reintroduction of the mexican wolf within its …...gray wolves (canis lupus buikyi) within part of...

of 369/369
REINTRODUCTION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF WITHIN ITS HISTORIC RANGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES Final Environmental

Post on 22-Jul-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • REINTRODUCTION OF THEMEXICAN WOLF WITHINITS HISTORIC RANGEIN THE SOUTHWESTERNUNITED 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 2U.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 ZONESEj

    POTENTIAL 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 10and 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 72.013R - 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. Adepend 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 fewerdeer; 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 limitedaccess 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 andneck 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 ActionIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 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.. ......................