitis, leptospirosis, and rabies. No statistics oncanine parvovirus or distemper in domestic orwild animals in the Southwest have been com-piled; however, these pathogens do occur incanids, primarily in areas of dense human popula-tion. Cases of canine parvovirus are much morecommon in domestic dogs than canine distemper(K. Grants, Arizona State Veterinarian, pers.comm.). Canine parvovirus has been linked to thedeaths of some captive Mexican wolf pups.Neither canine hepatitis nor leptospirosis is aconcern in the Southwest. Nevertheless, the
A-4
protocol for Mexican wolves to be released intothe recovery areas will be vaccination for rabies,parvovirus, distemper, hepatitis, and leptospirosiswhile in captivity and just before release (B.Snyder, Rio Grande Zoological Park, pers.cornm.).
While rabies could infect wolves in some ofthe recovery areas, wolves are not likely to play asignificant role in its spread (Johnson 1992).Reports from the lower 48 states of humanexposure to rabies from wolves have been very rarethroughout history (one documented case inMinnesota) (Ibid.). However, other canids in theSouthwest, as well as potential prey animals, cancarry rabies. In southeastern Arizona, a total of280 wild animals were confirmed to have rabiesfrom 1989 through the first half of 1994. Thesewere mostly skunks and bats, and occasionallycoyotes, foxes, and bobcats (Ariz. Dept. of HealthServices 1994).
An outbreak of rabies in coyotes and domesticdogs has been occurring in 16 Texas countiessouth of San Antonio. Since 1988,450 coyotesand dogs tested positive for rabies in these coun-ties. Coyotes are believed to be the primarycarriers of the disease there. However, of aboutl,?OO humans that received a rabies vaccinationduring this outbreak, 90% were exposed todomestic dogs that may have had rabies. Texas hasinitiated a program to stop the northern progressof the outbreak, involving public education andwide-spread vaccination of coyotes (G.Fearneyhough, Texas Dept. of Health, pers.comm.). In the event that captive-raised wolveswould be reintroduced into the wild, the initialstock would be vaccinated for rabies. Wild-bornwolves would not be routinely trapped forvaccination except in cases of serious outbreaks,but they could be opportunistically vaccinatedwhen they were captured for other reasons.
Wild Mexican wolves may be susceptible tointernal and external parasites, including mites,ticks, fleas, heartworm, tapeworm, and hook-worm. None are considered a significant transmis-sion threat to humans when carried by wildwolves because of the expected low wolf numbers.
Some significant pathogens and parasites thatMexican wolves are not expected to be exposed toinclude canine hepatitis, leptospirosis, echino-coccus, whipworms, Lyme disease, plague, brucel-
Life History and Ecology
losis, and scabies. Canine hepatitis and leptospiro-sis are rare in the Southwest. Neither echino-coccus, which is transmitted via tapeworms, norwhipworms have been reported in Arizona, NewMexico, or Texas in recent years.
Lyme disease has been reported in wolves inMinnesota and Wisconsin (Thieking et al. 1992).Dogs are relatively severely affected by Lymedisease, thus, it is plausible that this disease couldnegatively influence wolf populations (Ginsberg1994). However, Lyme disease has not beendocumented in domestic or wild animals in NewMexico or Arizona (J. Thilstead, NM Dep’t. ofAgric. Vet. Diagnostic Ctr., pers. comm.). Fur-ther, the organism that causes Lyme disease hasnot been found in ticks from New Mexico orArizona (T. Brown, NM Environment Dep’tVector Control Div., pers. comm.).
Plague is not associated with wolves. Brucello-sis has not been found to affect wolves, exceptcanine brucellosis, which has not been reported inother canids in the Southwest. Canine brucellosisis primarily limited to domestic dog breedingkennels and is not associated with free-rangingcanids (M. Johnson, Yellowstone NP, pers.comm.). No cases of scabies in canids have beenreported in the Southwest for several years.Scabies is host-specific, meaning that caninescabies could affect wolves but could not betransmitted to other species such as wild prey,livestock, or humans (B. Snyder, Rio GrandeZoological Park, pers. comm.). Scabies outbreaksin desert bighorn sheep populations in parts ofNew Mexico such as White Sands Missile Rangewill not affect any wolves that may ingest infectedsheep, nor can such wolves spread the scabiesoutbreak to other sheep.
Hybridization
Mexican wolves could potentially interbreed withdomestic or feral dogs or coyotes. Past inter-breeding between wild northern gray wolves andcoyotes has been documented in Minnesota,Ontario, and Quebec (Lehman et al. 1991).Nevertheless, obviously hybrid phenotypic forms(that is, canids that appear intermediate betweenwolves and coyotes) are not found in the wild(L.D. Mech, Nat’1 Biol. Survey, pers. comm.),
A-5
except possibly in southeastern Ontario(Kolenosky and Standfield 1975).
There are no records of Mexican wolvesinterbreeding with coyotes and, while the futurepotential exists, the likelihood is not consideredgreat (Brown 1983). This potential will be furtherminimized by: (1) releasing mated pairs, (2)closely monitoring and studying released wolvesand their offspring, (3) capturing and relocatingwolves that disperse out of wolf recovery areas,and (4) re-establishing wolf populations in num-bers sufficient that potential wolf mates areavailable for dispersing wolves.
Wolf Movements
Three key types of movements could be displayedby reintroduced Mexican wolves: homing, packterritory shifts, and dispersal from packs.
Homing
This is the movement of displaced wolves towardtheir place of origin. Mostly it has been observedin releases of translocated wild wolves (Fritts1992). However, in a 1972 experimental release offive captive-raised wolves in Alaska, three of theanimals travelled toward the town where theywere raised, 175 miles away (Henshaw andStephenson 1974). The animals used in thisexperiment were “hard released,” that is, they werelet go without prior acclimation through holdingthem in pens in the release area. This is the onlyprevious case of releasing captive-raised graywolves on the mainland; two other releasesoccurred on islands, inhibiting any homingtendency.
In a review of all documented U.S. releases ofboth captive and wild-raised wolves, Fritts (1992)found that 10% of the wolves actually returned totheir place of capture or prior holding facility.Several others apparently attempted to do so.Homing was least likely to occur under thefollowing circumstances: the released animal was apup; the release site was more than 40 miles or sofrom the animal’s place of origin; and the animalremained around the release site initially afterrelease. If captive-raised Mexican wolves homed,they likely would head toward the eastern part of
Life History and Ecology
the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, to theMexican Wolf Captive Management Facility,where they came from. This is more than 40 milesnorth of the WSWRA primary recovery zone andmore than 120 miles northeast of the BRWRAprimary recovery zone.
Pack Territory Shifts
If, or when, a released group has settled into adefinable territory, there is no assurance it willstay there. A newly colonizing wolf pack may shiftits territory in response to climate, food avail-ability, human disturbance, and other factors. Acolonizing pack may have a larger, more fluid,territory than a pack surrounded by other wolfpacks; also, some evidence suggests that wolfpacks colonize in areas that were first “pioneered”by dispersing lone wolves (Ream et al. 1991).
Dispersal from Packs
This occurs when young wolves, often yearlings,disassociate from their natal pack and either moveinto a breeding vacancy in another pack or be-come lone wolves. Dispersal is a key process inwolf re-establishment. It leads to new pack forma-tion, more breeding pairs, and wider areas of wolfoccurrence. However, mortality rates duringdispersal are high compared to when wolves are inpacks (Mech 1977).
Wolves exhibit three main dispersal strategies:appropriating part of the territory of the natalpack, establishing a territory adjacent to the natalpack’s, and long-distance dispersal (Mech 1987).The latter can involve directional dispersal, inwhich the wolf moves on a relatively straight path,or nomadic dispersal, in which the wolf wandersin various directions.
Little is known about the dispersal patterns ofMexican wolves in particular, although gray wolfdispersal generally has been well-studied. Most ofthese studies have analyzed dispersal in the con-text of numerous wolf packs within a given area ofestablished wolf range, e.g., northern Minnesota.These findings may not correlate to the situationof wolves being released into an area where noother wolf packs exist.
A-6
Life History and Ecology
However, some researchers have studied found all three types of dispersal behavior de-
dispersal from wolf packs that were naturally scribed by Mech (1987), including long-distancerecolonizing a wolf-free area, a situation most directional dispersal in which a few lone wolvescomparable to releasing captive-raised wolves into travelled for hundreds of miles over severala wolf-free area. Ream et al. (1991) studied months. If released into the wild, Mexican wolvesdispersal from packs that were recolonizing the would likely display the types of movementsnorthern Rocky Mountains in the 1980s. They discussed above.
A-7
APPENDIX BProjected Total Costs of Implementing the Alternatives
Alternative A (Preferred Alternative): Nonessential experimental releases with dispersal allowed, first inthe Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) with the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA)as a back-up area.
Notes: Field project staffwould include 1 field project leader (biologist), 1 wildlife biologist, 1 biologicaltechnician, 1 animal damage control specialist, and 1 or 2 part-time tribal wildlife biologists (if the tribeschoose to cooperate in wolf management). The animal damage control position would be assigned to theUSDA Animal Damage Control Division and funded by a transfer of FWS appropriations. The tribal biologistpositions would be divided between the San Carlos and Apache Tribes and funded by FWS appropriationsthrough cooperative agreements with the tribes. Other field positions would be assigned to designated leadand/or cooperating agencies and funded by FWS appropriations and state matching funds (if the states chooseto cooperate in wolf management). This cost estimate for Ah. A assumes that population objectives will bereached in 9 years and intensive population monitoring will continue for an additional 5 years for a totalproject life of 14 years. The cost of operating the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility has been included as anadded cost for each alternative, reflecting the dual purposes for this facility of holding captive wolves in theabsence of a reintroduction decision and acclimating wolves for release if reintroduction is approved.
Table B-l.
Activity
Reintroduction ManagementCostsNear CostsNear’1997-2001 2002-2010
Field staff salaries’
Administration/overhead3
Equipment/maintenance
Release pen construction
Wolf care and feeding’
Sevilleta facility O&M
Information/education
Monitoring/research
Total Annual Cost
Total Cost of ,4lternative A
$ 2 0 3 , 6 0 0 $ 203.600
$ 151,000 $ 147,000
$ 20,000 $ 20,000
$ 19,000 ----
$ 5.000 ----
$ 60,000 $ 60,000
$ 8,000 $ 6,000
$ 80.000 $ 65.000
$ 546,600 s 50 1.600
$7,247,400 (1996 dollars)
B-l
Projected Costs
Alternative B: Nonessential experimental releases in the BRWRA and WSWRA with prwention ofdispersal beyond the primary recovery zones.
Notes: Field project staff would include 1 field project leader (biologist), 2 wildlife biologists, 1 biologicaltechnician, 1 part-time animal damage control specialist, and 1 or 2 part-time tribal wildlife biologists. Staffagency affiliations and funding arrangements would be similar to those for Ah. A. Field staff needs are greatestfor this alternative because reintroductions would take place simultaneously in the BRWRA and the WSWRAprimary recovery zones and because intensive management will be necessary. This cost estimate for Ah. Bassumes that population objectives will be reached in 5 years and intensive population monitoring will con-tinue for an additional 5 years for a total project life of 10 years.
Table B-2.
Activity
Reintroduction ManagementCosts/Year CostsNear’1997-2001 2002-2006
Field staff salaries’ $ 26 1 .OOO 9; 161.000
Administration/overhead3 $ 162.000 $ 158.000
Equipment/maintenance
Release pen construction
Wolf care and feeding’
Sevilleta facility O&M
$ 18.000 $ 18,000
$ 14,000 ---_
$ 7,000 ----
$ 60,000 $ 60,000
Information/education
Monitoring/research
Total Annual Cost
$8 0 , 0 0 0 $ 65.000
$610,600 $ 568,600
Total Cost of Alternative B $5,890,000
B;2
Projected Costs
Alternative C: Releases in the BRWRA only with full protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Notes: Field project staff would include 1 field project leader (biologist), 1 wildlife biologist, 1 biologicaltechnician, 1 animal damage control specialist, and 1 full-time or 2 or more part-time tribal wildlife biologists.Staff agency affiliations and funding arrangements would be similar to those for Ah. A. Tribal staff involvementis higher for this alternative because wolf dispersal would not be controlled. Estimated costs are less than in thedraft EIS because reintroductions would be limited to just the BRWRA. This cost estimate for Ah. C assumesthat population objectives will be reached in 5 years and intensive population monitoring will continue for anadditional 5 years for a total project life of 10 years.
Table B-3.
Reintroduction ManagementCostsNear Costs/Year’
Activity 1997-2001 2002-2006
Field staff salaries’
Administration/overhead-’
Equipment/maintenance
Release pen construction
Wolf care and feeding’
Sevilleta facility O&M
Information/education
Monitoring/research
Total Annual Cost
Total Cost of Alternative C
$ 224,000
$ 15.5,000
$ 25,000
$ 11,400
$ 5.000
$ 60,000
$ 1 0 , 0 0 0
$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 0
$ 590,400
$ 224,000
$ 151,000
$ 25 ,000
$ 60 .000
$ 8.000
8 0 , 0 0 0$
$ 548,600
$5,692,000
B-3
Alternative D - No action.
Projected Costs
Notes: For purposes of estimating costs, two possible scenarios are considered: (1) wolves fail to recolonizenaturally and (2) wolves recolonize naturally. In both cases it is assumed that certain ongoing recovery activitieswould continue (the status quo), such as investigating sighting reports and maintaining a captive population atthe Sevilleta facility. If Mexican wolves do not recolonize former habitats in the U.S., the Mexican wolf recov-ery staff would consist of 1 lead FWS biologist. This level of involvement could continue as long as the subspe-cies has status under the ESA, thus only annual costs are provided. Assuming that one population of wolves didnaturaHy recolonize one area, the project staff would include 1 project leader (biologist), 1 biological techni-cian, and 1 part-time animal damage control specialist. Because of the speculative nature of this scenario, onlyannual costs are estimated.
Table B-4.
Activity
ReintroductionCosts/YearNo Recol.
ManagementCosts/Year’With Recol.
Field staff salaries* $ 60,500 $ 103,000
Administration/overhead3 $ 18,000 $ 25.000
Equipment/maintenance $ 8,000 $ 19,000
Release pen construction $ ----
Wolf care and feeding4 $ ___- ----
Sevilleta facility O&M $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Information/education $ 1,500 $ 3,500
Monitoring/research
Total Annual Cost
$- - - - $7 . 0 0 0
$ 148,000 $ 217,500
Footnotes:
’ Includes five-year monitoring/research phase beyond attainment of recovery area objectives.
Z Includes all federal, state, and tribal staff costs directly related to wolf reintroduction and/or monitoring and protection of naturallyrecolonizing populations.
3 Includes full-time recovery program coordinator position.
4 Applies only to wolves in release pens.
B-4
APPENDIX CProposed Mexican Wolf
Experimental Population Rule
NOTE: The attached proposed experimental population rule was published in the Federal Register on May 1,1996. It is almost identical to the draft version printed as Appendix C to the DEIS in June of 1995, except that itupdates the NEPA review process and is re-written in “plain English” in a few areas. As a result of the reviewprocesses for the DEIS and the internal agency draft of this FEIS, various changes have been made to Alternative Abetween the DEIS and this FEIS that are not yet reflected in the Proposed Rule. The Fish and Wildlife Service stillis reviewing public and agency comments on this offtcially published proposed rule. A future decision to proceedwith Alternative A, or any alternative that involves experimental reintroduction, would need to be followed byissuance of a final experimental population rule.
Cl
Proposed Rule
Federal Register Vol. 61. No. 85 / Wednesday. Slav I. 1996 i Proposed Rules 19237
By the Board. Linda J. Morgan. ChaIrman.Vernon A. Williams.StVT%WJdIFR I)OC 96-10763 Filed 4-30-96: 8:45 amiBILLING COOE 4SlcoeP
-.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN lOl&AD07
Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants: Proposed Establishment ofa Nonessential ExperimentalPopulation of the Mexican Gray Wolf inArizona and New Mexico
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service.Interior.ACTION: Proposed ruie.-.SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) proposes toreintroduce the endangered Mexicangray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi] into twodesignated recovery areas within thesubspecies’ probable historrc range. TheBlue Range Wolf Recovery Area consistsof the entire Apache and Gila NationalForests in east-central Arizona andwest-central New Mexico. The WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area consists ofall land within the boundary of theWhite Sands Missile Range in south-central New Mexico together withdesignated land immediately to thewest. The wolves reintroduced intothese areas are classified as onenonessential experimental populationunder section 1 O(J) of the EndangeredSpecies Act (Act) of 1973. as amended.The proposed rule sets forthmanagement directions and provides forlimited allowable legal take of wolveswithin a defined Mexican WolfExperimental Population Area.DATES: Comments from all interestedparties must be received by July 1, 1996.ADDRESSES: Send comments andmaterials concerning this proposal tothe Mexican Wolf Recovery Program.U.S. Fish and Wlldllfe Service. P.O. Box1306. Albuquerque. New Mexico87103-1306. Comments and materialsreceived will be available for publicinspection. by appointment. duringnormal business hours at the aboveaddress. Copies of the draftEnvironmental Impact Statement or itssummary CM be obtained at thisaddress.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CORTACT: Mr.David R. Paraona (see ADDRESSESseedon) at telephone 505I248-6920; orfacsimile 505/248-6922.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BackgroundLegislative: The Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982. Pub. L. 97-304. made significant changes to theAct. including the creation of sectionIO(j). which provrdes for the designationof specific populations of listed speciesas “experimental populations.‘: Underprevious authorities of the Act. theService was permitted to reestablish(reintroduce) populations of a listedspecies into unoccupied portions of itshistoric range for conservation andrecovery purposes. However. localopposition to reintroduction efforts.stemming from concerns by some aboutpotential restrictions, and prohibitionson Federal and private activitiescontained in sections 7 and 9 of the Act.reduced the effectiveness ofreintroduction as a management tool.
Under sectton 10(i). a population of alisted species reestablished outside itscurrent range but within its probablehistoric range may be designated as“experimental.” at the discretion of theSecretary of Interior (Secretary). ifreintroduction of the experimentalpopulation furthers the conservation ofthe listed species. An experimentalpopulation must be separategeographically from nonexperimentalpopulations of the same species.Designation of a population asexperimental increases the Service’smanagement flexibility.
Additional management flexibilityexists if the Secretary finds theexperimental population to be“nonessential” to the continuedexistence of the species. For purposes ofsection 7 (except section 7(a)(l). whichrequires Federal agencies to use theirauthorities to conserve listed species),nonessential experimental populationslocated outside national wildlife refugeor national park lands are treated as ifthey are proposed for listing. Thismeans that Federal agencies are underan obligation to confer (as if the specieswere only proposed for listing) asopposed to consult (required for a listedspecies) on any actions authorized.funded, or carried out by them that arelikely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of the species. Nonessentialexperimental populations located onnational wildlife refuge or national parklands are treated as threatened. andformal consultation may be required.Activities undertaken on private landsare not affected by section 7 of the Actunless they are authorized, funded, orcarried out by a Federal agency.
Individual antmala used inesubUshing an experimental population~betemovedfromasourcei
population if their removal is not likelyto jeopardize the continued existence ofthe species (see Findings RegardingReintroduction, below). and a permithas been issued in accordance with 50CFR Part 17.22.
The Mexican wolf was listed as anendangered subspecies on April 28.1976 (4 1 FR 17742). The gray wolfspecies in North America south ofCanada was listed as endangered(except in Minnesota where it was listedas threatened) without reference tosubspecies on March 9. 1978 (43 FR9607). The Mexican Wolf Recovery Planwas adopted by the Directon of theService and the Mexican DirectionGeneral de la Fauna Silvestre in 1982.The plan guides recovery efforts for thesubspecies. laying out a series ofrecommended actions. The recoveryplan is currently being revised, and therevised document will more preciselydefine the points at which downlistingand delisting will occur.
Biological: This proposedexperimental population rule addressesthe Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baiieyi),an endangered subspecies of gray wolfthat was extirpated from thesouthwestern United States by 1970.The gray wolf (C. lupus) is native tomost of North America north of MexicoCity. An exception is in thesoutheastern United States. which wasoccupied by the red wolf (C. rufi~s). Thegray wolf occupied areas that supportedpopulations of hooved mammals(un
Trlates). its major food source.
e Mexican wolf historicallyoccurred over much of New Mexico.Arizona. Texas. and northern Mexico.mostly in or near forested mountainousterrain. Numbering in the thousandsbefore European settlement. theMexican wolf declined rapidly when itsreputation as a livestock killer led toconcerted eradication efforts. Otherfactors contributing to its decline werecommercial and recreational huntingand trapping of wolves: killing ofwolves by game ma.nagets on the theorythat more game animals would beavailable for hunters: habitat alteration:and human safety concerna (ahhough nodocumentation exists of Mextcan wolfattacks on humans).
The subspecies is now consideredextirpated from its hiattic range in thesouthwestern United States because nowild wolf has been confirmed since1970. Occasional sightings of “wolves”continue to be repotted from UnitedStatea locations. but none have beenconfirmed through clear evidence.Recent field maearch haa revealed noConBrmaI repor& of woivea mmainingin Mexico. Invesdgadons areCWltillUillg.
G2
19238
Proposed RI.&
Federai Register ’ Vol. 61. No. 85 / Wednesday. May 1. 1996 I’ Proposed Rules
When Mexican wolves wereeradicated. their natural history waspoorly understood. Appendix A to thedraft Environmental Impact Statementprovides life history and biologicaldescriptions of Mexican wolves to theextent thev are known or can be inferredfrom historical evidence, observations ofcaptive Mexican wolves. and studies ofgray wolves m other geographic regtons.(The draft Environmental ImpactStatement should be referred to forbackground and supporting informationand literature references on all aspectsof this proposed rule: see ADDRESSESsection.)
Environmental Impact Statement.Following an analysis of the publiccomments, a final EnvironmentalImpact Statement will be issued aroundJuly 1996.
Recovery efforts: The Mexican WolfRecovery Plan’s objective is to conserveand ensure survival of the subspecies bymamtaining a captive breeding programand reestablishing a viable. self-sustaining population of at least 100Mexican woives in a 5.000 square milearea within the subspecies’ historicrange. (The recovery plan is currentlyunder revision.)
The proposed Mexican wolf recoveryactions and this proposed rule weredeveloped by the Service afterconsuitation with representatives ofFederal. State. and other agencies. withpotentially affected private parties. andwith wolf experts nationally. Publiccomments received at and after scopingmeetings for the draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement were considered. (Seedraft Environmental Impact Statement.Chapter ‘1 section on Scoping andChapter 5-Consultation andCoordination.)
A captive breeding program wzsestablished in the 1970’s with two wildmale Mexican wolves caught fmnr 1977to 1980 (from Durango and Chihuahua.Mexico) and one wild pregnant femalewolf caught in 1978 (from Durango.Mexico). Two additional captivepopulations were determined in July1995 to be pure Mexican wolves: eachhas two founders. The captivepopulation has increased to 139 as ofMarch 1996: 114 are held at 23 facilitiesin the United States and 25 at fivefacilities in Mexico. This population hasbeen managed since 1990 for maximumreproduction to support the proposedreintroduction effort. The goal is to haveat least 100 animals in the United Statesfacilities prior to any releases into thewild.
On April 20. 1992. the Service issueda “Notice of Intent to Prepare anEnvironmental Impact Statement on theExperimental Reintroduction ofMexican Wolves (Canls lupus baileyi)into Suitable Habitat within the HistoricRange of the Subspecies” (57 FR 14427).This notice also announced the timeand place of public scoping meetings.The draft Environma~tal ImpactStatement was released for publicreview and camment on June 27.1995(60 FR 33224). The location and timesof 14 public meetings were alsoannounced in this notice. In Septemberof 1995, the Service announced thatthree public hearings would be held lnOctober 1995 (60 FR 49628). Allannounced meetings and hearings were
.Uexican wolfrecovery areas: TheService has determined that theproposed reintroductions in the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area and the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area have thegreatest potential for successfullyachieving the current recovery objectivefor Mexican wolves. (See paragraph(i) (6) of the proposed rule and Figures1 and 2 for precise boundaries of theseareas. Chapters 2 and 3 of the draftEnvironmental Impact Statementdescribe the selection of these two areasand provide detailed descriptions ofthem.)
The two wolf recovery areas arewithin the Mexican wolfs probablehistoric range. Both contain vast.relatively remote, and isolated expansesof federally-managed land. Suitable woifhabitat containing relatively abundantprey such as deer and elk is available.As the Mexican wolf is consideredextinct in the wild in the United States.both areas are wholly separategeographically from any known.naturally-occurring nonexperimentalpopulations of wild wolves. A largerMexican Wolf Experimental PopulationArea, which also is wholly separategeographically from any known.naturally-occurring nonexperimentaipopulations of wild wolves, is definedin the rule, paragraph (i) (6). (see Figure3). Mexican wolf recovery is notproposed throughout this larger area. Itspurpose is to establish that any wildwolf found in this larger area is amember of the nonessentialexperimentsI population, and thereforesubject to the provisions of this rule.and not an “endangered” status wolfwith full protection of the Act.
Refntrpduction procedures: Male andfemale pairs fium the captivepopulation will be selected for release
held. The public cormLLcm period closed based on genetica, reproductiveon October 31.1995. Appmximately performance. thavIoraI compatibility.18.000 people have commented or response to the adaptation prows. andexpressed an optnton on the draft other factors. Selected paira will be
moved to the Service’s captive wolfmanagement facility on the SevilletaNational Wildlife Refuge in central NewMexico where measures will be taken toimprove their adaptation to life in thewild.
Wolves will be reintroduced by a“soft release approach desqned toreduce the likelihood of quick dispersalaway from the release areas. Thisinvolves holding the animals in pens onsite for up to several months in order toacclimate them and to increase theiraffinity for the area. (TXe soft releaseapproach is described in more detail inChapter 2 of the draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement.) The releases willbegin in 1996 or as soon thereafter asfeasible.
Approximately five family groups ofcaptive raised Mexican wolves will bereleased over a period of 3 years into theWhite Sands Wolf Recovery Area. withthe goal of reaching a long-termsustainable subpopulation of 20 wolvesby 1998. In the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area, approximately 14 famiiygroups will be released over a period of5 years. with the goal of reaching a long-term sustainable subpopulation of 100wild wolves by 2004. The proposedaction is flexible, using either the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area or the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area, or both. andln the order of their use.
Management of the reintroducedpopulation: The proposed nonessentialexperimental designation enables theService to develop measures formanagement of the population that areless restrictive than the mandatoryprohibitions that protect species with“endangered” status. This includeslimited allowance of both governmentaland private take of individual wolvesunder narrowly defined circumstances.Management flexibility is needed tomake reintroduction compatible withcurrent and planned human activities.such as livestock grazing and hunting.in the reintroduction area. It is alsoctitical to obtaining needed State. tribal.local. and private cooperation. Thus.this flexibility will improve thelikelihood of SUcC(?ss.
RelnaPduction will occur undermanagement plans that allow dispersalby the new wolf subpopulations beyondthe primary recovery zones where theywill be released, into the secondary-very zones of the two designatedwolf recovery areas (~a Figures 1 and2). The Service and cooperatingagencies will not allow the Wolves toestablish territories outside these wolffecavery- tloundauwitiwtlandowner consent on private or tribalhnda within the Mexican WolfExperimena Population Area
Proposed Rule
Federal Register : 1’01. 61, No. 8.5 / Wednesday. XIay 1. 1996 / Proposed Rules 19239
NO measures are expected to beneeded to isolate the expertmentalpopulation from naturally occurringpopulations because no Mexican wolvesare now known to occur in the wild.However. the Service will attempt totake everv reasonable step to ensure thatno naturailv occurring wrid population‘see definition in Rule Glossary) thatmight exist within the recoverv areasiwhich is considered highly unlikelvlare affected bv the reintroduction ofcaptive-raised. nonessentialexperimental wolves. Surveys for wolfsign in these areas will be conductedprior to any remtroduction. If anaturallv occurring wild population 1sfound within one or both of thedesignated wolf recovery areas. theproposed reintroduction there wouldnot go forward with such wild waivespresent. Further, if a naturally occurringwild population is found within one orboth of the designated wolf recover),areas within 90 days after members ofthe experimental population areinitially released (which also ISconsidered highly unlikely), all wolvesin the reintroduced subpopulation u-tsuch recovery area(s) would be removedandthe reintroduction~wouldnot~continue there. Such a wild populationwould have full endangered statusunder the Act.
Identification and monitoring: Prior toplacement in release pens. the adultwolves will receive permanentidentification marks and radio collars.Pups will receive surgically implantedtransmitters prior to release and thepups will be recaptured and fitted withradio collars when they are largeenough. Wild-born pups of thereintroduced population that arecaptured will be given a permanentidentification mark and radio collar.
The Service and cooperating agencieswill measure the success or failure ofthe remtroductions. and the effects ofsuch success or failure on theconservation and recovery of Mexicanwolves. by continuously monitoring,researching. and evaluating the status ofre4eased wolves in the wild. The~encies will prepare periodic progress
reports. annual reporta. and fullevahati0rlS after 3 and 5 years that willrecommend continuation or terminationof the reintroduction effort. The reportswill also evaluate whether, and how, touse the second wolf recovery area. thatis. the one not used initially.
FIndings regarding reintroduction:The Service finds that the reintroducedexperimental population is reasonablylikely to become established and survivein the wild within the Mudcan wolfsprobable historic tan@. Under thepf~posed rule and baaed on available
data. the Servtce projects that the BlueRange Wolf Recovery Areasubpopulation will achieve the 1982Xlexican Wolf Recovery Plan goal of 100wolves occupying 5,000 square miles b>2004.
The White Sands Wolf Recovery AreaLvill support an estimated 20 waivesoccupytng I.000 square miles by 1998.This likely would not be anIndependently viable subpopulation.Nevertheless. a subpopulation m thissize range could be mamtained throughsupplemental releases (or, speculatively.by natural immigration of wolves fromanother nearby population if oneexisted. e.g., from a reintroducedsubpopulation m the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area). Even if the White SandsWolf Recovery Area subpopulation ISnot viable. per se. the Service finds that.through monnoring and research. sucha reintroduction would provtde vitalinformanon about the ecology andbehavior of wild Mexican wolves andabout the ability of captive-raised graywolves to survive in the wild. Areintroduction there would provide avaluable assessment of the soft releaseapproach to reintroducing captive-ra4sedwolves. &rtheriwo4ves ~successfully reintroduced into theWhite Sands Wolf Recovery Area couldbe used as release stock for futurereintroductions elsewhere, which wouldincrease the likelihood of successcompared to usmg captive-raisedwolves as release stock.
Some members of the experimentalpopulation are expected to die duringthe remtroduction efforts after removalfrom the captive population. TheService finds that even if the entireexperimental population died. thiswould not appreciably reduce theprospects for future survival of thesubspecies in the wild. That is. futurereintroductions still would be feasibleeven if the reintroductions proposedhere failed. The individual Mexicanwolves selected for release will be asgenetically redundant with othermembers of the captive population aspossible. thus minimizing any adverseeffects on the genetic integrity of theremaining captive population. TheService has detailed lineage informationon each captive Mexican wolf. Thecaptive population is managed for theService under the American Zoo andAquarium Association’s SpeciesSurvival Plan program. The Associationmaintains a Studbook and provides anexpert advisor for small populationmanagement.
Management of the demographic andgenetic makeup of the population isguided by the SPARKS computerprogram- KinahIp values, which range
from zero to one. are a measure of therelatedness of an individua4 to the restof the population. Wolves with higherkinship values are genetically well-represented in the population. Onlythose individuals whose kinship valuesare above the mean for the captivepopulation as a whole will be used forrelease. in addition, the PEDPACcomputer program will be used toidentify surtable release candidates byexamining the influence of removmg anindividual animal on the survtval of thefounders’ genes. This managementapproach will adequately protect thegenetic integrity of the captivepopulation and thus the continuedexistence of the subspecies, The UnitedStates captive population of Mexicanwolves has approximately doubled inthe last 3 years demonstrating thecaptive population’s reproducuvepotential to replace reintroduced wolvesthat die. In view of all these safeguardsthe Service finds that the reintroducedpopulation would not be “essentral”under 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2).
The Service finds that release of theexperimental population will further theconservation of the subspecies and 0’the gray wolf species as a who!e.Currently, no viable populations of the?&xican wolf subspecies are known toexist in the wild. No wild populationsof the gray wolf species are known toexist in the United States south ofMontana. Minnesota, Wisconsin. andMichigan. (The Service is in the processof reintroducing wild gray wolves fromCanada into central Idaho andYellowstone Nationa Park inWyoming.) The Mexican wolf is themost southerly and the most geneticallydistinct of all North American gray wolfsubspecies. The Mexican wolf is alsoconsidered the rarest of the surviving(nonextfnct) subspecies and has beenaccorded the highest recovery priorityby international wolf experts.
Releasing captive-raised Mexicanwolves furthers the objective of theMdcttr~ Wolf Recovery Plan. The Plan.if fully implemented. will result in themeatablfshment of a wild population ofat feast 100 Mexict~~ WO~V~J. Also.&SSZ of wolves into the wild wiilreduce the potential negative effects ofkeeping them in capdvity in perpetuity.If a reintroduction into the wild fromthe captive population does not occurwhhln a reasonable pcrfod of time.genetic, physical. or behavioral changesreauhmg from prolonged captivity couldrender the captive animals unsuited forre~tmducdon and devastate theirprospects for recovery.
Wgnadon of the nluscd W0h.S asnonessential experimd k considerednv to ohmin needed Stpte. tribal.
CA
19240
ProposedKule
Federal Register ’ Vol. 61, No. 85 I Wednesday, May 1. 1996 / Proposed Rules
local. and private cooperation. Thisdesignation also allows for managementflexibility to mitigate negative impactsof Mexican wolf recover)/. such aslivestock depredation. Without suchflexibility intentional illegal kiIling ofwolves would likely harm the prospectsfor successful recoverv.
Porennal for cordi& wrh Federal andother activities: As indicated.considerable management flexibility hasbeen incorporated into the proposedexperimental population rule to reducepotential conflicts between wolves andthe activities of governmental agencies.livestock operators. hunters, and others.No myor conflicts with currentmanagement of Federal, State. private,or tribal lands are anticipated. Mexicanwolves are expected to be able totolerate most of the current land uses inthe designated wolf recoverv areas.However. temporary restriciions onhuman activities may be imposedaround release sites. active dens. andrendezvous sites. Limited backcountryNational Forest road closures may benecessarv if illegal killings of wolvesoccur: &is would not affect the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area. Also. theUSDA’s Animal Damage ControlDivision will discontinue use of M-G’sand choking-type snares in “occupiedMexican wolf range” (see definition inproposed Section 17.84~)(10)). Otherpredator controi activities may berestricted or modified pursuant to acooperative management agreement or aconference between the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture’s AnimalDamage Control Division and theService.
The Service and other authorizedagencies may harass. take. remove. ortranslocate Mexican wolves undercertain circumstances described indetail in the proposed rule. Privatecitizens also are given broad authority toharass Mexican wolves (for purposes ofscaring them away from livestock) andthey may take (including to kill orinjure) them under narrowcircumstances, that is. in cases ofdefense of human life or when wolvesare in the act of attacking their livestock(if certain conditions are met). Inaddition, ranchers can seekcompensation from a privately-fundeddepredation compensation fund ifd redadon on their Livestock occurs.
T-he Service does not intend to changethe proposed “nonessentialexperimental+* designation to “essentialexpetimenta.l. ” “threatened”. or“endangered” and the Service does notintend to designate critic4 habitat forthe Mexican wolf. Critical habitat cannot be designa& under thenonessential experimentai
classification, 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(Z)(C)(h).The Service foresees no likely situationwhich would result in such changes inthe future. Nevertheless. to ensure thatsuch changes do not occur. thefollowing condition exists in theproposed rule. paragraph (j)(9)-if legalactions or lawsuits compei a change inthe population’s legal status fo essentialexperrmental. threatened. orendangered. or compel the designationof critical habitat for woives wtthin theexperimental population area. then allremtroduced Mexican wolves will beremoved from the wild and theexperimentai population rule will berevoked.
Public Comments SolicitedThe Service solicits comments or
suggestions on the proposedexpenmental population rule from thepublic. States. tribes, other concernedgovernmental agencies. the scientificcommunity, industry, potentiallyaffected landowners. or any otherinterested party. Comments must bereceived within 60 days of publicationof this proposed rule in the FederalRe ister.
#le Service will hold public hearingsto obtain additional verbal and writteninformation. The location, dates. andtimes of these hearings will beannounced in a fotthcomtng issue of theFederal Register, in newspapers, and ina mailing to those persons on theMexican Wolf Recovery Programmailing list.
Any final decision on this proposalwill take into consideration thecomments and anv additionalinformation recei;ed by the Service.These may lead to a fmal rule thatdiffers from this proposal.
National Environmental Policy ActA draft Environmental Impact
Statement on the Service’s proposal toreintroduce the Mexican wolf in thesouthwestern United States has beenprepared and Is available to the public(see ADDRESSES section). The draftEnvironmental Impact Statement shouldbe referred to for analysis of theProposed Action and alternatives to it:also. the draft Envimmnenral ImpactStatement contains detailed referencesfor the backgmund informationprovided here.
Required DeterminationsThis proposed rule has been reviewed
by the Office of Management andBudget under Executive Order 12866.The pie wiU not have sign&anteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities under theRegulatory i?kibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601.
G5
et seq.). The final rule will notsignificantly change costs to industry orgovernments. Furthermore. the ruleproduces no adverse effects oncompetition. employment. investment.productivity, innovation, or the abilityof United States enterprises to competewith foreign-based enterprises mdomestic or export markets.
This proposed rule has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12630, theIl\ttomey General Guidelines,Department Guidelines and theAttorney General SupplementalGuidelines to determine the takingsimplications of the proposed rule. if itwere promulgated as currently drafted.One issue of concern is the depredationof livestock by reintroduced wolves.However. such depredation by a wildanimal would not be a “taking” underthe 5th Amendment. One of the reasonsfor the experimental nonessentialdesignation is to allow the agency andprivate entities flexibility in managmgthe wolves, including the elimination ofa wolf when there is a confirmed kill oflivestock.
This proposed ruie has been reviewedunder Executive Order 12612 todetermine Federalism considerations inpolicy formulation and implementation.Evidently. one or more cottnties in thevicinity of the wolf reintroduction areahave enacted ordinances specificallyprohibiting the introduction of the wolf(among other species) WithIn countyboundaries. However. the United StatesCongress has given the Secretary of theInterior explicit statutory authority, insection 10(j) of the Act. to promulgatethis rule. and under the SupremacyClause of the United States Constitution,this has the effect of preempting Stateregulation of wildlife to the extent inconflict with this proposed rule.Nevertheless. the Service hasendeavored to cooperate with Statewildlife agencies and county and tribalgovernmenrs in the preparation of thispfvposed rule.
AuthorThe primary author of this document
fs Mr. David R Parsnr~ (SGG ADDRESSESsactfon) at telephone 505f248-6920: orf-tie SOW 248-6922.
List of Subjects in 50 CPR Part 17Endangered and thraatmeti species,
EXPCMTS. Imports. Reporting andrecordkeeping requiremmta~ andTransportation.pq~~& Regulation Pmmuigadon
&cordingly. the Service huebypropmes to amend part 17, subchapterB of chapter I. title 50 of the Code of~dtral Regulations. as set forth below:
Proposed RuleFederal Register 1’01. 6 1 . N o . 85 / IVednesdav. Slav i 1 9 9 6 /’ P r o p o s e d Rules 19241
PART 17-(AMENDED] Authornv: 16 U.S.C. 1361-l-lO7: 16 U.S.C. 5 17.11 Endangered and threatened1531-1544: 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245: Pub. L. 99- wlldlife.
1 The authorlry citation for part I 7 625. 100 Stat. 3500. unless ocherwlse noted. - I I I I
contmues to read as follows: 2. In 5 17.11 (h), the table entrv for“Wolf. gray under MAMMALS is
(h) l l *
revised to read as follows:
Species Vertebrate popu-Hlstonc range lation wnere enaan- Status When llsted Critical Speual
Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habttat rules
.Mammals
. . . . . .
. . . .Wolf, gray Canis IUPUS .._ Holarctlc ..____..., U.S.A. (48
contermrnousStates. exceot MNand where Itstedas an expen-mental popu-labon).
Do . . .__. . ..do .._....... . ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . ..__...... U.S.A. (MN) . . .Do ..__. .._.... ._. . ..dO ..do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.. U.S.A. (WV ana por-
tions of ID anaMT-see 17.84(i))..
Do ._ ,. . . . do .._........__. d o . . .._.._.....__.._. U.S.A. (speck por-tions of AZ NMand TX--see17.84(j))..
. . .E 1. 6. 13. 35. 17.95(a) NA
561,562.
T 35 . . . . 17.95(a) 17.40(d)XN 561, 562 NA
17.640)
XN NA 17.64(j).
. . . . . . *
3. Section 17.84 is amended byadding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
g 17.84 Special rules-+ertebrates.l * l l *
(j) Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupusbaffeyl).
(1) The Mexican gray wolf (Mexicanwolf) subpopulations reestablished inthe Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area andin the White Sands Wolf Recover-v Areawithin the Mexican Wolf ExpenmentalPopulation Area. identified in paragraph(j)(6) of this section, are onenonessenual experimental population.This nonessential experimentalpopulation will be managed inaccordance with these provisions.
(i) Throughout the entire MexicanWolf Expenmental Population Area.you will not be in violation of theEndangered Spectes Act (Act) forunavoidable and unintentional take(including killing or injuring) of a wolf.when such take is non-negligent andincidental to a iegal activity, such ashunting, trapping. driving, orrecreational activities, and you reportthe take promptly (within 24 hours) tothe Service’s Mexican Wolf RecoveryCoordinator or to a Service appointedagency representative.
(2) The Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) finds that reintroduction of anexperimental population of Mexicanwolves into the subspecies’ probablehistoric range will further theconservation of the Metican wolfsubspecies and of the gray wolf species.The Service also finds that theexpenmental population is not“essential.” under 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2).
(ii) Also throughout the entireMexican Wolf Experimental PopulationArea. excluding areas within thenational park system and nationalwildlife refuge system. no Federalagency or their contractors will be inviolation of the Act for take of a wolfresulting from any authorized agencyaction. This provision does not exemptagencies and their conuactotS fromcomplying with section 7(a)(4) of theAct which requires a conference withthe Service if they propose an actionthat is likely to jeopardize the continuedexistence of the Mexican wolf.
(3) You must not take any wolf in the (ill) No land use restrictions will bewild within the Mexican Wolf imposed on private or tribal reservationExpertmental Population Area except as lands for Mexican wolf recoveryprovided in this rule. The Service may without the concurrence of the privaterefer take of a wolf contrary to this rule owner or tribal government. On publicto the appropriate authorities for lands, puhllc and tribal agencies mayprosecUtiO?l. temporarily restrict human access and
disturbance-causing land use activities.such as timber harvesting and mining,within a 1 -mile radius around releasepens when wolves are in them, aroundactive dens between March 1 and June30, and around active wolfrendezvoussites between June 1 and September 30.as necessary. If documented illegalkilling of a wolf occurs the UnitedStates Forest Service may, inconsultation with the Service. closeback-country roads on National Forestlands (except thoroughfares) for as longas necessary to protect the wolves.
(iv) In areas within the national parksystem and national wildlife refugesystem, Federal agencies must treatMexican wolves as a threatened speciesfor purposes of complying with section7 of the Act.
(v) On public lands leased for grazinganywhere within the Mexican WolfExperimental Population Area.including within the designated wolfrecovery areas. when and wherebestock are legally present. livestockowners or their agents:
(A) May harass wolves. for purposesof scaring them away, in the generalvicinity (within 500 yards) of livestock(i.e., cattle, sheep. homes. mules. andburros or as defined in State and tribalwolf management plans as approved byUS) in an opportunistl~ nonlnfuriousmanner (no temporary or Ventpbr~id damage may TcsuLt) at any
c-6
19242
Proposed Rule
Federal Register Vol. 61. No. 85 / Wednesdav. May 1. 1996 1 Proposed Rules
time: provided that woives cannot bepurposely attracted. tracked. waited for.or searched out and then harassed: andprovtded that such harassment ISreported to the Service’s Mexican WolfRecovery Coordinator or to a Serviceappointed agencv representative wtthin
.7 davs: and.iB) May receive a wrttten permit
under the Act from the Service or anagencv designated by the Service. \,alidfor UC to 45 days, to take iincluding killor injure) a specific number of wolvesactuallv engaged in the act of killin?.woundmg or biting livestock: providedthat. prior to the issuance of such apermit. six or more breeding Mexicanwolf patrs occur in the Blue Range LVolfRecovery Area, or three or morebreeding Mexican wolf pairs occur Inthe White Sands Wolf Recovery Area:and provided that an authorized agentof the Service. the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture s (USDA)Animal Damage Control Division. or theState has documented previouslivestock loss or injury caused bywolves and agency efforts to resolve theproblem are completed. Livestockowners or their agents must report takeof wolves under such a permit to theService’s Mexican Wolf RecoversCoordinator or to a Service appointedagency representative wtthin 24 hours.There must be evidence of freshlywounded or killed livestock bv wolves.
(vi) On private or tribal landanywhere within the Mexican WolfExperimental Population Area. propertyowners. livestock owners. tenants. ortheir designated agents:
(A) may harass wolves in theimmediate vicinity (within 500 yards) ofpeople, buildings, facilities. pets,livestock. or other domestic animals inan opportunistic. noninjurious manner(no temporary or permanent physicaldamage may result) at any time:provided that wolves cannot bepurposely attracted. tracked, or searchedout and then harassed: and providedthat such harassment is repotted to theService’s Mexican Wolf RecoveryCoordinator or to a Service appointedagency representative within 7 days;and.
(B) may take (including kill or injure)any wolf actually engaged in the act ofkiliing. wounding, or biting livestockzprovided that livestock fnshly (lessthan 24 hours) wounded (tom flesh andbleedin@ or killed by wohs is present:and further provided that the take isreported to the Service’s Mexican WolfRecovery Coordinator or a Serviceappointed agency representative within24 hours.
(vii) Authorized Setvice, USDAAnimal Damage Control Division, tribe.
and State employees may capture and/or transiocate any Mexican wolf in thenonessential expertmental populationconsistent with the Service’s approvedinanagement plan 0: specialmanagement measure. Such plan ormeasure may tnciude capture and/ortranslocarion of wolves that prey onlivestock. attack pets or domestrcanimals other than livestock on privateland. impact game populations in waysLvhich may inhibit further wolfrecovery. prey on members of the desertbighorn sheep herd found on the WhiteSands Missile Range and San AndresNational Wildlife Refuge, so long as theState of New Mexico lists it as a speciesto be protected. are considered problemwolves. are a nuisance, or areconflicting wtth a maJor land use, or arenecessary for research. AuthonzedFederal. State. or tribal personnel mayalso carry out wolf capture and/ortranslocatton for other purposes theService has authortzed. such as geneticmanagement, and may use lethalmethods of take when reasonableattempts to capture wolves alive fail andthe Service determines that removal ofa particular wolf or wolves from thewild is necessary. Authorized Federal,State. or tribal personnel may cany outany management measure that is a partof a Service approved management plan.Also, the USDA Animal Damage ControlDivision will disconunue use of M-44’sand choking-type snares in “occupiedMexican wolf range” [see definition inproposed section 17.84(/)(10)). TheService may restrict or modify otherpredator control activities pursuant to acooperative management agreement or aconference between us and the USDA’sAnimal Damage Control Division.
(viii) You may harass or take aMexican wolf in self defense or defenseof others. provided that you promptlyreport the harassment or take to theService’s Mexican Wolf RecoveryCoordinator or to a Service appointedagency representative. If the Service oran agency authorized through acooperative management plandetermine that a wolf presents a threatto human life or safety, the Service orthe authorized agency may place it lnca
Ptivity or euthanize it.ix) Intentional taking of any wolf in
the Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Area. except as describedabove, is prohibited. The Serviceencourages individuals authorized totake wolves to use nonlethal means.You must immediately (within 24hours) deliver all wolves (live or dead),pelts. or parts taken to the Service’sMexican Wolf Reamry Coordinator orto a Service appointed agencyrepresentative.
G7
(4) You may not possess. sell. deliver.carry. transport. ship, import. or exportby any means whatsoever. any wolf orwolf pan from the experimentalpopulation taken or possessed inviolation of these regulations or inviolation of applicable State or tribalfish and wildlife laws or regulations orthe Act.
(5) You may not attempt to commit.solicit another to commit, or cause to becommitted, any offense defined in thissection.
(6) The two designated recovery areasfor Mexican wolves classified asnonessential experimental that liewithin the subspecies’ probable historic
ra?r<t?White Sands Wolf RecoveryArea in south-central New Mexico.including all of the White Sands MissiieRange, the White Sands NationalMonument. and the San AndresNational Wildlife Refuge, and the areaadjacent and to the west of the MissileRange ,ounded on the south by thesoutherly boundary of the USDAJomada Experimental Range and thenot-them boundary of the New MexicoState University Animal Science Ranch:on the west by the New MexicoPrincipal Meridian; on the north by thePedro Armendaris Grant boundary andthe Sierra-Socorro County line: and onthe east by the western boundary of theMissile Range (Figure 1). Actual releasesof captive-raised wolves will take place.generally as described in our draftEnvironmental Impact Statement onMexican wolf reintroduction, within theWhite Sands Wolf Recovery Areaprimary recovery zone. This is the areawithin the White Sands Missile Rangebounded on the north by the road fromthe former Cain Ranch Headquarters toRange Road 16. Range Road 16 to itsintersection with Range Road 13. RangeRoad 13 to its intersection with RangeRoad 7: on the east by Range Road 7: onthe south by Highway 70: and on thewest by the Missile Range boundary.The Service will allow the wolfsubpopulation to expand into the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area secondarymovery zone, which is the remainderof the White Sands Wolf Recovery Area
n”~~l$i KE2~~CGet-yh. imiuding ail of the ApacheNational Forest and all of the GilaNational Forest in east-centraI Arizonaand west-central New Mexico (Figure 2).Actual releases of ca@‘mMexican wolves will take place.gem-aiIy aa described in our draftEmrironmentalImprtStuementonMudcur woifr~~introduaion. within theBlue Range Wolf Reamry Ana primaryfecovuyzona.Thlsisthearuwithin
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday. Mav I. 1996 I’ Proposed Rules 19243
the Apache National Forest bounded onthe north bv the Apache-GreenieeCounty line: on the east by the Arizona-New Mexico State line: on the south bvthe San Francisco River (eastern half)and the southern boundarv of the.&pache National Forest (western half):and on the west by the Greeniee-GrahamCounty line (San Carlos ApacheReservation boundary). The Service ~111allow the wolf subpopulation to expandinto the Blue Range Wolf Recoverv Areasecondary recovery zone. which is theremainder of the Blue Range WolfRecovery Area not in the primaryrecovers zone.
public hds outida the duignamd wolfrccmwy srcu. but within the Mexican
(iii) The boundaries of the MexicanWolf Experimental Population Area arethe portion of Arizona lying north ofInterstate Highway 10 and south ofInterstate Highway 40: the portion ofNew Mexico lying north of InterstateHighway 10 in the west. north of theNew Mexico-Texas boundary in theeast. and south of Interstate Highwav 40:and the portion of Texas lying north ofUnited States Highway &?/I 80 andsouth of the Texas-New Mexicoboundary (Figure 3). The Service is notproposing wolf recovery throughout thisarea, only within the White Sands andBlue Range Wolf Recovery Areasdescribed in paragraph (j)(6)(i) and(j) (6) (ii) of this subsection. The purposeof the larger experimental populationarea designation is to distinguish thelegal status of any wolf found there.After the first captive wolf release,wolves found in the wild in theMexican Wolf Experimental PopulationArea will be subject to managementunder this rule. if a wolf ls capturedinside the Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Area after the first releasebut outside the designated wolf recoveryareas. it wiil be returned and re-releasedor put into the captive breedingprogram. If a wolf is found in the UnitedStates outside the boundaries of theMexican Wolf Experimental PopulationArea (and not wtthin any other wolfexperimental population area) theSavice will presume it to be of wildorigin with full endangered status (orthreatened ln Minnesota) under the Act.unless evidence, such as a radio-collaror identification mark. establishesotherwise. If such evidence exists. theService or sn authorized agency willattempt to promptly capture the wolfand return and re-release it or put intothe captive breeding program. Such awolf is otherwise not subject to this ruleoutside the designated Mexican Wolf
E”p”rimental Population Area.
7) IF h4exican wolves of thecxpcrtmentsl popuhtion occur on
Wolf Experimental Population Area. theService or an authorized agencv willattempt to recapture any radio-collaredlone wolf and any lone wolf or memberof an established pack causmg livestockdepredations. The agencies will notroutinely recapture and return packmembers that make occasional foraysonto public land outside the designatedwolf recovery areas and uncoflared lonewoives on public land. However. theService will capture and return to arecovery area or to captivity packs fromthe nonessential experimentalpopulation that establish territories onpublic land outside the designated wolfrecovery areas. If any wolves move ontoprivate or tribal lands outside thedesignated recovery areas. but withinthe Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Area, the Service or anauthorized agency will developmanagement actions in cooperationwith the land owner including recaptureif requested by the land owner or tribalgovernment.
(8) The Service will continuouslyevaluate Mexican wolf reintroductionprogress and prepare periodic progressreports. detailed annual reports. and fullevaluations after 3 and 5 years thatrecommend continuation or terminationof the reintroduction effort.
(10) Definitions-Key term used intbc rule bsvc the following #Bnitions.
(9) The Service does not intend tochange the “nonessential experimental”designation to “essential experimental.”“threatened.” or “endangered” and doesnot intend to designate critical habitatfor the Mexican wolf. Critical habitatcannot be designated under thenonessential experimentalclassification. 16 U.S.C. 15390) (2) (C)(ii).The Setvice foresees no likely situationwhich would result in such changes.The Service would remove from thewild all reintroduced Mexican wolvesdesignated as nonessential experimentaland revoke the experimental status andregulations if legal actions or lawsuitscompel a change in the population’slegal status to essential experimental.threatened, or endangered or compel thedesignation of critical habitat within theMexican Wolf Experimental PopulationArea, or if witbin 90 days of the in&lrelease date, the Service discovers anaturally occurring population of wildwolves. consisting of at least twobreeding pairs that for 2 consecutiveyears have each successfully raised twooffspring. existing withln the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area or BlueRange Wolf Recovery Area boundaries.The Service would manage and protectany such nsnlrally occurring wolves asendsngcrcd speciea under the An
c-8
Breeding pair. An adult male and anadult female wolf that have produced atleast two pups that survived untilDecember 3 1 of the year of their birth.during the previous breeding season.
Depredation. The confirmed killing ormaiming of lawfully present domesticlivestock on Federal. State. tribal. orother public lands. or private lands bvone or more wolves. The Service. USDAAnimal Damage Control, or Servtce-authorized State or tribal agencies willconfirm killing or maiming of domesticlivestock.
Engaged in the acr of killing,wounding. or biting livestock. To beengaged in the pursuit and grasping,biting. attacking. wounding, or feedingupon livestock that are alive. if wolvesare observed feeding on livestockcarcasses. you cannot assume thatwolves killed the livestock until properauthorities investigate and confirm thatwolves were responsible for that orother livestock losses in the immediatearea (1 -mile radius).
Harass. Harass is defined as“intentional or negligent act or omissionwhich creates the likelihood of injury tothe wildlife by annoying it to such anextent as to significantly disrupt normalbehavioral patterns which include. butare not limited to breeding. feeding, orsheltering“ (50 CFR 17.3). For thepurposes of this proposed experimentalpopulation rule the Service permits only“opportunistic,” noninjuriousharassment (see definition below) andlimits it to approaching wolves on foot.horseback. or nonmotorized ormotorized vehicle (no closer than 20feet): discharging firearms or otherprojectile launching devices inproximity to but not in the direction ofwolves: throwing objects in the generaldirection of but not at wolves: or makingany loud noise in proximity to wolves.The basic intent is to scare or chasewolves from the immediate area withoutcausing physical injuries.
Impact on game populations in wayswhich may inhibit h&her wolf recovery.The Service encourages States and tribesto describe unacceptable impacts ongame populations in their managementplans sub]ect to our approval. Untilsuch rltne the term will mean thefollowing: Two consecutive years with acumulative 35 percent d- inpopulation or hunter hatrveat estimatesfor a particular species of ungulate in agame management unit or distinct herdsegment compared to the prewolf 5-yearaverage (unit or herd must amtainaverage of greater than 100 antmals). Ifwolf predation is shown to be a primarycauseofunguiatepopukt-decUnes(gnata than 50 percent of documentedadult or young rnw. then wolves
Proposed Rule
19244 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 1, 1996 / Proposed Rules..__ ~_____ .__--__.--.--__
may be moved tr) reduce ungulatemortality rates and assist in herdrecovery, but only in conjunction withapplication of other common.prnft~ssionally acceptable. wildlifemanagement techniques.
Occupied ff4exican \\,o/f range (1 J/&a of confirmed prt>sencr of residentbreeding packs or pails of wolvc~s orarea consistently used by at least oneI esidcnt wolf oLer a period of at leasttine month ‘The Service must confirm orcorroborate wolf presence. Exactdelineation of the area will be describedII?
(i) Five-mile radius around alllocations of wolves and wolf signconfirmed as described above(nonradio~monitored):
(ii) s-mile radius around radiolocations of resident wolves when fewerthan 20 rarlio locations are available (forradio-monltoretl wol\ees only): or
(iii) 3-mrle radius around the convexpolygon df,veloped from more than 20radio locations of a pack, pair, or singleuoll taken over a period of at least 6months (for radio-monitortad wolves)
(2) This definition applies only withinthe Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Area.
O~~~~nrtunistic~. noninjuriousIlar;~ssrner,t (SW “harass”) This IS theonI4 type of harassment the Servicepernlits uricler the experimentalpopulation rule Opportunistic means asttle wolf presents itself (i.e.. the wolftravels onto and is ohserved on privateland or near livestock). You cannot tracka wolf and then harass it or harass it by
NOTE: Fig-s 1, 2, and 3
aircraft. You cannot chase and harass awolf for an extended period of time(over 15 minutes). Any harassment mustnot cause bodily injury, maiming, ordeath.
Population of naturally occurring wildevolves. At least two breeding pairs ofwolves successfully raising at least twoyoung each year (until December 31 ofthe year of their birth), for 2 consecutiveyears in the Mexican Wolf ExperimentalPopulation Area.
Primary recovery zone. An area wherethe Service proposes to release Mexicanwolves, and where the Service mayreturn and re-release them if necessary,and where managers will activelysupport recovery of the reintroducedpopulation.
Problem wolves. Wolves that havedepredated on lawfully presentdomestic livestock or wolves from agroup or pack including adults,yrarlings, and young-of-the-year thatM’ere directly involved in thedepredations; or fed upon the livestockremains that were a result of thedepredation: or were fed by or aredependent upon adults involved withthe depredations (because before thesey’oung animals mature to where they cansurvive on their own, they will travelwith the pack and learn the pack’sdepredation habits). Wolves that havedepredated on domestic animals otherthan livestock, two times in an areawithin 1 year. Wolves that arehabituated to humans, humanresidences, or other facilities.
Secondary recovery zone. An areaadjacent to a primary recovery zonewhich the Service does not propose forMexican wolf releases, but in which theService allows released wolves todisperse. and where managers willactively support recovery of thereintroduced population.
Take. The Act defines “take” as-“toharass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, orto attempt to engage in any suchconduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). Seeabove definition of Harass whichincludes definition of permittedharassment, and see definition ofUnavoidable and unintentional takebelow.
Unavoidable and unintentional take.Accidental, nonnegligent take (seeabove definition of “Take“) whichoccurs despite reasonable care, isincidental to an otherwise lawfulactivity and without the purpose to doso. Examples would include striking awolf with an automobile or capturing awolf in a trap set obviously for anotherspecies. Note--Shooting a wolf whenthe individual states he or she believedit to be an animal other than a wolf doesnot qualify as unavoidable orunintentional take. Shooters have theresponsibility to be sure of their targets.
Wolf recovery area. A designated areawhere managers will actively supportreestablishment of Mexican wolfpopulations.
Figures to 317.84(j)
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
(pages 19245 through 19247) of the Federal Register1 . _notice are not reproduced here, in order to save space, as they are
the same as Fig-s 2-3, 2-2, and 2-4, respectively, in this FEIS. Also,all of the last page of the Federal Register notice, p. 19248, is repro-duced below.
19248 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 85 I Wednesday, May 1, 1996 I Proposed Rules-
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Dated: Dt,cember 20. 1995.George T. f,rampton, Jr.,A.ssistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
P a r k s .
[FR Dot Sh--10665 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
G9
APPENDIX DSection 7 Consultation on Preferred Alternative
Intra-Service Section 7Biological Evaluation Form
Consulationa/Conference/Concurrence
Originating Person: David R. ParsonsDate: February 24, 1995
I. Region: 2
II. Service Activity (Program): Mexican Wolf Recovery
III. Pertinent Species and Habitat:
A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area:
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area:
EndangeredBlack-footed ferretAmerican peregrine falconBald eagleNorthern aplomado falconWhooping craneTodsen’s pennyroyalKuenzler hedgehog cactus
ThreatenedMexican spotted owl
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area:
EndangeredBlack-footed ferretAmerican peregrine falconBald eagleGila topminnowGila troutNorthern aplomado falconWhooping crane‘rodsen’s pennyroyal
ThreatenedMexican spotted owlLoach minnowBeautiful shinerChihuahua chub
Mustekz nigripesFake peregrinus anatumHaliaeetus leucocepbahsFalco femoralis septentrionalisGrus americanaHedeoma todseniiEchinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri
Strik occidentalis lucida
iVh.steh nigripesFalco peregrinus anatumHaliaeetus leucocepbaiusPoeciliopsis occidentalisOncorbynchus gilaeFalco femoralis septentrionalisGrus americanaHedeoma todsenii
Strix occidentalis lucida
Tia roga co bitisCyprineLla formosaGila nigrescens
D - l
Section 7 Consulration
Spi kedace Meda&lgidaApache trout Oncerbyncus apacheLittle Colorado spinedace Lepidomeda vittata
B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area:
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area:
Proposed Endangered with Critical HabitatSouthwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trail/ii extimus
Proposed Nonessential Experimental PopulationMexican gray wolf Canis lupus bailqi
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area:
Proposed EndangeredArizona willowParish’s alkali grass
Salix arizonicaPucinellia parisbii
Proposed Endangered with Critical HabitatSouthwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailhi extimw
Proposed Nonessential Experimental PopulationMexican gray wolf Canis lupus bail.+
C. Category 1 and 2 candidate species within the action area:
White Sands Wolf Recovery Area:
Category 1 CandidatesGoodding’s onionMimbres figvvortMountain plover
Category 2 CandidatesArizona black-tailed prairie dogOrgan Mountains Colorado chipmunkWhite Sands woodratHot Springs cotton ratSwift foxOccult little brown batGreater western mastiff bat
Spotted batFerruginous hawkApache northern goshawkWestern snowy ploverLoggerhead shrikeWhite-faced ibis‘Texas horned lizard
Al&urn gooddingiiScropbularia macrantbaCbaradrius montanus
Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensisEutamias guadrivittatus austraiisNeotoma micropus LeucopbaeaSigmodon $&venter goldmaniVulpes veloxMyotis hcz$gus occuhEumops perotis californicusEuderma mecuhumBu teo rega LisAccipiter gent&s apacheCbaradrius alexandrinus nivosisLank LudovicianusPlegadis cbihiPbrynosoma cornutum
D-2
Section 7 Consultation
Bonita diving beetleAnthony Blister beetleLos Olmos tiger beetleWhite Sands pupfishAlamo beardtongueGrama grass cactusMescalero milkwortNight-blooming cereusGuadalupe valeriaKerr’s milk-vetchNodding cliff daisyOrgan Mountains evening primroseOrgan Mountains figwortSand prickly pearStandley whitlow-wortSierra Blanca cliff daisy
Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area:
Category 1 CandidatesGoodding’s onionMimbres figwortGila springsnailNew Mexico hotspring snailChiricahua leopard frog
Category 2 CandidatesSouthwestern otterGreater western mastiff batOccult little brown batSpotted batAllen’s big-eared batPale Townsend’s big-eared batBig free-tailed batLong-legged myotisFringed myotisYuma myotisLong-eared myotisCave myotisSilky pocket mouseHot Springs cotton ratOrgan Mountains Colorado chipmunkWhite Sands woodratWhite-sided jackrabbitApache northern goshawkNorthern goshawkFerruginous hawkNorthern gray hawkMountain ploverWestern snowy plover
Deronectes neomexicanaLytta mir$caCicindela nevadica oimosaCyprinoahn tularosaPenstemon alamosensisPediocactus papyracantbusPolygala rimulicoh vaT. mescalerorumGreggi var. greg;giValeriana texanaAstragaius kerriiPerityle tern uaOenotbera organensisStrop byla ria LevisOpuntia arenariaDraba standleyiCbaetopappa elegans
Aliiu m gooddingiiScropbularia macrantbaFontelicelh gibeFon telicella tberma LisRana cbiricabuensis
Lutra canadensis sonoraeEumops perotis californicusMyotis Luc$qus occultusEuderma meculatumIdionycteris pbyllotisPlecotus townsendii pallescensNyctinomops macrotisMyotis volansMyotis tbysanodesMyotis yumanensisMyotis evotisMyotis veLifPrPerognatbus&vus goodpasturiSigmodon j%Liventer goldmaniEutamias guadrivittatus australisNeotoma micropus LeucopbaeaLepus callotis gaillard;Accipiter gentilis apacheAccipiter gentilisButeo regalisButeo nitidus maximusCbaradrius montanusCbaradrius alexandrinus nivosis
D-3
Loggerhead shrikeWhite-faced ibisGila chubGila roundtail chubSonora suckerDesert suckerWhite Sands pupfishLongfin dateSpeckled dateLittle Colorado River suckerArizona southwestern toadYavapai (lowland) leopard frogMexican garter snakeNarrow-headed garter snakeTexas horned lizardCalifornia floaterWhite Mountains water penny beetleThree Forks springsnailFalse ameletus mayflyGrama grass cactusGila groundselHess’ fleabaneRock fleabaneAlamo beardtongueDuncan’s pincushion cactusPinos altos flameflowerNight-blooming cereusThree-nerved scurfpeaSlender spiderflowerSan Carlos wild buckwheatMogollon cloverNutrioso milkvetchWhite Mountain paintbrush
IV. Geographic area or station name and action:
Lanius ludovicianusPlegadis cbibiGih intermediaGila robusta grahamiCatostomus insignisCatostomus clarkiCyprinodon tuhrosaAgosia chrysogasterRbinichtbys oscu LusCatostomus sp.Bufo microscapbusRana yavapaiensisTbamnopbis eguesTbamnopbis $punctatusPbtynosoma cornutumAnodonta calzforniensisPsepbenus montanus” Fon telicelh” trivia/isAmeletus fahusPediocactus papyracantbusSenecio quaerensEtrgeron bessiiErigeron scopulinusPenstemon akzmosensisCorypbantba duncaniiTalinum bum&Gregi var. greggiPediomelum trinervatumCLeome multicauiisEriogonum capilkzreTrifooliun neuropbyilum
Astraga Lus n u triosensisChstileja mogollonica
Section 7 Consultation
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Regional Office proposes to reintroduce nonessential experimen-tal populations of Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyz) into (1) the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA),which comprises the Apache and Gila National Forests in their entirety (see DEIS Fig. 2-3); and (2) the WhiteSands Wolf Recovery Area (WSWRA), which encompasses the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and lands
belonging to the Bureau of Land Management and private parties adjacent and to the west of WSMR to theNew Mexico Principal Meridian (see DEIS Fig. 2-2). Geographic boundaries are described in detail in Chapter2 - Proposed Action.
V. Location (See Figs. 2-2 and 2-3):
A. County and state: Apache and Greenlee counties, Arizona; and Catron, Dona Aua,Grant, Lincoln, Otero, Sierra, Socorro counties, New Mexico.
B. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): NA
D-4
C .
Section 7 Consultation
Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Several towns occur within or near theproject areas (see Figs. 2-2 and 2-3).
VI. Description of DEIS proposed action:
The Service proposes to reintroduce 3 family groups of Mexican wolves per year for 5 years into the BRWRAprimary wolf recovery zone (see Fig. 2-2) and allow population expansion throughout the wolf recovery area,which encompasses the entire Apache and Gila National Forests. The total area of the BRWRA is 7,055 mi*.The Service also proposes to reintroduce 2 family groups per year for 3 years into the WSWRA primary wolfrecovery zone (San Andres Mountains) allowing population expansion throughout the wolf recovery area (seeFig. 2-.J). The total area of the WSWRA is 4,050 mi’. Reintroduction would be initiated on one of the twoareas and, if determined to be appropriate, progress to the second area 2 to 4 years later.
A “soft release” technique would be used, with wolves being held in on-site release pens for 4-6 months.Mexican wolves “surplus” to the captive population would be selected for release, removed from the zooenvironment, and placed in an isolated Service-owned holding facility at least one year prior to being placed inon-site release pens.
All released wolves will have radio transmitters: collars for adults and implants for pups. Monitoring willbe frequent, evaluation continuous, and formal assessments of project success will occur at 3- and 5-yearintervals. Each assessment will result in a determination to either continue, modify or terminate the project.The initial reintroduction could take place as early as 1996.
Reintroduced populations would be designated “nonessential experimental” under Section 10(j) of theESA. Mitigation would be accomplished through provisions of the special rule, which would authorize take ofMexican wolves under specified circumstances.
If reintroduction occurs in the BRWRA, it is anticipated that a population of 102 wolves occupying 5,000-7,000 mi* would be established in 8 years. In the WSWRA, a population of 20 wolves occupying 2,000-4,000mi’ would be established in 3 years.
See Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the proposed action.
VII. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitat listed in item III A, B, and C:
The principal prey of all gray wolves, including Mexican wolves, is large ungulates (Mech 1970). In sevenextensive investigations of the contents of wolf droppings (see Mech 1970: 175) animals the size of beavers orlarger composed 59 to 96% of the food items identified. Most prey species were ungulates. Remains of mice,mink, muskrats, squirrels, rabbits, birds, fish, lizards, and snakes as well as invertebrates and vegetable matterhave been found in wolf droppings. However, Mech (1970) states that “predation on small animals is seen toplay only a minor role in the life of the wolf.” Bednarz (1988), in his review of the biology of Mexican wolves,concludes that, while small rodents and vegetable matter are not of primary importance in the wolf’s overalldiet, they may be important for short periods of time when larger prey species are not available.
Historically, Mexican wolves were typically associated with montane forests and woodlands and interveningor adjacent grasslands above 4,500 feet in elevation (Brown 1983). There are few records of wolves inhabitingdesert, desertscrub, or semidesert grassland habitats.
Gray wolf packs occupy large territories and wolf densities ranging from 1 per 10 square miles to 1 per 500square miles have been reported (Mech 1970). Historic densities of Mexican wolves were never documented;however, Bailey (1931) estimated wolf densities on the Gila National Forest in 1906 at “not more than one to atownship” (36 square miles). The Service predicts that restored wolf densities will be about one per 50 squaremiles.
The re-establishment of wolves in the BRWRA and/or WSWRA could affect other wildlife species in thefollowing ways: (1) by killing them for.food, (2) by competing with other predators for food, (3) by interspe-cific aggression resulting in the killing or territorial exclusion of other predators., (r) by the transmission of
D-5
Section 7 Consultation
diseases, (5) by providing additional sources of carrion for scavengers, and (6) by changing wildlife manage-ment programs in ways that affect other species.
No change in existing management practices is required under the Service’s proposed action for Mexicanwolf reintroduction. However, land managing agencies may chose to enhance habitat for wolves. The mosteffective management strategy for wolves is to increase poulations of their principal ungulate prey species andto provide protection from illegal killing by humans. Prescribed fire, logging, and development of permanentwater are the most commonly used methods for improving ungulate habitat in areas being considered forMexican wolf reintroduction. Some restrictions to traditional animal damage control activities will be imposedin areas occupied by wolves. The use of M-44’s and choking-type snares will be eliminated, and trap size maybe limited and/or trap check frequencies may be specified.
Black-footed Ferrett - No effect. Wolves do not regularly prey on mammals smaller than beavers. No knownpopulations of black-footed ferrets exist within the proposed wolf recovery areas. The consumption of prairiedogs (the principal prey of black-footed ferrets) by wolves has not been documented and is not consideredlikely. Wolves can contract and transmit diseases, such as canine distemper, rabies, and plague, which canseriously impact ferretts. However, wolf densities are expected to be low and these types of diseases alreadyoccur within existing populations of coyotes, foxes, skunks, and other species in the WSWRA and BRWRA.Management actions that may be undertaken to benefit the Mexican wolf will not affect black-footed ferrets.
American Peregrine Falcon - No effect. Wolves do not prey on American peregrine falcons nor do wolvesprey substantially upon the principal prey of this falcon-birds taken in flight (S. Williams, personal commu-nication, Bent 1938).
Bald Eagle - No effect, possible beneficial effect. Wolves do not prey on eagles nor do they prey substantiallyupon the principal prey of eagles--fish, waterfowl, rabbits. Bald eagles are known to feed upon carrion (S.Williams, personal communication, Bent 1937). Wolves may increase the amount of large ungulate carrionavailable to bald eagles.
Northern Aplomado Falcon - No effect. Wolves do not prey on aplomado falcons nor do wolves prey sub-stantially upon the principal prey of this falcon--birds, small mammals, and insects (S. Williams, personalcommunication, Bent 1938).
Whooping Crane - No effect. Whooping cranes are not expected to occur in proposed wolf recovery areas.Whooping cranes occur in the Southwest only in winter, and at that time they prefer habitats (cultivated fieldsand wetlands) that are not present in proposed Mexican wolf recovery areas.
Mexican Spotted Owl - May effect, not likely to adversely effect. Certain habitats will be occupied by bothMexican spotted owls and Mexican wolves. While some small mammals will be taken by both spotted owls andwolves, there is no overlap among the principal prey of these two predators. The Service’s proposed actionrequires no special management measures to improve habitat for Mexican wolves. If land managing agencieschoose to implement habitat improvement actions for the benefit of Mexican wolves, the Section 7 consulta-tion process would adequately protect the Mexican spotted owl.
Southwestern Wtiow Flycatcher - No effect. Wolves do not prey on small songbirds nor do wolves preyupon insects, the principal prey of this flycatcher.
Mexican Gray Wolf - May effect, beneficial effect. No wild Mexican wolves are known to exist in the UnitedStates portion of the subspecies’ historical range (Girmendonk 1994, Wolok 1994). The last confirmed wildwolf in Mexico was live-captured in 1980 (McBride 1980). McBride (1980) estimated that less than 50 Mexi-can wolves remained in Chihuahua and Durango and that no more than 50 adult breeding pairs were present
D-6
Section 7 Consultation
in the entire Republic of Mexico. Today, very few, if any, wolves are believed to remain in Mexico (JulioCarrera, personal communication). The objective of the proposed action is to restore two populations ofMexican wolves to the wild to promote the recovery of the subspecies. A captive population of 88 Mexicanwolves is held in 20 zoos or captive breeding centers in the U.S. and 5 facilities in Mexico. There are 75 ani-mals in the U.S. population and 13 in the Mexican population. These are the only Mexican wolves known forcertain to exist. The potential exists to adversely affect the genetic integrity and viability of the captive popula-tion if animals removed from the captive population for reintroduction to the wild subsequently die. Up to50% of reintroduced Mexican wolves can be expected to die (Phillips et al. In Press). However, despite rela-tively high mortality of reintroduced, captive-reared wolves, wild populations can be established, as has beendemonstrated in the red wolf recovery program (Phillips et al. In Press).
Mexican wolves selected for reintroduction will be as genetically redundant with members of the captivepopulation as possible. The captive population is managed for the Service under the American Zoo andAquarium Association’s (AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) program. The AZA maintains a Studbook andprovides a small population management advisor. Management of the demographic and genetic makeup of thepopulation is guided by the SPARKS computer program. Only those individuals whose kinship values areabove the mean for the captive population as a whole will be used for reintroduction. Kinship values, whichrange from 0 to 1, are a measure of the relatedness of an individual to the rest of the population. Wolves withhigher kinship values are genetically well represented in the population. In addition, the PEDPAC computerprogram will be used to identify surplus animals by examining the influence on founder gene survival ofremoving an individual animal from the population. These protocols will adequately protect the geneticintegrity of the captive population and, thus, the continued existence of the subspecies (E. Spevak, New YorkZoological Society-Bronx Zoo; and I? Miller, Species Survival Commission-The World Conservation Union,personal communications). The U.S. captive population of Mexican wolves has approximately doubled in thelast three years, demonstrating the existing reproductive potential to replace Mexican wolves that may diefollowing reintroduction.
Under the draft proposed rule for the experimental population, lethal take would be permitted in defenseof human life and during an actual attack on livestock by wolves (on public lands, the latter provision appliesonly after nonlethal control actions have failed). Since wolves have a strong tendency to avoid humans (Mech1992) and attack less than 1 percent of available livestock (Mack, et al. 1992), negligible take is predictedunder these provisions. Generally, management-related take will be conducted by proven nonlethal methods.Successful reintroduction, monitoring, and management techniques developed by the red wolf and northernRocky Mountain wolf reintroduction projects will be used in the Mexican wolf reintroduction project.
The potential exists for a relatively a high level of initial mortality among reintroduced, captive-rearedMexican wolves. This mortality level is expected to decrease as the proportion of wild-born wolves increases.Lethal take authorized by the special rule for the experimental population is predicted to be negligible. Overthe long term, the combined mortality associated with the adaptation of captive wolves to a wild environmentand authorized lethal take are not expected to preclude the reestablishment of a viable wild population ofMexican wolves. Therefore, while the proposed action may contribute to increased short-term mortality ofMexican wolves, it will ultimately result in the reestablishment of wild populations of Mexican wolves (wherenone currently exist) and, thus, beneficially contribute to the long-term recovery and conservation of thisendangered subspecies.
Todsen’s Pennyroyal, Kuenzler Hedgehog Cactus, Goodding’s Onion, Mimbres Figwort, ArizonaWillow, and Parish’s Alkali Grass - No effect. Mexican wolves will not directly afhect plants. The Service’sproposed action requires no special management measures to improve habitat for Mexican wolves. If landmanaging agencies choose to implement habitat improvement actions for the benefit of Mexican wolves, theSection 7 consultation process would adequately protect threatened and endangered plants.
Gila Topminnow, Gila Trout, Loach Minnow, Beautiful Shiner, Chihuahua Chub, Spikedace, LittleColorado Spinedace, and Apache Trout - No effect. While the consumption of fish by wolves has been
D-7
Section 7 Consultation
documented (Mech 1970), f hIS are not a principal prey species of wolves. The Service’s proposed action re-quires no special management measures to improve habitat for Mexican wolves. If land managing agencieschoose to implement habitat improvement actions for the benefit of Mexican wolves, the Section 7 consulta-tion process would adequately protect threatened and endangered fish species.
Gila Springsnail and New Mexico Hotspring Snail - No effect. No direct or indirect effects to snails as aresult of wolf reintroduction are expected.
Category 2 Candidates - The list of category 2 candidate species provided by the New Mexico EcologicalServices Office has been reviewed and none are expected to be adversely affected by the reintroduction ofMexican wolves.
VIII. Effect determination and response requested:
A. Listed species/critical habitat:
Determination Response requested
no effect(species: black-footed ferret, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, northern aplomado falcon,whooping crane, Gila topminnow, Gila trout, Todsen’s pennyroyal, Kuenzler hedgehog cactus,loach minnow, beautiful shiner, Chihuahua chub, spikedace, and Apache trout)
& concurrence
may effect, is not likely to adversely affect(species: Mexican spotted owl)
X concurrence- formal consultation
may effect, is likely to adversely affect(species: None)
X concurrence- formal consultation
may effect, undetermined effect(species: None)
X concurrence_ informal consultation
B. Proposed species/proposed critical habitat:
Determination Response requested
no effect(species: southwestern willow flycatcher, Arizona willow, and Parish’s alkali grass)
X concurrence
D-8
may effect, is not likely to adversely affect(species: Mexican gray wolf)
x concurrence
Section 7 Consultation
may effect, is likely to adversely affect(species: None)
x concurrence
is likely to jeopardize/adverse modification ofcritical habitat(species: None)
X concurrence- conference
may effect, undetermined effect(species: None)
X concurrence- informal consultation
C. Category 1 and 2 candidate species:
Determination Response requested
no effect(species: goodding’s onion, Mimbres figwort, Gila springsnail, New Mexico hotspring snail,Arizona black-tailed prairie dog, Organ Mountains Colorado chipmunk, White Sands woodrat,hot springs cotton rat, swift fox, occult little brown bat, greater western mastiff bat, spotted bat,ferruginous hawk, Apache northern goshawk, western snowy plover, mountain plover, logger-head shrike, white-faced ibis, Texas horned lizard, Bonita diving beetle, Anthony blister beetle,Los Olmos tiger beetle, White Sands pupfish, Alamo beardtongue, grama grass cactus,Mescalero milkwort, night-blooming cereus, Guadalupe valeria, Kerr’s milk-vetch, nodding cliffdaisy, Organ Mountains evening primrose, Organ Mountains figwort, sand prickly pear,Standley whitlow-wort, Sierra Blanca cliff daisy, southwestern otter, silky pocket mouse, white-sided jackrabbit, northern goshawk, northern gray hawk, Gila chub, Gila roundtail chub,
Sonora sucker, desert sucker, Arizona southwestern toad, Yavapai (lowland) leopard frog,Chiricahua leopard frog, Mexican garter snake, narrow-headed garter snake, Gila groundsel,Hess’ fleabane, rock fleabane, Alamo beardtongue, Duncan’s pincushion cactus, Pinos Altosflameflower, three-nerved scurfpea, slender spiderflower, San Carlos wild buckwheat, Mogollonclover, Nutrioso milkvetch, and White Mountain paintbrush.)
X concurrence
may effect, is not likely to adversely affect(species: None)
X concurrence
may effect, is likely to adversely affect(species: None)
X concurrence
D-9
Section 7 Consultation
may effect, undetermined effect(species: None)
X concurrence- informal consultation
IX. Reviewing o&e evaluation:
A. Concur X N o n c o n c u r r e n c e
B. F o r m a l c o n s u l t a t i o n r e q u i r e d
C. C o n f e r e n c e r e q u i r e d
D . Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):
X . References
Bailey, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey.North American Fauna No. 53:303-3 13.
Bednarz, J. C. 1988. The Mexican wolf: Biology, history, and prospects for reestablishment in New Mexico.Endangered Species Report 18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 7Opp.
Bent, A. C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey - Part 1. Smithsonian Institution UnitedStates National Museum. Bulletin 167.
Bent, A. C. 1938. Life histories of North American birds of prey - Part 2. Smithsonian Institution UnitedStates National Museum. Bulletin 170.
Brown, D. E. 1983. The wolf in the southwest: The making of an endangered species. University of ArizonaPress, Tucson, Arizona. 195~~.
Girmendonk, A. L. 1994. Mexican wolf observation reports, Arizona. Unpublished Report, Arizona Game andFish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 12pp.
Mack, J. A., W. G. Brewster, and S. H. Fritts. 1992. A review of wolf depredation on livestock andimplications for the Yellowstone area. In J. D. Varley and W. G. Brewster, eds. Wolves for Yellowstone? AReport to U.S. Congress, Vol. 4, Research and Analysis. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park,WY.
McBride, R. T. 1980. The Mexican wolf (Canis fupw b&&z): A historical review and observations on its statusand distribution. Endangered Species Report 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 38pp.
Mech, L. D. 1970. The wolf: The ecology and behavior of an endangered species. Natural History Press.Garden City, N.Y. 384~~.
Mech, L. D. 1992. Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf? International Wolf, Fall:3-7.Phillips, M. K., R. Smith, V. G. Henry, and C. Lucash. In Press. Red wolf reintroduction progress. In L. N.
Carbyn, S. H. Fritts, and D. R. Seip, eds. Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world.Canadian Circumpolar Institute, U. Of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Wolok, M. S. 1994. Reported wolf observations in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. Unpublished report, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM IOpp.
D-10
APPENDIX EArizona Game and Fish Department’s Twelve-Step Procedure for
Reestablishment of Nongame and Endangered Species (AGFD 1987)
Activities for Project Originators Function
1. Assess status of species/population Determine feasibility
and available resources. of re-establishment project.
2. Complete re-establishment scorecard, Facilitate priority ranking and preliminary
submit it to Nongame Branch. review from programmatic perspective.
Activities by Nongame Branch Function
3. Prepare proposal abstract, distribute it Elicit broad review of project and of
and scorecard throughout AGFD.possible conflicts or effects on other
programs, projects, etc.
4. Submit briefing memo to AGFCthrough AGFD Director. No general
Provide AGFC with background
press release.on potential project.
5. Review AGFD comments and develop Identify and address any specific
project checklist. Submit summary to concerns and actions necessary to mitigate
AGFD Director. them; determine whether to proceed with orto reject the projects
6. Solicit comment on project conceptfrom public and appropriate agencies,
Communicate goals, provide early
organizations.awareness of intent.
7. Discuss project and public input and Determine appropriate action; terminate
AGFD recommendations with AGFC. project or proceed. Inform public of decision.
8. Prepare re-establishment proposal.Distribute for review both inside and
Document specifics of proposal project.
outside AGFD, and submit to AGFC.Elicit philosophical, technical review.
9. Summarize comment, revise proposaland complete AGFD Environmental Ensure NEPA compliance and requisiteChecklist. If necessary, draft coordination with existing programs, projects.Environmental Assessment orImpact Statement.
10. Submit final draft project proposal for Provide for peer, agency
outside review and to AGFC. and public comment.
11. Summarize comment, review proposal. Ensure policy review, compliance with
Submit final project proposal to AGFD procedures and determine final approval or
Director for action. denial of proposal.
12. Notify AGFC and public of decision. Provide information on decision and notice ol
project implementation schedule.
E - l
Background
Summary of Wolf
APPENDIX FInformation on Livestock Depredation Projections
Depredation on Wolf depredation on livestock other than cattleis low in Alberta, primarily because other types oflivestock are not exposed to depredation within wolfrange (M.J. Dorrance, Alberta Agriculture, pers.comm.). Sheep (including adults and lambs) killedor injured by wolves in Alberta ranged from 1-127,or an average of 31 per year from 1974 to 1990.Numbers of sheep in wolf range are not available butare roughly estimated at around 10,000 head.
Domestic Livestock in Other Areas
(Note: Based on pages 4-7 through 4-14 of USFWS1994c).
Alberta
In Alberta, estimates of cattle (including adults andcalves) within wolf range varied from 300,000 from1974-l 979 (Gunson 1983) to about 235,000 from1980 to 199 1 (M.J. Dorrance, Alberta Agriculture,pers. comm.). Published estimates of the totalnumber of sheep within wolf range in Alberta arenot available, but are substantially fewer than cattle,perhaps about 10,000 head (M.J. Dorrance, AlbertaAgriculture, pers comm.). An estimated 1,500wolves live in the area in which wolves and livestockboth range. Alberta has a wolf control program inwhich wolves that kill livestock are controlled byprovincial personnel. Landowners also may killwolves on their property at any time.
Losses of livestock to wolves were highly variableamong years, between areas, and among operators.Cattle killed or injured annually by wolves inAlberta range from 22 adults and 34 calves to 217adults and 296 calves for an average of 76 adults and159 calves per year from 1974 to 1990. These levelsrepresent 0.29-l .65 cattle killed or injured/l ,000available or 0.029%-O. 165% with an annual averageof 0.089% of the cattle living within wolf range(Mack et al. 1992). Wolves apparently selected calvesand yearlings over adults. Calves represent 49%-87%of cattle killed by wolves.
All major predators selected calves over adults.However, unlike bear depredation which peaked inearly spring (coinciding with bear emergence fromdens) or coyote depredation which peaked coinci-dent with calving, wolf depredation peaked inAugust and September. This coincides with wildungulate calves and fawns maturing and increasedfood demands from growing pups before they arecompletely mobile and can hunt with the pack(Dorrance 1982).
From 1974 to 1980, swine, goats, and poultrycomprised 4% of the total livestock killed by wolvesfor which farmers were compensated (J.R. Gunson,Alberta Fish and Wildlife, unpubl. data) and 1% oftotal livestock killed by wolves from 1981 to 1990(M.J. Dorrance, Alberta Agriculture, unpubl. data).Coyotes were responsible for 99.98% of the losses ofthese classes of livestock (primarily poultry) during1990-1991 (M.J. Dorrance, Alberta Agriculture,pers. comm.).
Livestock operators are compensated for live-stock killed by wild predators. Losses are compen-sated up to 100°/o of commercial value for confirmedkills and up to 50% of commercial value for prob-able kills. From 1972 through 1989 the number ofapproved claims for the entire Province ranged from22 in 1972 to 79 in 1975 with an annual average of53 claims. Compensation paid under this programduring the same period ranged from $14,993 in1972 to $115,296 in 1982 with an annual average of$46,227 (Alberta Forestry, Land and Wildlife 1991).During this time the wolf population averaged about1,500 animals.
The Simonette River experimental area involvedremote wooded grazing leases on provincial lands inwest central Alberta. Moose, elk, white-tailed andmule deer were common, as were coyotes, black bearand wolves. Pastures were small and isolated andwere in, or adjacent to, territories of four wolf packs.The evaluation was conducted from 1975 through1980. There was no wolf control during the first 4years and livestock operators were compensated for100% of value for livestock killed by predators and80% for missing cattle. Government wolf controlwas resumed in the winter of 1979-1980. Estimatedwolf numbers were 14-15 in 1975 and 39-40 wolves
F-l
in 1979-1980; wolves were reduced to 12-13 in thewinter of 1979-80.
Total cattle deaths from all causes (includingmissing animals), from an average of about 2,000cattle present, increased from 2.9% in 1976 to 3.7%in 1979; total cattle mortality was 2.5% in 1980following wolf control. Of 38 cases where cause ofdeath was known, 42% was due to wolf depredation,11% from black bear depredation, and 47% fromnon-predator causes. Deaths and injuries due to wolfdepredation ranged from one to 27 per year with anannual average of eleven. Loss rates, due to wolfdepredation ranged from 0.55 to 17.33/1,000 headof livestock available with an annual average of0.59?&
Minnesota
Wolves frequently encounter livestock in Minnesotawithout depredations occurring (Fritts and Mech198 1). In Minnesota, the USDA Animal DamageControl division administers a wolf control programin response to complaints of wolf depredation ondomestic livestock. Wolves are controlled on areactive site-specific basis where complaints oflivestock depredation by wolves are verified (Fritts1982). The estimated population of wolves inMinnesota is about 1,500-l ,750 (Fuller et al. 1992).
From 1979 to 199 1, an average of 23 calves andfour adult cattle were killed or injured by wolveseach year (Mack et al. 1992). Calves comprised 85%and adults 15%. Depredation rates for cattle rangedfrom 0.04/1,000 to 0.18/1,000 with an annualaverage of 0.12/ 1,000 or 0.0 12% of those available.
Sheep losses from l979- 199 1 ranged from I to112/year and averaged 50/year in Minnesota. Therate of sheep killed or injured ranged from 0.03/1 ,OOO-7.04/ 1,000 with an annual average of 2.1111,000 or 0.211% of those available. A higherproportion of lambs than adults were killed. Com-pensation payments averaged 22.5/year for adultsheep versus 5 1.5/year for lambs or a 1:2.3 adult tolamb ratio (Fritts et al. 1992).
Depredations varied widely among years. Annualvariation in verified livestock losses in Minnesotaranged from one to nine adult cattle and eight to 35calves with an average of four adults and 23 calves.Annual variation for sheep was greater.
Background Information on Livestock Depradation
Average number of animals killed or woundedper verified complaint was 1.2 for cattle and 4.4 forsheep. Annual variation in the number of cattlereported killed by wolves ranged from one to 17adults and twelve to 98 calves with an annual aver-age of 27 cattle killed or injured per year. Reportedsheep losses ranged from one to 242 with an annualaverage of 50 sheep verified as killed by wolves. Onaverage, 55% of the reported claims of losses towolves could be verified (Fritts et al. 1992).
Verified complaints of depredations average 30per year and affected an average of 2 1 farms (0.33%of producers) annually. Conflicts were highly sea-sonal and involved primarily cattle (mainly calves),sheep, and turkeys. Number of operators affectedalso varied considerably from year to year.
Livestock producers in Minnesota are compen-sated for verified complaints of wolf depredation onlivestock by the Minnesota Department of Agricul-ture. From 1977 through 1989, compensationpayments have ranged from a low of $8,668 in 1977(the first year of the program) to a high of $43,664in 1989 with an annual average of $23,715 (Fritts etaI. 1992). During 1990, 1991, and 1992, $42,739,$32,266, and $17,922 ($11,340 pending) were paidin compensation, respectively. During 1989, 1990,and 199 1, turkeys comprised large portion of thelosses (as discussed above) with 1,866, 1,170 and1,075 turkeys confirmed dead as a result of wolves inthose years (often turkeys mass in corners of pensand many suffocate). The wolf population averagedabout 1,460 animals during this time.
Northwestern Montana
A small population of wolves has been recolonizingnorthwestern Montana since the early 1980s. Thefirst reproduction was documented in 1986 withinGlacier National Park, Montana. From 1987 to1992 wolves killed an average of three cattle and twosheep per year. Depredation rates on cattle rangedfrom 0 to 0.08/1,000 with an average of 0.04/1,000or 0.004% of those available. Depredation rates onsheep ranged from 0 to 0.88/ 1,000 with an averageof 0.18/ 1,000 or 0.0 18% of those available (Macket al. 1992). The wolf population averaged about 44animals during this time.
F-2
Background Information on Livestock Depradation
68,000 households with dogs that may be exposedto wolves, 47 complaints of wolf-dog interactionwere received from 1979 through 1987. In 60% ofthe reports, wolf killing or wounding of dogs wasverified. In all other incidents it was verified thateither no damage resulted or wolves were not in-volved. Verified complaints ranged from one to sixreports per year with an annual average of 3.1. Thisis a rate of 0.04 incidents per 1,000 households - orone incident per 22,000 households - per year.
Summary
A review of several areas in North America (Mack etal. 1922) indicates that wolf depredation is highlyvariable among years and within areas. Overall, therate of wolf depredation on domestic livestock acrosslarge geographic areas is very low, averaging usuallyless than 0.1% of livestock within wolf range.
Cattle and sheep are the species most a&ected inAlberta, Montana, and Minnesota (with the excep-tion of turkeys in Minnesota). Recent developmentof large free ranging turkey growing operationswithin wolf range in Minnesota has resulted inturkeys constituting about 75% of the livestocklosses to wolves in some recent years and accountingfor most of the increase in losses (Fritts et al. 1992).In all areas, losses of adult cattle are much lower thanthat of calves. The loss of adult sheep versus lambsvaries by area and by year, and ranged from 42%lambs in Alberta (Gunson 1983) to 70% lambs inMinnesota (Fritts et al. 1992). Losses of sheep percapita available are higher than cattle losses.
On average, wolf depredation affects a smallnumber of available livestock and a small percentageof livestock operators, usually less than 1% of thelivestock operators in an area each year. In most areaswhere livestock live with wolves few operatorsactually lose livestock to wolves. However, while onan industry-wide basis the loss of livestock to wolfdepredation is very small, a few individual operatorsmay be quite adversely affected in any one yearbecause these few operators may sustain a largeportion of the annual loss within a large geographicarea.
Wolf Depredation on Domestic Dog
Wolves on rare occasions kill domestic dogs. Tompa(1983) indicated that in British Columbia from1978-l 980 there were 13 wolf/dog related com-plaints with 29 dogs killed or injured by wolves.During the three years, all 29 dogs killed or injuredwere attacked between October and March.
Fritts and Paul (1989) reported on wolf/domes-tic dog interactions in Minnesota. Generally, ruralresidences and those at the edge of small communi-ties in areas of high wolf populations seemed mostlikely to experience problems. No seasonal patternwas evident in Minnesota. In an area with about
Summary of Livestock DepredationSurvey Responses
A written survey was conducted in late 1993 with 20experts who were chosen for their knowledge oflivestock, wolves, or of the proposed Mexican wolfrecovery areas (USFWS I994b). The subject wasprojecting rates of future livestock depredation byMexican wolves. The focus question was whethersome multiplier should be applied when projectinglikely depredation rates in the Southwest based oncomparison with known depredation rates fromnorthern areas where wolves and livestock co-exist,i.e., Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana. If therespondents felt a multiplier was appropriate theywere asked to be as quantitative as possible in de-scribing how it should be determined. If they didnot feel a multiplier was appropriate, they wereasked to explain why. The FWS had suggested a“length-of-grazing-season” multiplier to account fordifferences in grazing seasons and the respondentswere asked to comment on it.
Seven of the 20 respondents stated it wasunfeasible or inappropriate for them to propose aparticular multiplier or a method to determine one;three of these felt that the FWS’s proposed muhi-plier resulted in depredation projections that werefar too low. One respondent stated he lacked evi-dence that a multiplier was necessary and he lackedevidence that depredation rates would be higher orlower in the Southwest than in the northern com-parison areas. No respondents believed that depreda-tion rates would be lower in the Southwest.
Three respondents stated the FWS’s suggested“length-of-grazing-season” multiplier was basicallyappropriate. Eight other respondents (plus oneconcurring verbally) suggested their own methods todetermine an appropriate multiplier, with various
F-3
caveats. Two of these made suggestions ondetermination methods but did not propose aparticular multiplier or range. Six respondentsproposed particular multipliers or ranges. Most ofthese multipliers were higher than the basic length-of-grazing-season multiplier FWS had initiallysuggested. The multipliers proposed ranged from 1.2to 3.5 times the northern area rates.
Specific factors cited by the six respondents asjustifying their particular multipliers for livestockdepredation in the Southwest, besides the FWSproposed length-of-grazing-season adjustment,included: more calving on the open range, highercattle density, lower wild prey availability, difficultyof locating missing livestock, the “startup” effects of
Background Information on Livestock Depradation
having a small wolf population with exposure to asmall number of cows and not having rates that canbe averaged over larger areas and over several years,the effect of non-fatal wounding of livestock bywolves, and the lack of feeding pastures in theSouthwest.
Based on these survey responses, the FWS hascalculated low and high range depredation estimatesfor each designated wolf recovery area (Box 4-3;Table 4-3 summarizes the calculations in Tables F- 1and F-2, below.) Because there are no livestock inthe WSWRA primary recovery zone (Ah. B), nocalculations are presented for that area, as the esti-mated depredation is zero.
Low and High Range Estimates of Mexican Wolf Depredation
Table F- 1. Low range of estimated annual number of cattle killed after Mexican wolf re-establishment basedon comparison with Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas.
Notes: Estimates are calculated by using the livestock depredation comparison equation developed for the YellowstonelCentral Idahowolf remtroduction EIS (USFWS 1994 c , modified by using a length-of-grazing-season multiplier (abbreviated as LOGSM) for each)potential reintroduction area (see Box 4-3).
Mexican WolfComparison Area
Recovery Area
BRWRA Primary andSecondary Recovery Zonescombined (Ah. A and C)- 82,6I 7 cat&- 1 0 0 wolves
LOGSM = 1.5
Alberta Minnesota
7.5 1.0
Montana
11.3
BRWRA PrimaryRecovery Zone(Ah. B)- IO, 494 cattle
20 wolvesLOGSM = 1.5
WSWRA Primary andSecondary Recovery Zonescombined(Ah. A)- 3,220 cattle- 2 0 WOLVCS
LOGSM = 2
0.2
0.08
0.03 0.3
0 . 0 1 0 . 1
F-4
Background Information on Livestock Depradation
Table F-2. High range of estimated annual number of cattle killed after Mexican wolf reestablishment based
on comparison with Alberta, Minnesota, and Montana study areas.
Notes: Estimates are calculated by using the livestock depredation comparison formula developed for the Yellowstone/Central Idahowolf reintroduction draft EIS (USFWS 1994c), modified by the use of a multiplier. The multiplier is derived by adding 3.0 to the
area’s length-of-grazing-season multiplier (abbreviated as LOGSM) (see Box 4-3).
Mexican WolfRecoverv Area Alberta
Comparison Area
Minnesota Montana
BRWRA Primary andSecondary Recovery Zonescombined (Alt.s A and C)- 82,617 cattle- 100 wolves
22.5 3.0 33.9
LOGSM + 3.0 = 4.5
BRWRA PrimaryRecovery Zone(Ah. B)- IO, 494 cattle- 20 wolves
LOGSM + 3.0 = 4.5
0.6 0.1 0.9
WSWRA Primary andSecondary Recovery Zonescombined(Ah. A)- 3,220 cattie- 20 wolves
LOGSM + 3.0 = 5.0
0.2 0.03 0.3
F-5
APPENDIX GGlossarv
Alternatives Different ways that the Mexican wolfcould be re-established and managed withinits former range in the southwestern UnitedStates. Four alternatives are developed andanalyzed in depth in the Mexican wolf FEIS.
Breedingpair An adult male and an adult femalewolf that have produced at least two pupsthat survived until December 31 of the yearof their birth, during the previous breedingseason.
Compensation Payment to owners of livestock thathad livestock killed or maimed by wolves tocompensate for the market value of thelivestock.
Control Deliberate planned management of wolvesto minimize human-wolf conflict. Thisincludes establishing barriers (i.e., noisemakers, guard dogs, moving and herdinglivestock, or building fences), harassingwolves, aversive conditioning of wolves,capturing problem wolves and releasing andmonitoring them on site, capturing problemwolves and relocating them to other areas,placing problem wolves in captivity, oreuthanizing problem wolves.
Critical habitat The specific areas within the geo-graphical areas occupied by a species at thetime it is listed on which are found thephysical or biological features essential to theconservation of the species and which mayrequire special management considerationsor protection. By law, critical habitat can notbe designated for nonessential experimentalpopulations and it is not proposed for theMexican wolf.
Del& To remove a species, subspecies, or populationfrom the federal list of threatened speciesand endangered species and subsequentprotection of the Endangered Species Act(ESA). This action, in effect, places thespecies, subspecies or population undermanagement authority of the states or tribes.
Depredation The confirmed killing or maiming oflawfully present domestic livestock onfederal, state, tribal, or other public lands, orprivate lands by one or more wolves. TheFish and Wildlife Service (FWS), AnimalDamage Control @DC), or FWS-autho-rized state or tribal agencies will confirmkilling or maiming of domestic livestock.
Disturbance-causing land use activity Any land useactivity that could adversely affect reproduc-tive success or any other natural wolf behav-ior in a way that may reduce the affectedwolf’s chances of survival and may, therefore,be temporarily restricted within a one-mileradius of release pens, active dens, andrendezvous sites. Such activities may include,but are not limited to: timber or woodharvesting, management-ignited fire, miningor mine development, camping outsidedesignated campgrounds, livestock drives,off-road vehicle use, hunting, and any otheruse or activity with similar potential todisturb wolves. The activities specificallyexcluded from this definition are: legaliypermitted livestock grazing and use of watersources by livestock; livestock drives if noreasonable alternative route or timing exists;vehicle access over established roads toprivate property and to areas where legallypermitted activities are ongoing if no reason-able alternative route exists; use of landswithin the national park or national wildliferefuge systems as safety buffer zones formilitary activities; prescribed natural fireexcept in the vicinity of release pens; and anyauthorized, specific land use that was activeand ongoing at the time wolves chose tolocate a den or rendezvous site nearby.
Domestic animals Any animal purposely raised (fed,cared for, and sheltered) by humans andusually dependent upon humans for itssurvival. This would include livestock, food/fiber animals, captive game animals, fowl,working animals, guarding animals, and pets.
G-l
Downiist A change of the classification of wolvesfrom “endangered” to “threatened.”
Endangered species Any species which is in danger ofextinction throughout all or a significantportion of its range and which is formallylisted as endangered under the ESA.
Endangered Species Act of IP73, as amended. 16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq. (ESA) Congressional Actwhich provides for the listing, protection,and recovery of endangered and threatenedfish, wildlife, and plants.
Engaged in the act of killing, wounding, or bitinglivestock To be engaged in the pursuit andgrasping, biting, attacking, wounding, orfeeding upon livestock that are alive. Ifwolves are observed feeding on livestockcarcasses it cannot be assumed that wolveskilled the livestock until investigation byproper authorities has confirmed that wolveswere responsible for that or other livestocklosses in the immediate area (l-mile radius).
Experimentalpopulation A 1982 amendment to theESA established the experimental populationdesignation (Section 1 O(j)) and defined anexperimental population as: “. . . any popula-tion (including any offspring arising solelytherefrom) authorized by the Secretary forrelease under paragraph (2), but only when,and at such times as, the population iswholly separate geographically fromnonexperimental populations of the samespecies.” The term applies to populationsthat are derived from endangered or threat-ened species for which the Secretary ofInterior has determined that a release willfurther the conservation of that species. Theexperimental population designation allowsfor more flexible management for introducedendangered species or threatened species.
fiperimentalpopukztion area Designating an experi-mental population must include a descrip-tion of the area in which such populationwill be found and where it will be identifiedas experimental. This establishes the areawithin which the experimental population
Glossary
rule applies. Outside those boundaries thegray wolf (except in Minnesota) is protectedas an endangered species. The experimentalpopulation area must be geographicallyseparate from areas containing existing wolfpopulations.
Experimentalpopulation rule Designation of anexperimental population includes the devel-opment of a special rule to identify geo-graphically the location of the experimentalpopulation and identify, where appropriate,procedures to be utilized in its management.A special rule for each experimental popula-tion is developed on a case-by-case basis.Development of the special rule includespublication of the proposed regulation in theFederal Register, public comment on theproposed regulation, and publication of thefinal regulation prior to reintroduction ofexperimental populations. The proposedMexican wolf experimental population ruleis in Appendix C of the FEIS.
Harass According to the ESA implementing regula-tions, harass is defined as “intentional ornegligent act or omission which creates thelikelihood of injury to the wildlife by annoy-ing it to such an extent as to significantlydisrupt normal behavioral patterns whichinclude, but are not limited to breeding,feeding, or sheltering” (50 CFR 17.3). Forthe purposes of this EIS and the proposedexperimental population rule, only “oppor-tunistic, noninjurious harassment” (seedefinition below) is permitted and it islimited to approaching wolves on foot,horseback, or nonmotorized or motorizedvehicle (no closer than 20 feet); dischargingfirearms or other projectile launching devicesin proximity to but not in the direction ofwolves; throwing objects in the generaldirection of but not at wolves; or makingany loud noise in proximity to wolves. Thebasic intent is to scare or chase wolves fromthe immediate area without causing physicalinjuries. The circumstances under whichmembers of the experimental population ofMexican wolves may be harassed are de-scribed in the Proposed Action in Chap. 2 of
G-2
the FEIS and in Appendix C, the proposedexperimental population rule.
Hard rekase The immediate and direct release ofwolves into a new environment.
Impact on game populations in ways which may inhibit-fbtber wolf recovery States and tribes areencouraged to describe unacceptable impactson game populations in their managementplans subject to FWS approval Until suchtime the term will mean the following: Twoconsecutive years with a cumulative 35percent decrease in population or hunterharvest estimates for a particular species ofungulate in a game management unit ordistinct herd segment compared to the pre-wolf five-year average (unit or herd mustcontain average of greater than 100 animals).If wolf predation is shown to be a primarycause of ungulate population declines(greater than 50 percent of documentedadult or young mortality), then wolves maybe moved to reduce ungulate mortality ratesand assist in herd recovery, but only inconjunction with application of othercommon, professionally acceptable, wildlifemanagement techniques.
Incidental take (see below for full definition of“take” for this EIS) The taking (killing,wounding,- maiming, injuring, or physicallyharming) of wolves, under permit or condi-tions established by the FWS in an experi-mental population rule, that occurs acci-dently and despite reasonable care duringotherwise legal activities (e.g., as the result oflegal activities and in conjunction with ADCcontrol activities for other species). Withinan experimental population area all wolvestaken under the conditions permitted by theexperimental population rule by agencies orthe public will not be considered take underthe ESA. All wolves taken outside the provi-sions of the experimental population rulewill be considered take under the ESA.
Land use restrictions Restrictions on human activitieson land. Such restrictions are used for a widevariety of purposes. Relatively few such
Glossary
restrictions are required to successfullyrecover wolf populations unless human-caused mortality of wolves is unusually high.Examples of the types of restrictions thathave been used by natural resource managersto assist in wolf population management areclosures to reduce human access to wolf densor rendezvous sites or prohibition on certaintypes of motorized access. Land-use restric-tions also include restrictions on certainhuman activities in the habitat of an endan-gered or threatened species in order tocomply with Section 7 of the ESA. Thatsection requires that “Each Federal agencyshall, in consultation with and with theassistance of the Secretary, insure that anyaction authorized, funded, or carried out bysuch agency (herein after in this sectionreferred to as an “agency action”) is notlikely to jeopardize the continued existenceof any endangered species or threatenedspecies or result in the destruction or adversemodification of habitat of such species whichis determined by the Secretary, after consul-tation as appropriate with affected States, tobe critical, unless such agency has beengranted an exemption for such action. . . .”In nonessential experimental populationareas the section 7 requirements of ESA onlyapply inside national parks and nationalwildlife refuges.
Livestock Cattle, sheep, horses, mules, and burros.The states and tribes may better define andpossibly expand the definition of livestock intheir wolf management plans given thecriteria that the FWS has established thatlivestock must be large enough to be capableof sustaining wounds that can be determinedto be caused by wolves and must be reason-ably likely to be prey items for wolves.
M-44 cyanide devices A 3-component, spring-activated ejector device developed specificallyto kill coyotes and other canine predators.Components consist of (1) a capsule holderwrapped with fur, cloth, or wool, (2) ejectormechanism, and (3) a hollow tube (to bedriven into the ground) for holding theejector mechanism. When the capsule holder
G-3
is pulled, a spring-activated device propels -sodium cyanide into the animal’s mouthcausing its death. The EPA registration andADC policy do not allow the use of thesedevices in areas known to be occupied bylisted species that may be killed by them.
Mexican Wolflccovey Plan A document preparedby the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team, agroup of individuals with expertise regardingthe biological and habitat requirements ofthe Mexican wolf, outlining the tasks andactions necessary to recover the subspecieswithin parts of its former range. The originalplan was completed in 1982. The revisedRecovery Plan is under preparation.
National Environmental Poliq Act (NEPA) An Actpassed by Congress in 1969 which is thebasic national charter for protection of theenvironment. NEPA established a processthat requires consideration of environmentalconsequences for federal actions. Proceduresensure &a: hi-$ “..-I: ‘------~-lfi’ cpulty envilulllllrllLalinformation is available to public officialsand citizens before federal decisions are madeand actions are taken. Specifically, theresponsible federal official must submit adetailed report on “major federal actionssignificantly affecting the quality of thehuman environment” prior to taking suchactions. The EIS process is a primary meansof meeting NEPA requirements.
Nonessential Under the provisions of the 1982amendment of the ESA (Section 10(j))which authorizes reintroductions of experi-mental populations, experimental popula-tions must be designated either “essential” or“nonessential. ” “Nonessential” refers to anexperimental population whose loss wouldnot be likely to appreciably reduce thelikelihood of the survival of the species.Except in national wildlife refuges or na-tional parks, “nonessential” populations aretreated under Section 7 of the ESA as “pro-posed species.” Thus, federal agencies mustonly confer with the FWS on activities thatthe agencies believe might jeopardize thespecies. Moreover, the agencies would be
Glossary
under no obligation under Section 7(a)(2) toavoid actions likely to jeopardize the species.In national parks and national wildliferefuges they are treated as threatened species.Congress expected that most experimentalpopulations would be considered “nones-sential.”
Nonexperimental wolves Wolves receiving all protec-tions accorded an endangered species underthe ESA as distinguished from wolves thatare members of an experimental population.
Occupied Mexican wolfrange Area of confirmedpresence of residenr breeding packs or pairsof wolves or area consistently used by at leastone resident wolf over a period of at leastone month. Confirmation of Mexican wolfpresence is to be made or corroborated bythe FWS. Exact delineation of the area willbe described by: (1) 5-mile radius around alllocations of wolves and wolf sign confirmedas described above (non radio-monitored),(2) j-miie radius around radio iocations ofresident wolves when fewer than 20 radiolocations are available (for radio-monitoredwolves only), or (3) 3-mile radius around theconvex polygon developed from more than20 radio locations of a pack, pair, or singlewolf taken over a period of at least sixmonths (for radio-monitored wolves). Thisdefinition applies only within the Mexicanwolf experimental population area.
Opportunistic, noninjurious harassment (see ‘harass’~This is the only type of harassment permit-ted under the proposed experimental popu-lation rule. Opportunistic means as the wolfpresents itself (i.e., the wolf travels onto andis observed on private land or near livestock).A wolf could not be tracked through snow orby dogs and then harassed or harassed byaircraft. A wolf could not be chased andharassed for an extended period of time (over15 minutes). Any permissible harassmentmust not cause bodily injury, maiming,or death.
G-4
Pack A group of wolves, usually consisting of amale, female, and their offspring from one ormore generations.
Population (of non-reintroduced wild wolves) At leasttwo breeding pairs of wild wolves success-fully raising at least two young each year(until December 3 1 of the year of theirbirth), for two consecutive years in anexperimental population area.
Potential natural recolonization area U.S. areasconsidered most suitable for possible naturalwolf immigration from Mexico in the eventthat remaining source populations exist inMexico.
Preferred Alternative The alternative which theagency believes would fulfill its statutorymission and responsibilities, giving consider-ation to economic, environmental, technicaland other factors.
Primary recovery zone An area in which wolves areproposed for release, and to which they maybe returned and re-released if necessary, andwhere managers will actively support recov-ery of the reintroduced population.
Problem wolves Wolves that have depredated on1awfLlly present domestic livestock or othermembers of a group or pack of wolvesincluding adults, yearlings, and young-of-the-year that were directly involved in thedepredations; or fed upon the livestockremains that were a result of the depredation;or were fed by or are dependent upon adultsinvolved with the depredations (becausebefore these young animals mature to wherethey can survive on their own, they willtravel with the pack and learn the pack’sdepredation habits). Wolves that havedepredated on domestic animals other thanlivestock, two times in an area within oneyear. Wolves that are habituated to humans,human residences, or other facilities.
ProposedAction The action put forth by the Fishand Wildlife Service, after considering inputfrom the public, experts, and affected agen-
Glossary
ties, as the most reasonable way to re-establish and manage the Mexican wolfwithin its former range in the southwesternUnited States. It is one of the alternativesdeveloped in the DEIS.
Public Land Land under administration of federalagencies including, but not limited to, theUSDI National Park Service, USDI Bureauof Land Management, USDI Fish andWildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, USDepartment of Energy, and US Departmentof Defense. For purposes of Mexican wolfmanagement, public land also includesportions of state lands that are interspersedwithin the boundaries of federal public land.
Recovery The act or process of restoring threatenedor endangered species to a non-threatenedand non-endangered status.
Reintroduction The release of animals into an areathat was part of their probable historicgeographic range, but from which they havedeclined or disappeared, for the purpose ofestablishing a new wild population.
Removefiom the wild Capture and placement intocaptivity or euthanasia of wolves.
Rendezvous site A gathering and activity area regu-larly used by a litter of young wolf pups afterthey have emerged from the den. Typically,the site is used for a period ranging fromabout one week to one month in the sum-mer. Several sites may be used in succession.
Seconhy recovery zone An area adjacent to a pri-mary recovery zone which is not proposedfor wolf releases, but to which releasedwolves are allowed to disperse (except underAlternative B, herein), and where managerswill actively support recovery of the reintro-duced population.
So@ release The release of wolves to the wild from atemporary confinement facility where theywere held to acclimate them to the generalarea of the release. Soft release is a relativeterm depending largely on the duration of
G-5
Glossary
would include striking a wolf with an auto-mobile or capturing a wolf in a trap setobviously for another species. NOTE:Shooting a wolf when the individual statesthey believed it to be an animal other than awolf, does not qualify as unavoidable orunintentional take. This is consistent withmost state laws where killing of wild animalsor domestic animals because of mistakenidentity is illegal. Shooters have the responsi-bility to be sure of their targets.
holding at the release site and the freedom ofthe wolves to conduct basic biologicalactivities.
Take The ESA defines “take” as: “to harass, harm,pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,capture, or collect, or to attempt to engagein any such conduct” (16 USC sec.1532( 19)). See above definition of Harasswhich includes definition of permittedharassment, and see definition of Unavoid-able and Unintentional Take below.
Threatened species Any species which is likely tobecome an endangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or a signifi-cant portion of its range.
Toxicants A poison or poisonous substance.
Unavoidable and unintentional take Accidental, non-negligent take (see above definition of take)which occurs despite reasonable care, isincidental to otherwise lawful activity andwithout the purpose to do so. Examples
Viable population or minimum viable population ofwolves (population viabiliq) The number,distribution, and persistence of wolvesconsidered necessary for a population tohave a reasonable likelihood of survival forthe foreseeable future. Population goals arebeing formulated in the revision of theMexican Wolf Recovery Plan.
Wolf Recovery Area A designated area where manag-ers will actively support re-establishment ofwolf populations.
G-6
APPENDIX HLiterature Cited
Alberta Forestry, Land and Wildlife. 1991.Management plan for wolves in Alberta. Wildlifemanagement planning series number 4. Forestry,Lands and Wildl., Fish and Wildl. Div.,Edmonton, Alberta.
Allen, L. 1993. Background and livestockdepredation information. Unpublished data,Coronado National Forest, Tucson, AZ.
American Veterinary Medical Association. 1993.Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J.Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 202:229-249.
Anonymous. 1993. Coronado National Memorialfact sheet. Coronado National Memorial,AZ. 2pp.
Anonymous. 1992. White Sands Missile Range.MARCOA Publ., San Diego, CA. 36pp.
Anonymous. 1989. Secretary of Defense 1989Conservation Award Report, Fort Huachuca,Arizona. Fort Huachuca, AZ. 42pp.
Anonymous. 1987a. The Jornada ExperimentalRange, Las Cruces, New Mexico. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Agricultural ResearchService, Las Cruces, NM. 21pp.
Anonymous. 1987b. Statement for tnanagement,Chiricahua National Memorial. U.S. Departmentof Interior, National Park Service, ChiricahuaNattonal Memorial, AZ. 28pp.
Anonymous. 1985. Fauna1 and floral conservation inLatin America and the Caribbean - A report toCongress on implementation of the WesternHemisphere Convention. 82pp.
Ardura, A.C. 1992. Probabilities of extinction of theMexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyz] and guidelinesfor its genetic and demographic management.Dissertation submitted to the Jersey WildlifePreservation Trust and the University of Kent atCanterbury, England. 5 5pp.
Arizona Department of Commerce. Undated.Greenlee County business retention andexpansion program, summary report.Unpublished report, Arizona Department ofCommerce, Cooperative Extension. 9pp.
Arizona Department of Economic Security. 1993.Workforce development planning information.Unpublished report, Arizona Department ofEconomic Security, Phoenix, AZ. 243~~.
Arizona Department of Health Services, DiseasePrevention Services. 1994. Rabies in Arizona.Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases newsletter.Phoenix, AZ.
Arizona Game and Fish Commission. 1993. Arizonagame survey and harvest data summary 1993.Unpublished report, Arizona Game and FishDepartment, Phoenix, AZ.
Arizona Game and Fish Department. In prep.Wildlife of Special Concern. AGFD, Phoenix,AZ.
-. 1994a. Predator and prey population trendsand management information. Unpublishedreport, AGFD, Phoenix, AZ. 9pp.
-. 1994b. Predator population estimates.Unpublished report, AGFD, Phoenix, AZ. lp.
-. 1987. Procedures for nongame wildlife andendangered species re-establishment projects inArizona. Non-game and Endangered WildlifeDivision, AGFD, Phoenix, AZ. 16pp.
Bailey, V. 193 1. Mammals of New Mexico. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Bureau of BiologicalSurvey, Washington, D.C. North American FaunaNo. 53:303-313.
-. 1907. Wolves in relation to stock, game, andthe National Forest Reserves. U.S. Department ofAgriculture Forest Service Bull. 72: l-3 1.
-. 1905. Biological survey of Texas. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Bureau of BiologicalSurvey, Washington, D.C. No. Amer. Fauna25:1-222.
Baldwin, J. 1995. Letter dated January 20 fromGlenwood Ranger District, Gila National Forest,to Peter Jenkins, Mexican Wolf EIS Coordinator,Center for Wildlife Law, University of NewMexico School of Law, Albuquerque, NM.
Barry, D., L. Harroun, and C. Halvorson. 1992. Theconsultation process under the EndangeredSpecies Act. Unpublished report, World WildlifeFund, Washington, DC. 12pp.
Beattie, M., and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDirectorate. 1994. Memorandum to all Serviceemployees regarding ecosystem approach to fishand wildlife conservation, dated Mar. 8, 1994.
Bednarz, J.C. 1989. An evaluation of the ecologicalpotential of White Sands Missile Range to
H - l
support a reintroduced population of Mexicanwolves. Endangered Species Report 19. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 96pp.
-. 1988. The Mexican wolf: biology, history andprospects for reestablishment in New Mexico.Endangered Species Report No. 18, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 7Opp.
Bertram, J.B. 1992. An examination of faunalmaterials from two archaeological sites insouthern New Mexico (LA8673 and LA8697)with emphasis on the recognition of wolf remains.Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Albuquerque, NM. lbpp.
Big Bend National Park. 1992. Environmentalassessment addressing impacts of a proposedrelocation of a segment of the Laguna Meadowtrail, Big Bend National Park, Texas. Office ofResources Management, Big Bend National Park,TX. 28 pp.
Big Bend Natural History Association. 1989.Mammal checklist. Pamphlet, Big Bend NationalPark, TX.
Biggs, J.R. 1988. Reintroduction of the Mexicanwolf into New Mexico - An attitude survey.Masters thesis, New Mexico State University, LasCruces, NM. 66pp.
Bissonette, J.A. 1982. Ecology and social behavior ofthe collared peccary in Big Bend National Park.National Park Service Sci. Monogr. 16, Wash.,D.C. 85 pp.
Bjorge, R.D., and J.R. Gunson. 1985. Evaluation ofwolf control to reduce cattle depredation inAlberta. J. Range Manage. 38:483-87.
Bogan, M.A., and I? Mehlhop. 1980. Systematicrelationships of gray wolves (Canis lupus) insouthwestern North America. National Fish andWildlife Lab, Washington, DC, and Univ. of NewMexico, Albuquerque, NM.
-. 1983. Systematic relationships of gray wolves(Canis lupus) in southwestern North America.Occasional papers of the Museum ofSouthwestern Biology, Albuquerque, NM. No. 1.
2IPP.Boyd, D.K., R.R. Ream, D.K. Pletscher, and M.W.
Fairchild. 1994. Prey taken by colonizing wolvesand hunters in the Glacier National Park area. J.Wildlife Manage. 58:289-95.
Brewster County Extension Office. 1993. BrewsterCounty crop and livestock worksheet.
Literature Cited
Unpublished report, Brewster County ExtensionOffice, Alpine, TX. lp.
Brown, B.A. 1990. Apacheria revisited. The NatureConservancy Magazine. September/October: 17-23.
Brown, C. 1995. Comment letter with attachmentsof San Carlos Apache Tribe Recreation andWildlife Dept. to Peter Jenkins, Mexican WolfEIS Coordinator on internal draft environmentalimpact statement, dated Jan. 13, 1995. lp.
Brown, D.E. 1983. The wolf in the Southwest: Themaking of an endangered species. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
-. 1982. Biotic communities of the AmericanSouthwest - United States and Mexico. DesertPlants 4(1-4):43-105.
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Univ. ofNew Mexico. 199 1. New Mexico Business12(10):8.
Bureau of Economic Research and Analysis. 199 1.New Mexico occupational outlook 2000.Unpublished report, New Mexico Department ofLabor, Santa Fe, NM. 66pp.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. 1978. Draft environmentalstatement, Fort Apache Indian Reservationprojects: Timber management, site conversion,road construction, recreation lake development.U.S. Dept. of Interior, Phoenix Area Of&e,Phoenix, AZ.
Carrera, J. 1994. Mexican wolf recovery program [inMexico] - Annual Report. Unpublished report,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,NM. 1Opp.
Catron County Commission. 1992. Catron Countycomprehensive land plan. National Federal LandsConference, Bountiful, UT.
Clark, T., and D. Zaunbrecher. 1987. The greaterYellowstone ecosystem: the ecosystem concept innatural resource policy and management.Renewable Res. J. 5:8-16.
Coppinger, R., and L. Coppinger. In press.Interactions between livestock guarding dogs andwolves. Hampshire College, Amherst, MA.
Coronado National Forest. 1994. Unpublishedoutfitter/guide data sheet. Coronado NationalForest, Tucson, AZ.
Defenders of Wildlife. 1994. Fact sheet - Wolfcompensation fund. Defenders of Wildlife,Washington, DC. 2pp.
H-2
Dorrance, M.J. 1982. Predation losses of cattle inAlberta. J. Range Manage. 35:690-692.
Duda, M.D, and K.C. Young. 1995. New MexicoResidents’ Opinions Toward Mexican WolfReintroduction. Report for the League of WomenVoters of New Mexico by ResponsiveManagement, Harrisonburg, VA. 75pp.
Duffteld, J., and C. Neher. 1994. Mexican wolfeconomic impacts. Contractor report byBioeconomics, Missoula, MT, to the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 27pp.
Dunlap, T.R. 1988. Saving America’s wildlife.Princeton Univ. Press; Princeton, NJ.
Ekstrand, E., D.D. Draper, J.R. McKean, R.‘L.Johnson. 1995. Economic analysis of criticalhabitat designation for the Mexican spotted owl.Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, New Mexico State Ecological ServicesOfice, Albuquerque, NM. 73pp.
Eschrich, D.A. 1992. Climate calendar, White SandsMissile Range, 1950- 199 1. White Sands MissileRange Meteorological Branch, Forecast Section,White Sands Missile Range, NM.
Evans, G.W. 1951. Slash Ranch Hounds. Univ. ofNM Press, Albuquerque, NM.
Findley, J.S., A.H. Harris, D.E. Wilson, and C.Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. Univ. ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 360~~.
Forsling, C.L. 1919. Notes on rodents, predatoryanimals and game on the Jornada Range Reserve.Unpublished report in the files of San AndresNational Wildlife Refuge, Las Cruces, NM.
Fowler, J-M., D. Rush, and J. Hawkes. 1993.Characteristics of western livestock industry.Unpublished report, New Mexico StateUniversity, Las Cruces, NM. Fowler-Propst, J.1993. Letter from New Mexico Field Ofbce, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, to Alan May, DistrictSupervisor, USDA Animal Damage Control,October 14, 1993.
Fritts, S.H. 1992. Reintroduction and translocationof wolves in North America: An analysis. In J.D.Varley and W.G. Brewster (eds.) Wolves forYellowstone? A report to the United StatesCongress, Volume 4, Research and analysis.National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park,WY.
-. 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf fromMinnesota. J. Mamm. 64: 166- 167.
Literature Cited
-. 1982. Wolf depredation on livestock inMinnesota. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour.Publ. 145. llpp.
and L.D. Mech. 198 1. Dynamics, movements,and feeding ecology of a newly-protected wolfpopulation in northwestern Minnesota. Wildl.Monogr. 80: l-79.
and W.J. Paul 1989. Interactions of wolves anddogs in Minnesota. Wildl. Sot. Bull. 17: 121-123.
-, W.J. Paul, L.D. Mech, and D.I? Scott. 1992.Trends and Management of wolf-livestockconflicts in Minnesota. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService Resource Publ. 18 1, Washington, DC.
27PP.Fuller, T.K., and L.B. Keith. 1980. Wolf predation
dynamics and prey relationships in northeasternAlberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 47:963-976.
Fuller, T.K., W.E. Berg, G.L. Radde, M.S. Lenarz,and G.B. Joselyn. 1992. A history and currentestimate of wolf distribution and numbers inMinnesota. Wildl. Sot. Bull. 20:42-55.
Ginsberg, H.S. 1994. Lyme disease andconservation. Cons. Biol. 8:343-353.
Girmendonk, A.L. 1994a. Mexican wolf observationreports, Arizona, January 1983 to December1993. Unpublished report, Arizona Departmentof Game and Fish, Phoenix, AZ. 12pp.
-. 1994b. Mexican wolf prey densities: Arizonamanagement zone, primary zone, and CoronadoNational Forest south of Interstate 10. ArizonaGame and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 16pp.
Gish, D.M. 1977. An historical look at the Mexicangray wolf (Canis Lupus baileyr’) in early Arizonaterritory and since statehood. Unpublished report.204~~.
Gonzales, J. 1993. Unpublished report on gamedata. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,Santa Fe, NM. 42pp.
Green-Hammond, K.A. 1994. Assessment ofimpacts to populations and human harvests ofdeer and elk caused by the reintroduction ofMexican wolves. Contractor report to the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
3OPP.Groebner, D.J., A.L. Girmendonk, and T.B.
Johnson. 1995. A proposed cooperativereintroduction plan for the Mexican wolf inArizona. Draft - Technical Report 56, Nongameand Endangered Wildlife Program, Arizona Gameand Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 108~~.
H-3
Gunson, J.R. 1983. Wolf predation of livestock inwestern Canada. In L.N. Carbyn, ed. Wolves inCanada and Alaska: Their status, biology, andmanagement. Can. Wildl. Serv. Report 45,Ottawa, Ontario.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The mammals ofNorth America. The Ronald Press Co, New York,N-Y.
Halloran, A.F. 1946. The carnivores of the SanAndres Mountains, New Mexico. J. Mamm.27(2):154-161.
-_ 1944a. Memorandum of a conversation withWalter Baird on April 20, 1944, dated April 24,1944, in the files of San Andres National WildlifeRefuge, Las Cruces, NM.
-. 1944b. Memorandum of a conversation withWatson E. Rich on July 2 1, 1944, dated July 24,1944, in the files of San Andres National WildlifeRefuge, Las Cruces, NM.
Hansen, A.J., S.L. Garman, and B. Marks. 1993. Anapproach for managing vertebrate diversity acrossmultiple use landscapes. Ecological Applications3:481-496.
Hayes, F. 1995. Existing conditions narrative -Apache National Forest. Draft unpublishedreport, Clifton Ranger District, Apache NationalForest, Clifton, AZ. 1 lpp.
Henshaw, R.E., and R.O. Stephenson. 1974.Homing in the gray wolf (Canis lupus). J. Mamm.55:234-237.
Hidalgo County Agricultural Extension Office.1993. Hidalgo County agriculture profile 1992.Unpublished report, Lordsburg, NM.
Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona.University of Ariz. Press and Ariz. Dept. of Gameand Fish, Tucson, AZ.
Hornocker Wildlife Research Institute. 1993. Wolf-mountain lion relationships in northwestMontana. Unpublished interim report. lp.
Howard, M. 1993. Unpublished data on WhiteSands secondary wolf recovery zone, U.S. Bureauof Land Management, Las Cruces, NM.
Hubbard, J.I? 1994. Potential impacts of Mexican-wolf reestablishment on indigenous, endangeredwildlife in New Mexico. Unpublished report,New Mexico Department of Game and Fish,Santa Fe, NM. 22pp.
Huggard, D.J. 1992. Prey selectivity of wolves inBanff National Park. I. prey species. Can. J. Zool.71:130-139.
Literature Cited
Jenkins, PT. 1993. Public scoping summary -Mexican wolf reintroduction. Unpublishedreport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, NM. 9pp.
Johnson, M.R. 1992. The potential role of rabies inrelation to possible Yellowstone wolf populations.In J.D. Varley and W.G. Brewster, eds. Wolves forYellowstone? Report to the United StatesCongress, Volume 4, Research and analysis.National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park,WY.
Johnson, T.B. 1990. Preliminary results of a publicopinion survey of Arizona residents and interestgroups about the Mexican wolf. Unpublishedreport, Nongame and Endangered WildlifeProgram, Arizona Game and Fish Department,Phoenix, AZ. 55pp.
-> D.M. Noel, and L.Z. Ward. 1992. Draftsummary of information on four potentialMexican wolf reintroduction areas in Arizona.Arizona Department of Game and Fish, Phoenix,AZ. 88pp.
Kellert, S.R. 1985. Public perception of predators,particularly the wolf and coyote. BiologicalConservation 3 1: 167- 189.
Kolenosky, G.B. and R.O. Standfield. 1975.Morphological and ecological variation amonggray wolves (Canis lupus) of Ontario, Canada. InM.W. Fox (ed.) The wild canids, their systematics,behavioral ecology and evolution. Van NostrandReinhold, New York, NY. ~~62-72.
Krausman, P.R. 1976. Ecology of the CarmenMountains white-tail deer. Ph.D. dissert., Univ. ofIdaho, Moscow, ID.
Krutilla, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. Am.Econ. Rev. 57(4):77-86.
Laufer, J.R., and PT. Jenkins. 1989. A preliminarystudy of gray wolf history and status in the regionof the Cascade Mountains of Washington State.Unpublished report, Washington Dept. ofWildlife, Olympia, WA. 33pp.
Lehman, N., A. Eisenhower, K. Hanson, L.D.Mech, R.O. Peterson, P.J. Gogan, and R.K.Wayne. 199 1. Introgression of coyotemitochondrial DNA into sympatric NorthAmerican gray wolf populations. Evolution45:104-l 19.
Leopold, A.S. 1959. Wildlife of Mexico: the gamebirds and mammals. Univ. of California Press,Berkeley, CA.
H - 4
Literature Cited
-. 199 1. Returning the wolf to Yellowstone. InR.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce, eds. The greaterYellowstone ecosystem: redefining America’swilderness heritage. Yale Univ. Press; New Haven,CT.
-. 1990. Wolf Specialist Group report. Species[newsletter of the International Union for theConservation of Nature Species SurvivalCommission, Gland, Switzerland]. December:bb-67.
-. 1987. Age, season, distance, direction, andsocial aspects of wolf dispersal from a Minnesotapack. In B.D. Chepko-Sade and Z. Halpin, eds.Mammalian dispersal patterns. Univ. ChicagoPress; Chicago, IL.
-. 1977. Productivity, mortality, and populationtrend in wolves from northeastern Minnesota. J.Mamm. 58:559-74.
-. 1970. The wolf: The ecology and behavior ofan endangered species. Natural History Press;Garden City, NY.
Meinzer, 0. E., and R. F. Hare. 1915. Geology andwater resources of the Tularosa Basin, NewMexico. Water Supply Paper No. 343, U.S.Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Mexican Wolf Recovery Team. 1982. Mexican wolfrecovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, NM. 115~~.
Meyer, S.M. 1995. Endangered species listings andstate economic performance. Working Paper No.4, Project on Environmental Politics and Policy,Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, MA. lbpp.
Morrow, PC. 1996. WSMR prey status update.Unpublished report, White Sands Missile Range,NM. 5pp.
-. 1994. Population estimates for ungulate preyspecies on White Sands Missile Range.Unpublished report, White Sands Missile Range,NM.
-. 1993. 1993 White Sands Missile Range feralhorse census results and comparison. Unpublishedreport, White Sands Missile Range, NM. 1 lpp.
Murie, A. 1944. The wolves of Mount McKinley.University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Myers, T., and C. Baxter. 1993. Biological evaluationfor listed, proposed, and sensitive species of theforest-wide animal damage management plan onthe Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
-. I 944. A Sand County almanac. Oxford Univ.Press; Oxford, England.
Leopold, B.D. 1984. Ecology of the desert muledeer in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Ph.D.dissert., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Ligon, J.S. 1927. Wild life of New Mexico. Reportto the State Game Commission, Department ofGame and Fish, Santa Fe, NM.
Logan, K.A. 1994a. Cautionary notes for mule deermanagement on the San Andres Mountains, NewMexico. Unpublished data, Hornocker WildlifeResearch Inst. 2pp.
Logan, K.A. 1994b. Letter to Peter Jenkins, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.Feb. 6, 1994.
McIntyre, R. (ed.). 1994. War against the wolf:America’s campaign to exterminate the wolf.Raincoast Books, Vancouver, BC.
Mack, J.A., W.G. Brewster, and S.H. Fritts. 1992. Areview of wolf depredation on livestock andimplications for the Yellowstone area. In J.D.Variey and W.G. Brewster, eds. Wolves forYellowstone? Report to the United StatesCongress, Volume 4, Research and Analysis.National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park,WY.
May, A. 1993. Gila permittee response. Unpublishedreport, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animaland Plant Health Inspection Service, Las Cruces,NM. 3pp.
McBride, R.T. 1980. The Mexican wolf (Canis lupusbaiiqz]: a historical review and observations on itsstatus and distribution. Unpublished report, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
38PP.McNeely, J.A. 1994. The Convention on Biological
Diversity: Promoting international cooperationfor conserving the planet’s living wealth. WildlifeLaw News Quarterly 2:8-9.
Mech, L.D. 1993a. Memorandum to David R.Parsons, USFWS Mexican Wolf RecoveryCoordinator, regarding military activity impactson wolves, dated Sep. 21, 1993. lp.
-. 1993b. Updating our thinking on the role ofhuman activity in wolf recovery. Researchinformation bulletin, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, St. Paul, MN. 2pp.
-. 1992. Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?International Wolf. Fall, pp. 3-7.
H - 5
Unpublished report, Apache-Sitgreaves NationalForest, Springerville, AZ. 2Opp.
National Park Service. 1993. Draft interimmanagement plan for White Sands NationalMonument. Unpublished report, white SandsNational Monument, NM.
-. 1992. Statement for Management. Big BendNational Park, TX. 45pp.
NationaI Park Service, Water Resources Div., andBig Bend National Park. 1992. Water scopingreport. Technical Rep. NPSINRWRDINRTR-92/08. 31 pp.
New Mexico Cooperative Extension Service. 1992.Cost and return estimates. Brochure on ranching,New Mexico State Univ., Cooperative ExtensionService.
New Mexico Department of Agriculture. Undated.Cattle ranching information. Brochure, NewMexico Department of Agriculture, Las Cruces,NM.
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 1994.Miscellaneous information on game species insouthern New Mexico. Unpublished reports,NMDGF, Santa Fe, NM.
-. 1993a. Deer aerial and ground survey reportsfor the San Andres Mountains. Santa Fe Of&e,NMDGF, Santa Fe, NM. 4pp.
-. 1993b. Deer aerial and ground survey reportsfor the Oscura Mountains. Southwest Area Office,NMDGF, Las Cruces, NM. 4pp.
-. 1992. Deer aerial and ground survey reportsfor the San Andres Mountains. Santa Fe Office,NMDGF, Santa Fe, NM. 4pp.
New Mexico Natural Heritage Program. 1994.Working list of species in Gila National Forest,New Mexico. Unpublished report, New MexicoNatural Heritage Program, Albuquerque, NM.
3PP.-. 1993. Working list of species in Hidalgo
County, New Mexico south of State Road 9.Unpublished report, New Mexico NaturalHeritage Program, Albuquerque, NM. 4pp.
-. 1992. A preliminary vegetation classificationand test vegetation map for White Sands MissileRange and San Andres National Wildlife Refuge,New Mexico. Unpublished report, University ofNew Mexico, Albuquerque, NM. 59pp.
Niemeyer, C.C., E.E. Bangs, S.H. Fritts, J.A.Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, and W.G. Brewster.1994. Wolf depredation management in relation
Literature Cited
to wolf recovery. In W.S. Halverson and A.C.Crabb, eds. Proc. 16th Vertebr. Pest Conf. Univ.of Calif, Davis, CA.
Nowak, R.M. 1995. Another look at wolf taxonomy.In L.N. Carbyn, S.H. Fritts, and D.R. Seip, eds.Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changingworld. Can. Circumpolar Press Institute,University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.
Nunley, G.L. 1977. The Mexican gray wolf in NewMexico. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 8Opp.
Paquet, PC. 1992. Prey use strategies of sympatricwolves and coyotes in Riding Mountain NationalPark, Manitoba. J. Mamm. 73:337-343.
Paradiso, J.L., and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves. In J.Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wildmammals of North America: Biology,management, economics. Johns Hopkins Univ.Press; Baltimore, MD.
Parsons, D.R. 1994. Wild prey predation scenarios.Unpublished data, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, NM.
-. .1993. Comparison of habitat suitabilityattributes of five areas being considered for thereintroduction of Mexican wolves. Draft report,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,NM. 8pp.
Paul, W.J. 1995. Wolf depredation on livestock inMinnesota - Annual update of statistics.Unpublished report, USDA APHIS, AnimalDamage Control, Grand Rapids, MN. 1Opp.
Peterson, R.O. 1977. Wolf ecology and preyrelationships on Isle Royale. U.S. National ParkService, Sci. Monogr. 11: l-2 10.
Phillips, M.K. 1993. Memorandum to David R.Parsons, USFWS Mexican Wolf RecoveryCoordinator, regarding military activity impactson wolves, dated June 22, 1993. lp.
-. 1992. Reestablishment of red wolves in theAlligator National Wildlife Refuge, NorthCarolina. Progress Report No. 6, US. Fish andWildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 28pp.
Phillips, R. 1994. Animal Damage Control programon White Mountain Apache Reservation.Unpublished report, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,Animal Damage Control, Phoenix, AZ. 2pp.
H - 6
-. 1993. Animal damage control programs inMexican wolf proposed recovery areas.Unpublished report, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,Animal Damage Control, Phoenix, AZ. 3pp.
Predatory Animal and Rodent Control Service.19 18. Predatory animal control, New Mexicodistrict, annual report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,NM.
Plumb, G.A. 1987. An algorithmic approach toautomated vegetation mapping of Big BendNational Park, Texas. Ph.D. dissert., University ofKansas, Lawrence, KS. 499~~.
Public Affairs Of&e, White Sands Missile Range.1993. WSMR Fact sheet. Unpublished report.U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, NM. 2pp.
Ream, R.R., M.W. Fairchild, D.K. Boyd, and D. H.Pletscher. 199 1. Population dynamics and homerange changes in a colonizing wolf population. InR.B. Keiter and M.S. Boyce, eds. The greaterYellowstone ecosystem: redefining America’swilderness heritage. Yale Univ. Press; New Haven,CT.
Saiz, R.B. 1978. Evaluation and introduction ofexotic mammals investigations. W-l 1 l-R-1 1.Work Plan 5, Job 4. 19pp.
Sandoval, A.V. 1979. Preferred habitat of desertbighorn sheep in the San Andres Mountains, NewMexico. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Ft.Collins, CO. 314pp.
Schlickeisen, R., President, Defenders of Wildlife.1993. Letter dated Sept. 22 to David R. Parsons,Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
Scudday, J.F. 1977. The Mexican gray wolf in Texas.Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Albuquerque, NM. 13pp.
Shaffer, M. 1987. Minimum viable populations:Coping with uncertainty. In M.E. Soule, ed.Viable populations for conservation. CambridgeUniversity Press; New York, NY.
Sierra County (NM) Commission. 1993. Initialenvlronmental assessment report. Unpublishedreport, Sierra County Commission, Truth orConsequences, NM. 17pp.
Siminski, D.I? 1994a. Comment on Mexican wolfreintroduction, dated Oct. 17, 1994, submitted tothe Arizona Game and Fish Commission.Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, AZ.
55PP.
Literature Cited
-. 1994b. 1994 Mexican wolf SSP master plan.Unpublished report of the Mexican Wolf SpeciesSurvival Plan Management Group, Tucson, AZ.
55PP.Souder, K. 1992a. Analysis of the economic impacts
of designating critical habitat for Medafiri’dz(Spikedace). Draft report prepared for the O&eof Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Phoenix, AZ. 53pp.
Souder, K. 1992b. Analysis of the economic impactsof designating critical habitat for Tiaroga cubitis(Loach Minnow). Draft report prepared for theOffice of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 64pp.
Southwest Center for Resource Analysis. 1994.Outfitters and guides - Economic and socialimportance to Catron county - Executivesummary. Unpublished report, Southwest Centerfor Resource Analysis, University of Western NewMexico, Silver City, NM. 46pp.
Southwestern Region, U.S. Forest Service. 1993a.Integrated resource management: The road toecosystem management. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,Albuquerque, NM.
-. 1993b. Scoping report - Region-wide forestplan amendments. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,Albuquerque, NM. 75pp.
-. 1992a. Fish, amphibians, reptiles andmammals . . . A species checklist for the GilaNational Forest. Pamphlet, U.S.D.A. ForestService, Silver City, NM.
-. 1992b. Coronado National Forest plan.U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Tucson, AZ.
-. 1987a. Environmental impact statement,Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest plan. U.S.D.A.Forest Service, Springerville, AZ.
-. 1987b. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forestplan. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Springerville, AZ.
-. 1986a. Environmental impact statement, GilaNational Forest plan. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,Silver City, NM.
-. 1986b. Gila National Forest plan. U.S.D.A.Forest Service, Silver City, NM.
-. 1986~. Coronado National Forest plan.Reprinted with amendments in 1992. U.S.D.A.Forest Service, Tucson, AZ.
Strickland, D. 1992. Wolf howling in AlgonquinProvincial Park. Algonquin Park Tech. Bull. No.3, The Friends of Algonquin Park, Whitney,Ontario, Canada. 8pp.
H - 7
Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. 1994.Working list of species in Big Bend National Park,Texas. Unpublished report, Texas Department ofParks and Wildlife, Austin, TX.
Thieking, A., S.M. Goyal, R.F. Bey, K.I. Loken,L.D. Mech, R.I? Thiel, and T.P. O’Connor. 1992.Seroprevalence of Lyme disease in gray wolvesfrom Minnesota and Wisconsin. J. Wildl. Dis.28:177-182.
Thiel, R.I? 1988. Wolf recovery plan environmentalassessment. Unpublished report, WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
-. 1985. Relationship between road densitiesand wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am.Mid. Nat. 113:404-407.
Thompson, J.G. 1993. Addressing the humandimensions of wolf reintroduction: An exampleusing estimates of livestock depredation and costsof compensation. Sot. and Nat. Res. 6:165-179.
Tompa, ES. 1983. Status and management of wolvesin British Columbia. In L.N. Carbyn, ed. Wolvesin Canada and Alaska: Their status, biology, andmanagement. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. 45, Ottawa,Onrario.
U.S. Army. Undated. Environmental assessment oftest and evaluation programs of the Forward AreaAir Defense System (FAADS). Unpublishedreport, Department of the Army, White SandsMissile Range, NM.
- - . 1994. Pronghorn/oryx aerial and groundsurvey report summaries for White Sands MissileRange. Environmental Services Division, WhiteSands Missile Range, NM. 5pp.
- - - . 199 1. Feral horses on White Sands MissileRange: Census after action report andmanagement recommendations. Memorandum,Environmental Services Division, White SandsMissile Range, NM. 19pp.
-. 1985. White Sands Missile Range installationenvironmental assessment. Department of theArmy, White Sands Missile Range, NM. 329~~.
-. 1983. Natural resources management plan.Department of the Army, White Sands MissileRange, NM. 326~~.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Draftenvironmental impact statement - RangelandReform ‘94. U.S. Bureau of Land Management,Washington, D.C.
-. 199 1. Mimbres resource management planand environmental impact statement. U.S. Bureau
Literature Cited
U.S. Department of Agriculture, New MexicoAgricultural Statistics Service. 1992. New MexicoAgricultural Statistics - 1992. New MexicoDepartment of Agriculture, Las Cruces, NM.
72PP.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan
for the Mexican spotted owl. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 172~~.
-. 1994a. Final environmental assessment -Mexican wolf management facility at SevilletaNational Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Albuquerque, NM. 13pp.
-. 1994b. Summary of livestock depredationsurvey responses. Unpublished report, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 9pp.
-. 1994~. Final environmental impact statement- The reintroduction of gray wolves toYellowstone National Park and central Idaho. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
-. 1993a. Draft environmental impact statement- The reintroduction of gray wolves toYellowstone National Park and central Idaho. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT.
-. 1993b. Interagency memorandum: Listedand candidate species within proposed Mexicanwolf recovery areas. Unpublished report, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
-. 1993~. Biological evaluation for listed,proposed, and sensitive species of the forest-wideanimal damage management plan on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. 2Opp.
-. 19936. 1991 and 1992 Annual reports of theMontana Interagency Wolf Working Group. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT. 24pp.
-. 1993e. Comparison of habitat suitabilityattributes of five areas being considered for thereintroduction of Mexican wolves. Unpublishedreport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, NM. 8pp.
-. 1993f. Endangered Species Act intra-ServiceSection 7 process policy and guidance handbook.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,NM. 29pp.
-. 1992. Notice of intent to prepare anenvironmental impact statement on theexperimental reintroduction of Mexican wolves(Canis iupus hzilqz~ into suitable habitat withinthe historic range of the subspecies. FederalRegister vol. 57, no 76, Mon. April 20. pp14427-
of Land Management, Las Cruces, NM.H - 8
14431.
Literature Cited
-. 1990. Listed cats of Texas and Arizonarecovery plan (with emphasis on the ocelot). U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM.
131pp.-. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Denver, CO. 119~~.
-. 1985. Water management plan, San AndresNational Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Las Cruces, NM.
I2PP.-. 1984. Recommendations pertinent to releases
of Mexican wolves. Unpublished report, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. lp.
and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureauof the Census. 199 la. 199 1 National survey offishing, hunting, and wildlife-associatedrecreation, Arizona. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC.
and -. 199 1 b. 199 1 National survey offishmg, hunting, and wildlife-associatedrecreation, New Mexico. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC.
I.J.S. Forest Service. 1994. Reinvention of ForestService: The change begins. U.S.D.A. ForestService, Wash., D.C. 55pp.
Waid, D.D. 1990. Movements, food habits, andhelminth parasites of mountain lions insouthwestern Texas. Ph.D. dissert., Texas TechUniv. 128 pp.
Walsh, R., D. Johnson, and J. McKean. 1988.Review of outdoor recreation economic demandstudies with nonmarket benefit estimates.Colorado Water Resources Research InstituteTechnical Report No. 54. Colorado StateUniversity, Ft. Collins, CO.
Waters, J. 1991. Report on service population andlabor force, White Mountain Apache Tribe.U.S.D.I. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Whiteriver,AZ.
Wayne, R.K., N. Lehman, M.W. Allard, and R.L.Honeycutt. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA variabilityof the gray wolf: genetic consequences ofpopulation decline and habitat fragmentation.Conservation Biology 6:559-569.
Whitaker, S.J., T.J. Langer, and M.L. Watson. 1995.Surveys for endangered Mexican wolves in historichabitat in the southwestern United States.Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Albuquerque, NM. 1 Opp.
White Mountain Apache Tribe. 1995. Unpublishedinformation. White Mountain ApacheReservation, AZ. 5pp.
-. 1993. Overall economic development plan.White Mountain Apache Tribe, Whiteriver, AZ.
I5PP.White Sands Missile Range. 1994. Draft - Range-
wide environmental impact statement.Unpublished report, Environmental Services Div.,White Sands Missile Range, NM. 282~~.
White Sands Missile Range. 1993. Installationcommander’s annual real property utilizationsurvey report. Unpublished report, White SandsMissile Range, NM.
White Sands Missile Range Meteorological Branch.1994. SAMS monthly climate summaries, January1990 - December 1993. Forecast Section, WhiteSands Missile Range, NM.
Wolok, M. 1994. Reported wolf observations inNew Mexico, Texas and Mexico. Unpublishedreport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Albuquerque, NM. 1Opp.
Wydeven, A.I? 1992. Recovery of the timber wolf -Performance report - July 1, 1991 to June 30,1992. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources,Madison WI.
Young, S.P. and E.A. Goldman. 1944. The wolves ofNorth America. American Wildlife Institute,Wash., DC.
Zia Research Associates. 1990. Executive report on1989 New Mexico licensed deer hunter’s survey.Unpublished report, New Mexico Department ofGame and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 280~~.
H-9
APPENDIX IList of Scientific Names
Common Name
Animals
Abert’s squirrelAfrican wild dogAmerican peregrine falconMexican fox squirrelApache troutArizona gray squirrelArizona montane voleBald eagleBarbary sheepBeautiful shinerBeaverBell’s vireoBig Bend gambusiaBighorn sheepBisonBlack bearBlack-capped vireoBlack-footed ferretBlack-tailed jackrabbitBobcatCalifornia condorCalifornia leaf-nosed batChihuahua chubChihuahua pronghornChipmunkCliff chipmunkCoatimundiColorado chipmunkColorado squawfishCommon black-hawkCottontail rabbitCoues white-tailed deerCoyoteDesert bighorn sheepDesert cottontail rabbitDesert mule deerDesert pupfishEastern cottontailElkFeral cowFeral dogFeral hogFeral horse
Scientific Name
Sciurus abertiLycaon pictusFalco peregrinusSciurus nayaritensisOncorbynchus apacheSciurus arizonensisMicrotus montanus arizonensisHaliaeetus leucocephahsAmmotragus h-viaCyprinella formosaCastor canadensisVireo belliiGam busia gaigeiOvis canadensisBison bisonUrsus americanusVireo atricapillusMustela nigripesLepus californicusFelis ruJ;IsGymnogyps californianusMacrotus californicusGiia nigrescensAntilocalpa americana chihuahuaEutamias spp.Eutamias dorsalisNasua nasuaEutamias quadrivittatusPtychocheilus luciusButeogalhs antbracinusSylvilagus spp.Oahoikws virginianus couesiCanis latransOvis canadensis mexicanaSylvikzgus auduboniiOdocoileus bemionus crookiCyprinodon macularisSylvihgus floridanusCervus elapbusBos spp.Canis familiarisSus scrofaEquus cabahs
I-l
Gila chubGila monsterGila spring snailGila topminnowGila troutGila woodpeckerGolden-mantled ground squirrelGould’s turkeyGray vireoGray wolfGreen rat snakeGrizzly bearGround squirrelHareIbexJackrabbitJaguarJaguarundiJavelinaKit foxLeast ternLesser long-nosed batLittle Colorado River spinedaceLoach minnowLowland leopard frogMeadow jumping mouseMexican gray wolfMexican long-nosed batMexican spotted owlMooseMountain lionMule deerNarrowhead garter snakeNew Mexico hotspring snailNew Mexico ridgenose rattlesnakeNorthern aplomado falconNorthern goshawkOcelotOreohelix
oryxPorcupinePronghornRaccoonRazorback suckerRed foxRed wolfRingtailRio Grande silvery minnowRock squirrelRocky Mountain bighorn sheep
Scientific Names
Gikz inter-mediaHelmhvna suspectumFonteliceh gibePoeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalisOncorbyncbus gibeMelanerpes uropygiklisSpermophilus lateralisMeleagrh galiopavo mexicanaVireo vicinorCanis lupusSenticolis triaspisUrsus arctos horribilisSpermophilus spp.Lepus spp.Capra spp.Lepus spp.Pantbera oncaFe&s yagouaroundiDicotyh tajacuVulpes macrotisSterna antillarumLeptonycteris curasoaeLepihmeafa vittataTiaroga co bitisRana yavapaiensisZapus budsoniusCanis lupus baileyiLeptonycteris nivalisStrix occidentalis lucidzAloes aloesFeiis concohOahcoihs bemionusTbamnopbis rufipunctatusFon teliceila tberma LisCrotahs wiikzrdi obscurusFalco femorahAccipiter gent&sFe/is pardaksOreohelix spp.Oryx gazehzEretbizon dorsatumAntilocarpa americanaProqon horXyraucben texanusVu&es vulpesCanis ru$sBassariscus astutusHybognatbus amarusSpermopbilus variegatusOvis canadensis
I-2
Scientific Names
Roundtail chubSierra de1 Carmen white-tailed deer
SkunkSonora chubSonora ocelotSouthern pocket gopherSouthwestern willow flycatcherSpikedaceSpotted batThick-billed parrotTree squirrelsVoleWater shrewWestern snowy ploverWhite-sided jackrabbitWhite-tailed deerWhooping craneWild turkeyWood ratYaqui catfishYaqui chubYaqui topminnow
Plants
AlderApache plumeArizona walnutArizona cypressArizona sycamoreAshAspenBig tooth mapleBlack grama grassBlack walnutBlue grama grassBoxelderBroom snakeweedBuffalo grassCeanothusCorkbark firCottonwoodCreosote bushDesert willowDouglas firEmory oakEngelmann spruceFirFremont cottonwoodGalleta
Giia ro bustaOdmoihs virginianus carminiMephitis spp. and other generaGika ditaeniaFeelis pandalis sonoriensisTbomomys umrinusEmpidonax trail/iiMeda f;igiidaEuakrma macuhtumRbyncbopsitta pacbyrbyncbaTamiasciurus and Sciurus spp.Microtus spp. and other generaSorex palustrhCbaradrius alexandrinusLepus caliotisOdocoiLeus virginianusGrus americanaMeieagris gallopavoNeotoma spp.lctalurus priceiGiia purpureaPoeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis
Alnus spp.Falugia paradoxajuglans majorCupressus arizonicaPhanus wrigbtiiFraxinus spp.Popuh tremuloidesAcer grandidentatumBouteloua eriopodajugkms nigerBouteha gacihsAcer negundoXmtbocepbaium sarotbraeBucbloe dactyioidesCeanotbus fend-hiAbies hiocarpaPopuhfs spp.Larrea spp.Cbilopsis iinearisPseudotsuga menziesiiQuercus emoryiPicea engehanniA&es spp.Popuius fiemontiiHihria jamesii
I-3
Gambel oakGrama grassGray oakHackberryHoney mesquiteJojobaJuniper
. LechuguillaLive oakMapleMesquiteMountain mahoganyNarrowleaf cottonwoodOakPinePiiion pinePonderosa pinePrickly pearRed osierRedberry juniperSand sageSnakeweedSot01SpruceSycamoreTarbushTexas madroneTobosaTorrey yuccaWalnutWheeler sot01White pineWhite firWhitethorn acaciaWillow
Scientific Names
Quercus gam beliiBouteloua spp.Quercus griseaCehis spp.Prosopis gkzndu LossSimmonah’a cbinensisJuniperus spp.Agave hbeguillaQuercus virginianaAcer spp.Prosopis spp.Cercocarpus montanusPop&s angustifoiiaQuercus spp.Pinus spp.Pinus cembroidesPinus ponderosaOpuntia spp.Cornus stoionifera
Juniperus pincbotiiA rtemisia j2zyo LiaGu tierrezia saro tbraeDasyiirion wbeeieriPicea spp,Phanus spp.Flourensia cernuaArbutus ttxanusHikzria muticaYucca torreyi
Juglans spp.Dasylirion wheeleriPinus stro busAbies concolorAcacia constrictaSalk spp.
I-4
APPENDIX JUpdate on Yellowstone and Central Idaho
Gray Wolf Reintroductions and Economic Benefits of Wolf Recovery
Yellowstone National ParkSince spring, 1995, both the Yellowstone andCentral Idaho reintroductions have exceededexpectations. Some key numbers: 29 wolves releasedaltogether in 1995; nine pups produced; four wolvesknown killed (two shot, one clearly illegally, result-ing in one successful prosecution; one wolf hit by avehicle; one still under investigation); significantincreases in tourism and related businesses near theLamar Valley; two sheep confirmed killed by onewolf, two sheep missing, compensation paid; onehunting dog killed; no land use restrictions; twolawsuits against the project, so far unsuccessful. Themovements, mortality, and behaviors of the wolveshave generally been as expected. The second phase inYellowstone and Central Idaho is underway now,with 37 more wolves to be released. If this year’sefforts go as well as last year’s, and populationgrowth rates continue to be good, then the FWSmay not need to reintroduce in future years, as waspreviously thought.
Central Idaho
. Twelve wolves released in 1995 are beingmonitored and five pairs have formed. Two1995 wolves have died and one disappeared.No domestic animals have been killed. Noland use restrictions have been needed.
. In 1994 the Nez Perce Tribe entered into acooperative agreement with the FWS andmanages wolves in Idaho.
. Twenty wolves were released in January1996. Several are traveling together and havemoved northward. Most wolves remain onForest Service lands, but cross private landregularly.
. Controversy is expected to increase as wolveshave pups and as livestock are put on allot-ments this spring.
. Fourteen wolves, representing three packswere released in 1995. They produced ninepups in two litters. They were seen by about40,000 visitors. They prey primarily on elk.No land use restrictions have been needed.
. Two 1995 wolves have been illegally killedand another was hit by a truck. One isrecently listed as missing. A man who shot awolf illegally was convicted by a local juryand received 3 months in jail, 3 months at ahalf-way house, a $10,000 fine, and 1 year ofsupervised probation.
. Two sheep were killed and two are missingnorth of the Park. A lone 1995 male wolfwas moved once and then killed under FWSorders when it attacked sheep a second time.The producer was compensated by Defend-ers of Wildlife (100 percent for the twokilled and 50 percent for the two missing).
. Four pairs have formed in 1996 from 1995wolves. Three of the pairs remain in thePark. Another pair (Soda Butte) is north ofthe Park on a mix of Forest Service andprivate land. The FWS has rejected requeststo move them at this time. This pack killed ahunting dog in December 1995.
. Seventeen wolves were put into four pens inthe Park in January 1996. They will bereleased in early April. By May 1996 therecould be 8 breeding pairs and up to 40 pupsin the area.
Overall Wolf Recovery
. The 1996 reintroductions from BritishColumbia were successful beyond expecta-tions. In 1996, reintroduction efforts,excluding salaries, cost about $200,000. Of
J-1
Update on Yellowstone and Central Idaho
concessionaire sold huge numbers of wolf-relatedproducts. “Anything with a wolf on it was sellinglike hotcakes this year,” said Steve Tedder, vice-president for TW Recreational Services atYellowstone. “Any items which had anything to dowith wolves were just really popular.” Meanwhile,ranger Rick McIntyre said that the Roosevelt LodgeGift Shop, the store closest to the wolves in Yellow-stone, reported a 44 percent increase in sales in1995, an increase the manager attributed mainly tothe presence of wolves. The manager of theYellowstone Institute bookstore reported increasedsales and a gift shop in Lamar Valley, in the vicinityof where the wolves are, reported sales I26 percentover the previous year.
In northern Minnesota, the small town of Ely(population 5,000) has boomed since the launchingthere, in 1993, of a wolf educational facility. Accord-ing to International Wolf Center Board President,Dr. L. David Mech, the Center contributes roughlyone million dollars annually to the Ely economy; theCenter would not be there if the wolf were notthere. The Center draws many thousands of visitorsannually. Mech says Ely has put in new motels andintroduced a special flight from the Twin Citiesduring the summer because of the Center. “This wasone of the best summers for our lodging establish-ments, especially the large increase in the two-nighters, which I directly attribute to the WolfCenter,” said Linda Friar, Executive Director of theEly Chamber of Commerce. Her assessment wasbased on comments by resort owners.
At Glacier National Park, Amy Vanderbilt,public information officer, reported that quantifyingthe benefits of wolves in dollars would be difficultbecause the presence of wolves here is due to theirdecade-long recolonization of northern Montanarather than rapid intentional reintroduction. She didreport, however, a 30 percent increase in backcoun-try visitation and that the curio and gift shopsaround the park are adding and selling wolf-relatedbooks, videos, artwork, and other items because ofvisitor demand.
that, $80,000 was from private sources. Ifthe 1996 wolves are as successful as thosereleased in 1995, no further reintroductionswill be necessary. Budgets have been lessthan estimates presented in the FEIS.
Economic Benefits
According to Yellowstone National Park Service’sNorman Bishop, the Bioeconomics projections inthe FEIS (USFWS 1994~) of millions of dollars ofeconomic benefits from wolf recovery are now beinglargely borne out. Adding up food, lodging, fuel,and wolf souvenirs reveals a positive impact on localeconomies because of people’s desire to see, hear, orphotograph them and to have a memento of thatexperience.
Cooke City, the small town just outside theremote northeast gate of Yellowstone Park, reports abooming business for motels, restaurants, and giftshops. It is inside this entrance where wolves arethriving after being reintroduced. According toMarsha Karle, Chief of Public Affairs for the ParkService, there was a 12.9 percent increase in traffic atthe entrance over 1994. Looking at the month ofAugust, the numbers just coming through the gatewere up 17.1 percent over the previous year, a figureKarle called “substantial.” Karle described the monthof August as “a good month for sighting a wolf”The month of June, traditionally part of the slowseason at the Park, showed an even greater numberof visitors, up 22 percent from the previous year.According to ranger Rick McIntyre, “anyone on theground can see this is a major thing.” The tradi-tionally slow season was this year’s peak viewingseason. He estimated that 40,000 people saw wolvesfrom May 13 to July 6.
While no quantitative study exists, Karle saidinformation from Cooke City merchants indicatesthe presence of wolves supported the local economy.“We do know that businesses in Cooke City weredoing extremely well this year,” she said. Motelswere filled. Business at restaurants and souvenirbusiness increased dramatically. Also, the park
J-2
APPENDIX KResDonse to Mr. Dennis Parker’s Comment on the DEIS
A lengthy, detailed, unpublished, undated paperentitled, “Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf:Instrument of Recovery or Instrument of Demise?“,was submitted as a comment (Tu-4) on the DEIS byMr. Dennis Parker, a biologist. The paper was alsoattached, referred to, or incorporated in several otherpublic comments received, especially from countygovernments. By way of response to the numerousbiological issues raised, particularly related to genet-ics and captive breeding, the FWS sent the paper outfor review by a number of experts, many of whomhad written the scientific papers cited by Mr. Parker.Their responses to key issues raised by Mr. Parkerwere compiled by David R. Parsons, Mexican WolfRecovery Coordinator, in November 1995. Theirresponses provide background information on thecaptive population and wolf recovery generally.Complete copies of Mr. Parker’s comment and theresponses are available for review at the FWS Re-gional office in Albuquerque.
Reviewers:
Ms. Norma Ames - Former Leader, Mexican WolfRecovery Team
Dr. Jonathan D. Ballou - Smithsonian InstitutionDr. Mike Bogan - National Biological ServiceDr. Steve Chambers - U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceDr. Phil Hedrick - Arizona State U., Mexican Wolf
Recovery TeamDr. L. David Mech - National Biological ServiceDr. Patricia Mehlhop - University of New MexicoDr. Philip S. Miller - The World Conservation UnionMr. David Parsons - Leader, Mexican Wolf
Ret every TeamDr. Rolf Peterson - Michigan Technological
UniversityMr. D. Peter Siminski - Mexican Wolf Species Survival
Plan Coordinator, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum,Mexican Wolf Recovery Team
Dr. Michael E. SOL& - University of California,Santa Cruz
Dr. Edward M. Spevak - Wildlife Conservation SocietyDr. Robert Wayne - University of California at
Los AngelesDr. Robert J. Wiese - American Zoo and Aquarium
Association
General Heading: Will reintroduction conservethe Mexican wolf?
Parker’s Statement: “. . . there are no examples ofGrey wolf restoration achievement via the use ofcaptive-raised and released animals. . . . the release of. . . grey wolves on Alaska’s Coronation Island in 1960(Ames 1986) . . . has . . . proven to be inadequate forthe purpose of affirmative reintroduction argumentwith the subsequent extinction of this island popula-tion.”
Review Comments:
The Coronation Island experiment failed not be-cause of use of captive-raised founders but because ofinadequate prey (Klein 1994 in Carbyn et al. Ecol-ogy and Conservation of Wolves in A ChangingWorld.) (Mech)
Wolf decline on Coronation Island had nothing todo with reintroduction technique. Rather, preysupply was exhausted because the island was sosmall. (Peterson)
Do note that these captive-raised wolves [the onesintroduced to Coronation Island] did learn to takeappropriate prey and reproduced successfully.(Siminski)
Parker chooses to not mention the very successfulreintroduction from captive-raised animals ofanother large North American canid, the red wolf.Although not a gray wolf, the successful red wolfreintroduction presents a reasonable model for asuccessful gray wolf reintroduction. (Siminski)
The citation for the Coronation Island exampleshould be “(Ames 1987).” Examples of restorationattempts using captive-raised wolves were too few in1987 to base a condemnation now of future at-tempts on the failures. A tabulation of such attemptsand their results-now including results for the redwolf releases-might be more informative. (Ames)
The answer to the question of whether reintroduc-tion will “conserve the Mexican wolf” seems to me
K-l
to be that we cannot know for sure. We can, how-ever, be fairly sure that keeping Mexican wolves on4in captivity will not achieve that end. (Ames)
Parker ignores the highly successful red wolf reintro-duction using captive-raised wolves in North Caro-lina and the Great Smokies. (Mech)
The author cites several instances, and there areothers, of successful reintroductions of other specieswhich provide some reason to believe that reintro-duction of wolves is a feasible alternative to main-taining the few remaining individuals in zoos untilthey expire. (Bogan)
The use of captive bred animals for reintroductionhas also shown itself to work in a number of cases,e.g., Arabian oryx, golden lion tamarin, Americanbison, Andean condor, and the red wolf. The argu-ment that because one small isolated wolf introduc-tion eventually failed no further attempts should bemade is ludicrous. (Spevak)
The proposed Mexican wolf reintroductions wouldnot be to islands and would have a greater numberof individuals in each starter population. I do notaccept Parker’s implication that because it hasn’tbeen done before except in a very limited way, weshould not do it. (Mehlhop)
General Heading: Is the genetic base of thecaptive population sufficient for the establish-ment of the isolated, viable and self-sustainingpopulation of Mexican wolves calIed for by boththe ESA and the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan?
Parker’s Statement: “The genetic base of the officialcaptive population of Mexican wolves is limited to asole, founding female and 2 founding males (Ames,1986), . . . .”
Review Comments:
Parker does not reference the recent moleculargenetic analysis done by myself [Dr. Robert Wayne]and colleagues (accepted for publication in Conser-vation Biology) that specifically addresses the geneticrelationships of the three Mexican wolf captivelineages and their suitability for reintroduction. Our
Response to Dennis Parker
analysis used advanced molecular techniques andshowed that the three captive lineages are likelydrawn from the same source population and aredistinct from other North American wolves.
Wayne)
This is no longer the case, now that the GhostRanch and Aragon lines have been deemed to beMexican wolf following molecular studies by RobertWayne et al. (Wiese)
The certified captive population now has 7 founders.(Parsons)
Parker’s Statement: “Current recommendations callfor the retention of 90% of initial quantitativegenetic variation for 200 years (Rails and Ballou,1986).”
Review Comments:
The general guideline of maintaining 90% of thegenetic variation for 200 years is just that, a generalguideline for maintaining genetic diversity in captivepopulations. It is not in any way a critical level orthreshold that indicates the dividing line betweenviable and unviable populations. (Ballou)
This simply is outdated information. In 1990 theAZA [American Zoo and Aquarium Association]abandoned this rigid, single goal for all species andmoved to make SSP [Species Survival Plan] goalsspecies specific (Hutchins and Wiese, 199 1; Wieseand Hutchins, 1994; Wiese, et al. 1994). Many SSPsnow have goals which call for the retention of lessthan 90% gene diversity and/or for far less than 200years. (Wiese)
If we look at the proportion of founder allelesretained as of 1994 under the three-founder sce-nario, the estimated number of founder allelesretained is 5.41 out of 6.0 or 90.2% retention(Hedrick, 1995) h’ hw rc is coincidentally at the levelthat Parker quotes as a target from Rails and Ballou.(Hedrick)
The management of the Certified line has beenexcellent and professional in all respects and has onlyresulted in an average inbreeding coefficient of0.184 (Hedrick, 1995) for the living animals after
K-2
nearly twenty years (approximately five generations)of captive breeding. With a small number offounders, this is a very impressive record and isprobably as small an increase as could be possible.(Hedrick)
Although the recommendations of Ralls and Ballouare reasonable targets for a captive managementprogram, Parker’s implication that a program thatdoes not meet these goals is doomed co failure iswithout support. He treats these values as a thresh-old, whereas their theoretical basis consists of con-tinuous fimctions of rate of loss of genetic variabilityand accumulation of inbreeding depression.‘(Cham-bers)
The cheetah is a case in point. This species showsless genetic variability than Mexican wolves andsurvives in large numbers in the wild where there ishabitat protection and no human persecution. Thereis presently nothing to indicate that this would notalso be true for the Mexican wolf. (Spevak)
As a comparison, the Przewalski’s horse (the onlywild species of horse and an animal that is alsoextinct in the wild and until recently existed only incaptivity), has an average inbreeding coefficient of0.25 (Ballou, 1994), even though there are 13founders for this captive population. It is now beingreintroduced into both China and Mongolia andboth of these reintroductions appear to be unaf-fected by any genetic problems in the horse.(Hedrick)
Parker presents several misunderstandings, misinfor-mation, old information and false conclusions inthis section. (Siminski)
Parker’s Statement: “A measure often used toquantify the degree co which an individual is inbredis “Wright’s Inbreeding Coefficient,” .,. . Inbreedingcoefficients for captive Mexican wolves born in 1989consistently average .188 (Mexican Gray WolfInternational Studbook, 1989), or nearly double themaximum allowable for retention of sufficientgenetic variability.”
Review Comments:
Response to Dennis Parker
Mr. Parker makes another error in his comparison ofthe gene diversity to be retained in the captivebreeding program and Wright’s Inbreeding Coeffl-cient. When an AZA SSP speaks of retaining aspecific amount of “gene diversity”, we are referringto “gene diversity” as defined by Weir (1990). Thistype of gene diversity is also referred to as “expectedheterozygosity” by some authors. This is a muchdifferent type/measure of genetic variation thanWright’s Inbreeding Coefficient for small, captivepopulations. In effect Mr. Parker is comparingapples and oranges in this section. This error makesme question his genetic expertise throughout theentire document. (Wiese)
A metric commonly used to assess the severity ofinbreeding depression is the number of lethalequivalents contained within the population. Ananalysis by Ralls et al. (1988) of 40 captive mammalpopulations revealed that the number of lethalequivalents ranged from 0 to 30, with a median of3.14. I have performed a similar analysis of inbreed-ing depression in the current Mexican wolf captivepopulation (Miller and Hedrick 1995) and con-cluded that, with respect to both survival to 180days and to individual weight, inbreeding depressionis not detectable. The number of lethal equivalentsin the pedigree, calculated using a method identicalto that used by Rails et al. (1988), was found to be0.136. Statistical analysis shows this value to beindistinguishable from zero. (Miller)
The degree of inbreeding in the [Certified] popula-tion has been kept to near the minimum possible fora pedigree initiated with only three founders.(Miller)
The introduction of animals from the ASDM-GRand Aragon lineages in to the Certified lineage willresult in a great reduction in the inbreeding coeffl-cient. Crosses between t-he lineages will have aninbreeding coefficient of 0.0. (Hedrick)
The [inbreeding] coefficient can be lowered byintroduction of new stock (and documented geneticvariation) from the other two lineages. In my opin-ion, Hedrick (1995) p resents good justification fordoing so. (Mehlhop)
K-3
Parker’s Statement: “Study by Laikre and Ryman(199 1) also provides clear evidence against theconception that Grey wolves are resistant to closeinbreeding and therefore do not suffer from inbreed-ing depression.”
Review Comments:
Laikre and Ryman (199 1) showed only that, incaptivity, inbreeding depression can afflict wolves. Inthe wild, the Isle Royale study suggests that appar-ently deleterious gene combinations are selected out,thus cleansing the population and allowing thebetter combinations to survive and maintain thepopulation. (Mech)
Inbreeding in one population (i.e., Laikre andRyman, 1991) can not be taken as absolute evidencethat it will occur in a different population, even ofthe same subspecies. The most recent work oninbreeding has shown that inbreeding is closelyrelated to the individual founders of the population,rather than which species or subspecies is beingconsidered (Lacy et al. 1995). Therefore, one popu-lation of wolves may show significant inbreedingdepression and another population of the samesubspecies may show little or no inbreeding depres-sion. (Wiese)
Inbreeding depression in the Fennoscandic wolfcaptive population does not by necessity imply theexistence of inbreeding depression in the Mexicanwolf captive population. (Miller)
Parker fails to distinguish between cumulativeinbreeding coefficients and the per generation rate ofincrease in the inbreeding coefficient. Genetic risk tothe captive population will greatly depend on howrapidly the population expands after founding. Apopulation that has expanded very rapidly from apopulation bottleneck, as has the Mexican wolfpopulation, may avoid or overcome significanteffects of inbreeding depression despite relativelyhigh inbreeding coefficients. The very fact that thepopulation has demonstrated the vigor to expandrapidly is a positive sign. (Chambers)
The Scandinavian wolves, however, were not bredfollowing the type of systematic, scientifically based
Response to Dennis Parker
plan that is being followed for Mexican wolves.(Chambers)
The management of the Scandinavian zoo popula-tion increases the chance of inbreeding and reducinggenetic variability by maintaining breeding pairs foryears and preventing others from breeding. This hasled to inbreeding coefficients up to .574 almosttwice the maximum found in the certified Mexicanwolf population. The Mexican wolf population ismanaged to reduce the chances of this situation.
(Spev@
The inbreeding coefficient in the Scandinavian wolfstudy cited by Parker (Laikre and Ryman, 1991) wasalmost twice as high (0.34 vs. 0.184) as that in theMexican wolves. (Hedrick)
For inbreeding depression to happen, the increasedhomozygosity caused by inbreeding needs to resultin an increased expression of deleterious recessivetraits. This has not happened [in the captive popula-tion of Mexican wolves]. (Siminski)
Parker’s Statement: “Of 11 pairs of captive Mexi-can wolves mated for the 1994 breeding season, only7 produced young. Of the young produced (23),fully 39% (9) succumbed either at or within a shorttime of birth. 8 of the 9 deceased pups were killedand/or eaten by either their parents or other wolves.The ninth pup was killed when it was struck bylightning.”
Review Comments:
That year’s [ 19941 reproductive performance iswithin the normal range of Mexican wolf annualreproductive performance. There is not a pattern ofdecreasing reproductive performance in the captivepopulation. That all pups do not survive or that allpairs do not reproduce is likely due to individualwolf differences, the captive environment andchance. No pattern indicating inbreeding depressionexists. (Siminski)
Detailed study of the Mexican wolf studbook fails toassign a specific genetically-based cause of death forany of the pups born in 1994. (Miller)
K-4
In a recent study to find the extent of inbreedingdepression in the Certified lineage of Mexicanwolves, Miller and Hedrick (1995) did not find anyinbreeding depression for either survival to 180 daysor for weight from all the data currently available (asof July. 1994). Miller and Hedrick found that mostof the mortality was not due to obvious geneticcauses but was attributed to various environmentalfactors. In specific response to the comments ofParker about 1974, there is no evidence of mortalitydue to genetic causes among the 1994 pups. Further,because of the excellent management of the certifiedlineage, the level of inbreeding is relatively low andthere have been very few highly inbred individuals.This is in contrast to the Scandinavian wolf studycited by Parker and the Przewalski’s horses men-tioned above. (Hedrick)
The pups having been killed by wolves is moreprobably related to the captive conditions than toinbreeding. We have had this happen with unrelatedcaptive wolves. (Mech)
He does not give the comparable numbers for thewild or even for other captive populations. I find itinteresting that none of the nine deaths can beattributed to inbreeding. Cannibalism can not beautomatically attributed to inbreeding; neither canlightning strikes. (Wiese)
The failure of 4 of the 11 pairs mated in 1994 toproduce young cannot be laid to inbreeding withoutfurther information on management practices at thefacilities involved. (Ames)
Based on the information in Mr. Parker’s paper,none of the 29 pups born in captivity died fromcauses that can be linked, in any statistical or patho-logical way, to inbreeding. (SoulC)
The argument that of the 11 pairs mated only 7produced young indicates reduced fecundity has nobearing in fact. (Spevak)
Parker’s Statement: “Monorchidism and cryp-torchidism . . . are conditions known to occur withinthe captive Mexican wolf population. The presenceof one or the other of these conditions results ineither reduced viability . . . or the non-viability . . . ofthe animals so afflicted.”
Review Comments:
Response to Dennis Parker
The discussion of monorchidism and cryptorchid-ism is confused. Cryptorchidism (monorchid orbilateral) is not a classic indicator of inbreedingdepression, although it has been noted in Mexicanwolves. I am not aware of any evidence of Parker’sassertion that cryptorchidism results in reducedviability of afflicted animals; he may be confUsingviability with fecundity. I am also not aware of anyevidence that monorchids even suffer reducedfertility, although one can assume that bilateralcryptorchids would be infertile. (Chambers)
This condition is known from a small number ofindividuals and has to date shown no discernibleinheritance pattern. Consequently, it cannot be usedas evidence for inbreeding depression in the popula-tion. (Miller)
There is presently no evidence of genetic determina-tion of these traits and the current prevalence ofcryptorchidism and monorchidism is very low.(Hedrick)
There is no pattern of increasing cryptorchidism inthe captive population. (Siminski)
General Heading: Are claims of captive Mexicanwolf population viability arid suitability forreintroduction purpose substantiated by the bestscientific information available, as required bythe Endangered Species Act?
Parker’s Statement: “... the totality of journal-published and peer-reviewed literature pertaining toGrey wolf genetics is of the unanimous consensusthat a population of Grey wolves founded from agenetic base as restricted as that which characterizesthe captive Mexican wolf population is not viablysuited for reintroductive purposes (Rails and Ballou,1986; Laikre and Ryman, 1991; Wayne, Lehman,Girman, Gogan, Gilbert, Hansen, Peterson, Seal,Eisenhawer, Mech and Krumenaker, 1991; Shields,1983; Theberge, 1981; among many others).”
K-5
Review Comments:
I think the credentials of the Genetics committeeand that of Wayne and Fain are excellent. Sixprofessional geneticists or wolf biologists, all withPhDs, evaluated or carried out this research. Theresearch by Wayne and his group (Garcia-[Moreno]et al., 1995) is in press in Conservation Biolo~, theresearch by Fain (Fain et al., 1995) has been submit-ted to the Journal of Heredity for publication, andthe research by Miller and Hedrick is in preparationfor submission to Zoo Biology. (Hedrick)
I am in strong disagreement with the assumptionthat the conservation utility of the population isnonexistent simply because the population is quiteinbred. (Ballou) [Note: Ballou’s response assumedonly 3 founders and accepted Parker’s assessment oflevels of inbreeding.]
Our recent results show that the genetic variability(heterozygosity) of the captive certified Mexican graywolves is not significantly less than that in wildpopulations of gray wolves. Another component ofgenetic variation, allelic diversity, is lower than anaverage population of gray wolves but together theseresults do not warrant the grave concern about the“genetic base” of Mexican wolves voiced by theauthor [Parker]. Moreover, because our resultssuggest that all three captive populations should beinterbred, the genetic diversity of the captive breed-ing program should be significantly increased.
(Wayne>
My reading of the literature does not agree with his.Regardless of the accuracy of the inbreeding esti-mates for the captive group, most conservationgeneticists are pragmatists, and the papers he quoteddo not say that animals should never be reintro-duced if they have inbreeding coefficients abovesome threshold. (SoulC)
This discussion relies on very theoretical and un-proven considerations and assumes that no out-breeding would ever take place. (Mech)
The Wayne et al. (1991) study, of which I am a co-author, made no such pronouncements aboutreintroductions. (Mech)
Response to Dennis Parker
Theberge (1983, [not 19811) said nothing aboutreintroductions. (Mech)
The fact that the three lines were inbred in the pasthas little relationship to the total combined popula-tion. The offspring from a sire and dam from differ-ent lines will not be inbred. Inclusion of the GhostRanch and Aragon lines to the population willincrease the population’s gene diversity (as definedby Weir, 1990). If future breeding is managedcorrectly and the three lines are crossed cautiously tomaximize gene diversity, long-term inbreeding canbe minimized as well (Ballou and Lacy, 1995).(Wiese)
While additional founders are preferable for almostany small captive population, a low amount ofgenetic variation can not accurately predict failure asMr. Parker suggests. At this time the captive popula-tion is doing well and, in fact, reproduction has tobe limited due to captive space constraints. (Wiese)
Reintroduction efforts are justified as a legitimaterecovery process based on both pedigree analysis andmolecular genetic studies. (Miller)
This is an unwarranted statement. None of theseauthors presented conclusive data on reproductivefailure of wild wolves that demonstrated a geneticproblem. (Peterson)
I underscore the importance of release in the wild ifthe current captive stock is to serve a useful purpose;their potential contribution diminishes with eachgeneration. (Peterson)
Parker does not include in his citations those thatcontradict his apparently negative response. Inaddition, careful reading of some of the studies hedoes cite show they do not completely support thatresponse. (Ames)
The literature that Parker cites recognizes that with asmaller genetic base there are more barriers tosuccess, but none of these papers states that a popu-lation with the founder base of the Mexican wolf isunsuitable for reintroduction. (Chambers)
K-6
The use of hyperbole about “the entirety of journalpublished and peer reviewed work pertaining toGray wolf genetics and limited founder populationviability” detracts from any serious argument. It isvalid that small populations with limited founderrepresentation have lower chances of long termsurvival but it is also valid that many small founderevents have become viable, e.g., island colonization.
(SpevaN
From Parker’s discussions of wolf genetics, I cannotconclude, as he does, that reintroduction will notconserve the species. (Mehlhop)
I think that Parker is confusing the term viabilitywith variability in page 3, line 2 and 10. (Hedrick)
Parker’s Statement: “According to the USFWS, . . .the wild male wolf which was caught with the lone,wild female founder in Mexico, back in 1978, wasnot the sire of the litter she subsequently birthed incaptivity, after all. . . . [this] claim, is objected to bythe person who actually caught these wolves inMexico.”
Review Comments:
The adult male founder (#4), captured with thepregnant female founder (#5) in March 1978 inDurango, Mexico, never bred in captivity and hasnever been counted as a founder. The unknown sireof #5’s wild-conceived litter is referred to in theMexican Wolf Studbook as #9000. This animalcould have been male #4, but the point is mootbecause neither #4 or #9000 made any furthercontribution to the captive population. Number 5’swild mate (whoever he is) is one of the founders ofthe Certified captive population. (Parsons)
General Heading: What is the present status ofthe Mexican wolf in the wild?
Parker’s Statement: “In 1994, Dr. Julio Carrera,who is leading wolf surveys in Mexico, documentedwolf howls . . . and recorded reports of wolves . . . .”
Review Comments:
Response to Dennis Parker
The statement is correct; however, Dr. Carrera hasyet to confirm the existence of a wild wolf inMexico. (Parsons)
Several errors exist, however, in Parker’s presentation.
h-4
General Heading: Can inbreeding questions beresolved by the addition of ASDM-GR line andAragon Zoo line wolves to the official captiveMexican wolf breeding program?
Parker’s Statement: “.. . this animal [male founderof the ASDM-GR line] may have actually been awolf-dog hybrid (Woody, 1986).” . . . ‘Skulls ofanimals born to the line [ASDM-GR] show definitedog, as well as wild canine characteristics.’ (Woody,1986).”
Review Comments:
This section needs reconsideration in the light of ourgenetic evidence showing that the two uncertifiedlines are likely drawn from the same populations asthe certified Mexican wolves and have no evidenceof a dog ancestry. (Wayne)
What Woody (1986) actually wrote in 1986 was:“The records also recorded undocumented statementsthat the animal was actually a dog-wolf hybrid.”[emphasis added]; and: “Skulls of animals born tothe line show definite dog, as well as, wild caninecharacteristics. It has not been determined ifthe dogcharacters in the skulls are due to a dog heritage or theresult of successive generations raised in captivity.”[emphasis added] (Parsons)
The molecular evidence from microsatellite loci(Hedrick, 1995; Garcia-[Moreno] et al., 1995) showno indication that the male founder of the ASDM-GR line had ancestry from a dog or a wolf-doghybrid. (Hedrick)
The information from the skulls is not as definitiveas that from microsatellites [DNA] for determiningancestry from dogs or other taxa. The phenotype ofthe skull can be strongly influenced by captive
K-7
breeding conditions so that the phenotype mayappear more doglike due entirely to environmentalfactors. However, DNA information frommicrosatellites will not be influenced by any suchenvironmental affects resulting from captivity. Inother words, the skull morphology should be givenmuch less weight in determining ancestry than DNAevidence. (Hedrick)
Parker’s Statement: “... findings of Bogan andMehlhop (1983), whose taxonomic analysis ofASDM-GR specimens had previously confirmed thepresence of pronounced dog tendencies within thisline.”
Review Comments:
The study by Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) did not“confirm” the presence of pronounced dog tenden-cies within this breeding line. To the contrary, theystate (1983:18) “most captive individuals from boththe ASDM and WCSRC lines showed affinities withthe southern wolf groups (i.e., C. 1. bailpyz) ratherthan with coyotes, dogs, or wolves from northernNew Mexico.” (Bogan)
Bogan and Mehlhop (1983) did not confirm thepresence of pronounced dog tendencies within thisline, as Parker states. To the contrary, they con-cluded that eight of nine animals showed affinitiesto southern wolves and the ninth to northern wolves(youngi) and that none of the ASDM and WCSRCanimals showed affinities to dogs or coyotes. In thatstudy, Bogan and Mehlhop presented evidence thatcaptive rearing may have brought about some of themorphological changes detected, such as shorteningof the rostrum. (Mehlhop)
While bones are shaped by environmental factors aswell as by genes, DNA analysis now offers a meansro identify an animal by its genes, a factor far lessimmediately malleable than its bones. (Ames)
Parker’s Statement: “Verification of this line’s [theAragon line] lineage is lacking at the present time,and its value as a contributor to the captive Mexicanwolf population is currently suspect.”
Review Comments:
Response CO Dennis Parker
The Aragon lineage has been shown to be character-istic of the Mexican wolf using microsatellites. Thereis no evidence of dog ancestry from the molecularanalysis in the Aragon lineage (Hedrick, 1995;Garcia-[Moreno] et al., 1995). (Hedrick)
Recent molecular work by Robert Wayne (USFWSreport) establishes the ASDM-GR lineage and theAragon lineage as Mexican gray wolves with noapparent infusion of other canid genes. USFWS hasjust uuly 19951 agreed to incorporate these wolvesinto the captive breeding program. (Spevak)
These additional lineages [ASDM-GR and Aragon]are unrelated to the certified lineage and eventhough there have been a number of incidences ofinbreeding in these lineages the offspring producedfrom their crossing will have a zero inbreedingcoef%cient. The initial separation of these lineagesmay actually have preserved genetic variability. Eachlineage would tend to become fixed for differentalleles through genetic drift and thereby maintainoverall’ levels of genetic diversity. (Spevak)
Other Comments by Reviewers:
The paper appears to have been written not as anobjective analysis but to try to discredit the proposedMexican wolf reintroduction. I say this because thepaper misinterprets or misconstrues the literature itcites, and it ignores other salient studies, all in waysthat lead to a conclusion against Mexican wolfreintroduction. (Mech)
Because of the manner in which the material I amfamiliar with has been slanted, I feel that the overallpaper was more an attempt to support a precon-ceived notion than to provide a dispassionate analy-sis. (Mech)
I would characterize the document as an “opinionpiece” that would not be suitable in its present formfor publication in the scientific literature although Ican envision it appearing in a newspaper in someform. (Bogan)
K-8
Response to Dennis Parker
If his real reasons for opposing reintroduction aresocio-economic in origin, then he should havewritten a report on the socio-economics of wolfreintroduction. In my opinion, the biological studiesand discussions support reintroduction. (Mehlhop)
Scientific contradiction or controversy alone isinsufficient reason for not proceeding with a care-fully planned and reviewed action. (Bogan)
As an aside, I noted that of the 16 articles listedunder “Citations,” no more than ten could havebeen peer-reviewed. (Bogan)
Many other assertions of the author that theUSFWS “stands alone” or his reference to all scien-tists having a contrary opinion are incorrect or atbest distortions of statements made by one or a fewscientists. (Wayne)
Clearly, the author is trying to overstate and misstatethe support for particular points. (Wayne)
If peer-reviewed publication is to be a prerequisitefor considering new information, I must point outthat Parker’s paper does not meet the standard.(Chambers)
It appears that D. Parker has not seen the recentreport by Hedrick (1995) of the Genetics Commit-tee of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team (P.Hedrick, R. Nowak, [G. Lopez] and M. Ashley)which was based on an extensive review of thepublished literature and new molecular genetics datafrom Robert Wayne (UCLA) (Garcia-Moreno et al.,1995) and Steven Fain (USFWS Forensics Labora-tory) (Fain et al., 1995). (Hedrick).
In conclusion, the arguments presented by Parkerconcerning the genetic aspects of Mexican wolfmanagement and reintroduction are not supportedby detailed analysis of the captive population.(Miller)
K-9
