ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOUTHWESTERN GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS) MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS

Transcription

1 FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOUTHWESTERN GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS) MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS PRELIMINARY DRAFT VERSION DECEMBER 0 PREPARED BY: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SOUTHWESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 0 Osuna Rd. NE Albuquerque, NM

2 This page intentionally left blank.

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is: Working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of ([ USC -], as amended (ESA), we have primary responsibility for conservation of terrestrial and freshwater organisms. The Service s Endangered Species program has two major goals; ) recover listed species, and; ) conserve species at risk so that listing under ESA is not necessary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, we, us, the Service) proposes to implement, through an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species. In this EA we analyze the environmental consequences from the proposal to implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas (Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan). PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION With possible recolonization of wolves into those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species comes the potential for livestock depredations and wolf-human interactions which must be responded to in a timely, professional manner. While non-human related causes of wolf mortality include disease, starvation, and intraspecific (between wolves) strife, human-caused mortality is a major factor in most wolf populations. Human-caused mortality includes legal and illegal harvest, agency control, vehicle accidents, and research-related mortalities such as capture myopathy. Without management of problem wolves, human tolerance for all wolves, including the majority that does not depredate on livestock, decreases. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to: provide uniform interagency management guidelines for determining appropriate management actions to ensure the survival and propagation of the gray wolf in Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas ; guide managers in making prompt and reasonable decisions on gray wolf management by integrating wolf recovery objectives with other land uses and values; provide the interagency management guidelines necessary to respond to reports of wolf-human and wolf-livestock interactions and to mitigate potential conflic; fund state, tribal and Federal agency partners programs that assist and collaborate in the management activities necessary to enhance the survival and propagation of the gray wolf in the Southwest Region; address local and landowner concerns associated with natural wolf recolonization by demonstrating that the Service and our partners are able to act quickly to manage wolves and resolve conflicts with humans, and to; reduce human animosity and illegal actions towards dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves and to adequately monitor and manage human-caused mortality. The Proposed Action is needed for the Service to meet our legal mandate under the ESA to recover listed species by managing gray wolves in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas in which the gray wolf is listed as endangered in a manner that: i

4 Is responsive to depredations and nuisance scenarios; promotes the growth of wolf populations and allows for eventual removal of the species/subspecies from the endangered species list; responds to reports of depredation and wolf-human/wolf-livestock interaction in a timely, professional, consistent and effective manner; reduces conflicts between wolves and human concerns, recognizing this as a key component to successful wolf recovery in the Southwest; reduces state and local opposition to the establishment of wolf populations, and; reduces the likelihood of indiscriminate, illegal killing of wolves and substantially lessens the overall risk of wolf mortality. Section. provides a full description of the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. BACKGROUND The Mexican wolf (a.k.a. Mexican gray wolf) (Canis lupus baileyi), a subspecies of gray wolf, historically occurred mostly in, or near, forested, mountainous terrain in northern Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, and the Trans-Pecos region of western Texas. The sub-species may have also ranged north into southern Utah and southern Colorado within zones of intergradation where genetic mixing with gray wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains would have occurred. Mexican wolf populations declined rapidly in the 0 th century due to intensive eradication efforts. By the early 0s, the Mexican wolf was considered extirpated from its historical range in the southwestern United States. The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies on April, ( FR 0). The gray wolf species in North America south of Canada was listed as endangered on March,, except in Minnesota where it was listed as threatened ( FR 0). Although this listing of the gray wolf species subsumed the previous Mexican wolf subspecies listing, the rule stated that the USFWS would continue to recognize the Mexican wolf as a valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation ( FR 0). The Southwest Region of the USFWS has been engaged in efforts to conserve and ensure the survival of the Mexican wolf for over three decades. The first Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed in, and the United States and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in September. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not provide recovery/delisting criteria, but did provide a prime objective: To conserve and ensure the survival of Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 00 Mexican wolves in the middle to high elevations of a,000-square mile area within the Mexican wolf s historic range (USFWS ). Our Final 0(j) Rule, Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico ( Final Rule) issued under the authority of Section 0(j) of the ESA, authorized the establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population (NEP) of the Mexican wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. Mexican wolves were reintroduced to the wild in into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA) within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) (Figure ES-). The BRWRA is wholly within the Apache and Gila National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico (Figure ES-). The Service stated that no wild Mexican wolves were known to exist in Mexico or the U.S. at the time of reintroduction ( FR -, January, ). As of the December, 0, annual population count, the reintroduced wild Mexican wolf minimum population in the BRWRA was wolves. The Mexican government released five Mexican wolves (three females and two males into the Sierra San Luis in the state of Sonora in October 0(Figure ES-). Although none of these wolves are known to still survive in the wild additional releases have continued in 0. ii

5 Figure ES-. Regional Location Map Showing BRWRA and Experimental Population Area 0 iii

6 0 0 0 Figure ES-. Release areas for Mexican wolves identified by the Mexican Government. Under the Final Rule any gray wolf present in the MWEPA, regardless of origin, is managed under the non-essential experimental population rules and management plans established for that area (see FR -, January, ). Gray wolves outside of the MWEPA are presumed to be of wild origin (inclusive of all wolves released in Mexico) with full endangered status under the ESA unless evidence, such as a radio collar or identification mark establishes the animal as part of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population. The areas in Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA are to the south of Interstate Highway 0 and to the north of Interstate Highway 0. The gray wolf is also classified as endangered in the state of Texas, excluding a small portion of the state north of Highway which is within the area defined as the MWEPA in the Final Rule (Figure ES-). PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES We propose to implement, through an ESA Section 0(a)()(A) research and recovery permit, and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan (Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan) for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) for portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.The proposed action would extend the authority of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s Section 0(a)()(A) research and recovery permit (TE-0- dated //0) issued under 0 CFR. to western Texas. Following the decision tree flow chart presented in Figure ES-, any gray wolf outside of the MWEPA will be presumed to be of wild origin (inclusive of all wolves released in Mexico) with full endangered status under the ESA and subject to the proposed wolf management plan, unless evidence, such as a radio collar or identification mark establishes the animal as part of the as part of the nonessential experimental iv

7 0 0 0 population of Mexican wolves that have been reintroduced into the BRWRA (Figure ES-). Management Zones for the gray wolf in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas outside of the MWEPA are proposed to aid in the determination of appropriate actions to be taken under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves. The proposed management zones are depicted in Figure ES-. The actions specified in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under Section of the Endangered Species Act (0 C.F.R.. and.), existing Section Cooperative Agreements and associated work plans, the Final Rule for the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (0 CFR (k) ( Final Rule), and State research and recovery permits. Three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered by us in this Environmental Assessment (EA): Alternative One: Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as Written (Preferred Alternative) Alternative Two: Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with the use of lethal control as a management tool. No Action Alternative: We would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Alternative One is considered the Preferred Alternative. Section. provides a full description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives. v

8 Is the wolf inside the Nonessential Experimental Area (Yes/No) No Yes Does evidence suggest the wolf is from the non-essential experimental zone Manage wolf under non-essential experiment population rules Yes No Manage wolf under non-essential experiment population rules Manage wolf under proposed Management Plan Figure ES-. Flow Chart of how the Service will determine management guidelines for wolves in Arizona, New Mexico and portions of Texas. vi

9 0 Figure ES-. Proposed Gray Wolf Management Zones in Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In this EA we analyze the environmental consequences from the proposal to implement, through an ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) for portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Under the No Action Alternative we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. The No Action Alternative is considered a continuation of the baseline activity level and condition of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program as described in Section.. Evidence from natural gray wolf recolonization along the U.S./Canada border suggests that, even when adequate source populations exist, lone wolves or breeding pairs may repeatedly appear in an area but then die out or be accidentally or illegally killed without establishing a self-sustaining population. Due to vii

10 uncertainties about location and timing, the impacts of natural recolonization, when, and if, it occurs, will be less predictable than in the case of released and reintroduced populations of captive-raised animals. Under neither Alternative One nor Two for the Proposed Action do we propose to release or reintroduce wolves from captive populations. The context of the project area is those portions of the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas outside of the MWEPA into which we believe wolves could naturally disperse and/or recolonize from source populations in the BRWRA (unmarked or unidentifiable wolves), the NRM, or Mexico. We define the project area through the use of proposed management zones, within which we assess the impacts of our actions, The environmental impacts from either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action are evaluated relative to this project area (the context) using the following questions as guidelines to their significance: () Would our management activities alter (either mitigate or magnify) the magnitude of impacts that would occur from naturally dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves? () Would our management activities alter the rate of dispersal or the potential for success of recolonizing wolves? () Would the areas into which wolves disperse, or areas which are naturally chosen by wolves for recolonization, be changed by our management activities? () Would our management activities increase or decrease the level of public controversy associated with naturally dispersing or recolonizing wolves? Within all three proposed Management Zones implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action would provide for active management of dispersing and/or recolonizing gray wolves by the USFWS and partner agencies under the direction and supervision of the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. Under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan we would undertake management actions that we expect would enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historical range and promote the natural dispersal, propagation and reproduction of wolves in the wild while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns. We expect that implementation of either Alternative One or Two would both improve the conservation of dispersing wolves and increase the probability of successful wolf re-colonization in areas of suitable habitat. Although we expect the beneficial impacts of our management actions on the gray wolf /Mexican wolf to be less than significant, we predict that under either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action, viable self-sustaining gray wolf populations within all three proposed management zones would be established sooner compared to the No Action Alternative. We expect that the establishment of self-sustaining wolf populations in areas of suitable habitat within any of the proposed management zones will affect the ecosystem of those areas. However, based on our analysis we expect no significant adverse changes in environmental conditions from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action compared to the baseline condition represented by the No Action Alternative. Variations within ecosystems and the relative importance of human influences result in dynamic wolf-prey relationships. Therefore, accurate predictions of impacts to the existing populations of wild ungulate prey species from the re-establishment of the wolf in the southwest are difficult to make. The rate and extent that wolves might disperse into the three proposed management zones is unknown, and the time that it might take for self-sustaining populations to be re-established is speculative. However, we expect that as wolf population numbers and density increase the number of elk, deer, and other wild ungulate species taken annually by wolves will increase as well. The adequacy of prey biomass is a limiting factor in the distribution of wolves and, although wolves are highly-adaptable prey generalists, we do not expect wolves to successfully recolonize areas where sufficient native ungulate prey do not exist. Elk have comprised the bulk of the biomass in the diet of wolves reintroduced to the BRWRA. Although elk populations showed a period of slight decline from to 00 due to factors not related to wolf predation, the overall trend in the BRWRA during the full period of wolf viii

11 reintroduction is a stable to increasing elk population with good calf recruitment. Based on our experience in the BRWRA, and, because over the broader landscapes of each proposed management zone we expect that natural dispersal will lead to the re-establishment of wolf packs principally in areas of suitable habitat with adequate wild ungulate prey base, we predict less than significant direct and indirect impacts on wild ungulate prey species from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. The rate and extent that wolves might disperse into the three proposed management zones is unknown, and the time that it might take for self-sustaining populations to be re-established is speculative. However, we predict that at some future point in time wolves, in some areas, may achieve the ecologically effective density needed to produce observable community impacts on other wildlife species (predators, nonungulate wild prey species, and scavengers). Mexican wolves and coyotes in BRWRA consume the same types of prey and foods and Carrera et al. (00) hypothesize that competition for food will occur between Mexican wolves and coyotes in the BRWRA and that Mexican wolves will have a negative impact on coyotes through direct killing of coyotes and possibly competition for ungulates. Ravens and wintering populations of eagles in the southwest have been consistently observed on wolf-kill carcasses and based on our field observations of coyotes, black bears, ravens, turkey vultures, bald and golden eagles scavenging on Mexican wolf-killed ungulates we expect some increased level of both direct and indirect effects on these species to occur from a larger population of wolves. There is limited research available that has investigated inter-species interactions in the BRWRA, either pre or post wolf reintroduction. Therefore, the magnitude of both the potential direct effects, such as a reduction of coyote numbers through interference competition, and the potential indirect effects, such as the production of carrion used by multiple vertebrate and invertebrate scavenger species are unknown. Although the magnitude of the potential effects is unknown, these interactions are generally viewed as beneficial ecosystem effects. Because over the broader landscapes of each proposed management zone we expect that natural dispersal will lead to the re-establishment of wolf packs principally in areas of suitable habitat with adequate wild ungulate prey base, we predict no significant direct or indirect adverse impacts to other predators or non-ungulate wild prey, including special status species, and less than significant indirect beneficial impacts to scavengers, including special status species, from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. The effects of the proposed management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan on the survival and recovery of Mexican wolf/gray wolf in the wild will include possible short-term adverse impacts on distribution, disruption of breeding behavior, redirection of predation away from domestic animals and onto more natural prey items, and possibly increase energy use through long range movements and increased exposure to the elements. Capture and translocation or incorporation of a wolf into the captive breeding population has inherent risks such as injury or death, but the documented occurrences of this is extremely low. Under Alternative Two the lethal removal of an individual will adversely affect that individual and its short term contribution to the species recovery program and population through loss of future offspring, contribution to its pack, and genetic contribution. However, we expect that under either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action the adverse effects of these management actions will be outweighed by the beneficial effects on the species/subspecies survival and recovery by reducing conflicts with human and livestock within the action area. We therefore predict that implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action will provide less than significant direct and indirect beneficial impacts to the Federally listed gray wolf species and the Mexican gray wolf sub-species. We predict that at some future point in time wolves could establish packs in areas of suitable habitat within all three proposed management zones. If these pack territories are proximate to ranching operations or active grazing allotments we expect some level of livestock depredation to occur. However, we expect that the level of depredation, and therefore the impacts to ranching operations and livestock production, to vary in accordance with grazing management practices including year-round or seasonal ix

12 grazing, the proportions of cows with calves, calving, and the age of cattle on allotments within their territories. Over the broader landscapes of each proposed management zone we expect the reestablishment of wolf packs principally in areas of suitable habitat with adequate native ungulate prey base. Much of the potential recolonization area within each proposed management zone is in protected areas such as national parks, monuments and wilderness areas, or in areas of low cattle density where grazing and livestock operations are limited or non-existent. Individual livestock operators may experience disproportionate losses compared to the effects of wolf depredation to ranching and livestock operations across the full extent of the three proposed management zones. However, we expect that the impacts to individual livestock operations will be mitigated by the proposed management actions for problem wolves listed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and that the overall effects of wolf depredation to livestock operations in the those portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas outside of the MWEPA will be minimal. For these reasons, we expect less than significant direct and indirect economic impact on ranching activities/livestock production from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. For many visitors to Yellowstone National Park, watching wolves is a significant attraction and studies have attributed a significant level of non-resident spending within the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) to the presence of wolves in the park. Based on the documented increase in tourism and visitation in the GYA due to the presence of wolves, and the anecdotal evidence suggesting recreational activities related to the Mexican wolf and ecotours of the Gila and Aldo Leopold Wilderness are becoming increasingly popular, we expect that the presence of wolves in all three proposed management zones would, in varying degree, attract increased recreation visits and expenditures. Because a reliable tourist base and a stable, underlying tourist infrastructure in the host community is already present we would expect Grand Canyon National Park, within proposed Management Zone, and Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park, within proposed Management Zone, to most benefit should self-sustaining gray wolf populations become established in those areas. As part of the New Mexico Ecotourism Program the Taos wilderness area was targeted as one of the best communities to provide early success for ecotourism in New Mexico and we expect that the presence of wolves in the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests would help promote northern New Mexico as an eco-tourist destination. Similarly, tourism and other outdoor recreation activities are major draws in southern Arizona and New Mexico and we expect that the presence of wolves would serve to bring increased recreation visits and expenditures to the Coronado National Forest and the Chiricahua National Monument and Coronado National Memorial in southern Arizona. Because we predict that any increase in visitation and ecotourism due to the presence of wolves will be small, at least in the early stages of wolf recolonization, we expect that both Alternatives One and Two for the Proposed Action would provide no direct, and less than significant indirect, beneficial economic effects to tourism in the three proposed Management Zones. We predict that the implementation of either Alternative One and Two for the Proposed Action will minimize human-wolf interactions compared to the baseline condition represented by the No Action Alternative and that the implementation of a practical, responsive management program for dispersing and/or re-colonizing wolves will demonstrate that the Service and our partners are able to act quickly to manage wolves and resolve conflicts with humans. We believe that timely response to reports of wolves in areas of human habitation, depredations, and nuisance scenarios will help alleviate the perception of government inaction and help allay fears regarding public safety in areas where wolves have naturally recolonized. For these reasons, we expect less than significant direct and indirect beneficial impacts to human health and public safety to result from the implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. In conjunction with other identified.. projects, we did/did not identify significant cumulative effects to the human environment from implementation of either Alternatives One or Two for the Proposed Action. In addition, we determined that resource commitments associated with the Proposed Action were not x

13 0 significant, irretrievable, or irreversible, and that implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action would not permanently narrow the range of beneficial uses of the project area. A summary of the assessment of environmental consequences is provided in Table ES-. Resource Area No Action Alternative One (Preferred) Biological Resources (Vegetation) N N N Biological Resources (Wild Ungulate N L L Prey) Biological Resources (Other predator and non-ungulate wild prey species including special status and T/E species) N N N Biological Resources (scavenger species including special status and T/E species) Economic Activity (Ranching Activities/Livestock Production) N (L)B (L)B N L L Alternative Two Economic Activity (Hunting) N N N Economic Activity (Tourism and N (L)B (L)B outdoor Recreation) Human Health/Public Safety N (L)B (L)B Land Use N N N Cumulative Impacts Key: S = Significant; L= Less than Significant; N = No Significant Impact; B= Beneficial; (T) = Temporary. Table ES-: Summary of Environmental Impacts for Each Alternative Comment [jjo]: tbd. pending input from other agencies.. Comment [jjo]: TBD pending input from agencies. xi

14 0 This page intentionally left blank. xii

15 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. BACKGROUND... II PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS... IV INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION.... INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW..... BACKGROUND AND STATUS OF THE GRAY WOLF IN NEW MEXICO, ARIZONA AND WESTERN TEXAS. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM..... CAPTIVE BREEDING PROGRAM..... REINTRODUCTION PROJECT AND NON-ESSENTIAL EXPERIMENTAL POPULATION..... SPECIFIC WOLF MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.... PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION.... AGENCY REVIEW AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..... AGENCY REVIEW..... PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT... DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES.... ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA.... ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION.... PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED..... ALTERNATIVE ONE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS) MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS AS WRITTEN (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)..... ALTERNATIVE TWO: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GRAY WOLF (CANIS LUPUS) MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO AND TEXAS WITH THE USE OF LETHAL CONTROL NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE..... BASIS FOR SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE... AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.... SPECIFIC RESOURCE AREAS EVALUATED.... PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ZONES..... MANAGEMENT ZONE..... MANAGEMENT ZONE..... MANAGEMENT ZONE.... BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..... EXISTING SETTING.... ECONOMIC ACTIVITY..... EXISTING SETTING.... HUMAN HEALTH/PUBLIC SAFETY..... EXISTING SETTING.... LAND USE..... EXISTING SETTING... XIII

16 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.... DEFINITIONS OF IMPACTS AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE.... BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..... POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.... ECONOMIC ACTIVITY..... POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.... HUMAN HEALTH/PUBLIC SAFETY..... POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.... LAND USE..... POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES.... CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS..... ONGOING AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE ACTIONS ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.... RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY.... IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES.... SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS... LIST OF PREPARERS... AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED AGENCIES INDIVIDUALS LITERATURE CITED/REFERENCES... 0 APPENDIX A: Final Rule. Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican wolf in Arizona and New Mexico ( FR ; January, ) (0 CFR.(k) APPENDIX B: Previous NEPA Analysis APPENDIX C: List of Special Status Species APPENDIX D: Public Comments and Response to Comments 0 XIV

17 0 LIST OF FIGURES Figure - Regional Location Map Showing BRWRA and Experimental Population Area Figure - Release areas for Mexican wolves identified by the Mexican Government. Figure - Photo of Mexican Wolf Figure - Flow Chart of how the Service will determine management guidelines for wolves in Arizona, New Mexico and portions of Texas Figure - Gray Wolf Management Zones in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas Figure - Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone Figure - Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone Figure - Coronado National Forest Figure - Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone Figure - Relict coniferous forest in the Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands with ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Arizona pine or southwestern white pine Figure - Landownership in Proposed Management Zone Figure - Landownership in Proposed Management Zone Figure - Landownership in Proposed Management Zone Figure - Cattle density in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico (from Carroll et al. 00) 0 0 Table - Table - Table - Table - Table - Table - Table - Table - LIST OF TABLES Mexican Wolf End of Year Population Counts in New Mexico and Arizona from to 0. Mexican Wolf Mortalities, Permanent Removals, Temporary Removals, and Translocations in New Mexico and Arizona from to 0. Ecological attributes of core areas of suitable Mexican wolf habitat (Source: USFWS, 0 unpublished). Mexican wolf summer diet BRWRA Mexican wolf population, annual confirmed wolf-killed cattle and the number of confirmed wolf-killed cattle projected for a wolf population of 00 wolves in New Mexico and Arizona from -00 Summary of FEIS Estimates and Observations of Impact of Wolves on Hunting Activity in the BRWRA, -00 Summary of Projects Considered for Cumulative Impacts Analysis Summary of Environmental Impact for Each Alternative XV

18 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Year Review Mexican Wolf Recovery: Three Year Program Review and Assessment -Year Review Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project -Year Review AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AMOC Adaptive Management Oversight Committee AMOC and IFT Adaptive Management Oversight Committee and Interagency Field Team, commonly used as a literature citation referencing these committees as authors of sections of the -Year Review, including the Technical Component (TC), Administrative Component (AC), or AMOC Recommendations Component (ARC) AMWG Adaptive Management Working Group APA Administrative Procedures Act of AZA Association of Zoos and Aquariums BAE Biological Assessment and Evaluation BRWRA Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area, as designated by the Final Rule (0 CFR.(k)) BNP Banff National Park CEQ Council on Environmental Quality DPS Distinct Population Segment DOA Department of Agriculture DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of Interior EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act of, as amended FAIR Fort Apache Indian Reservation of the White Mountain Apache Tribe Final Rule Final nonessential experimental population or 0(j) rule of for Mexican wolf reintroduction in Arizona and New Mexico, 0 CFR.(k) Great Lakes USFWS gray wolf recovery program administered out of the Great Lakes, Big Rivers Region (Region ) GMU Game Management Unit GYA Greater Yellowstone Area IFT Interagency Field Team (for the Reintroduction Project, see below) LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MVP Minimum Viable Population XVI

19 0 0 MWEPA Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area MWRP Mexican Wolf Recovery Program NEP Non-essential Experimental Population NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of NFMA National Forest Management Act NMDGF New Mexico Department of Game and Fish NRM DPS Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment Northern Rockies USFWS gray wolf recovery program administered out of the Mountain- Prairie Region (Region ) and Pacific Region (Region ) PVA Population Viability Analysis SOP Standard Operating Procedure for the Reintroduction Project SSP Species Survival Program SWDPS Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment SWDPS Recovery Team Southwestern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment (with emphasis on the Mexican gray wolf, Canis lupus baileyi) Recovery Team USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDA Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service USDA-WS US Department of Agriculture-Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services USFWS or Service United States Fish and Wildlife Service WMAT White Mountain Apache Tribe YNP Yellowstone National Park XVII

20 DEFINITIONS Agent/Designated Agent Individuals that are designated through a: () Service Section 0 (a)(a) permit, () Section Agreement, or () a Service-Approved Management Plan, based, in part, on their training and technical expertise with respect to wolf reintroduction, monitoring, management, care and handling. Authorized Agencies/personnel Agencies and their employees that are designated through a () Service Section 0 (a)(a) permit, () Section Agreement, or () a Service-Approved Management Plan, based, in part, on their training and technical expertise with respect to wolf reintroduction, monitoring, management, care and handling. Aversive Conditioning -The use of some noxious or punishing stimuli on problem wolves to modify or stop undesirable behaviors, such as: () depredation on domestic livestock, () displaying fearless behavior of humans, or () interacting with other domestic animals or pets (i.e., dogs or cats). Depredation - The confirmed killing of lawfully present domestic livestock by one or more wolves. The Service, USDA Wildlife Services (WS), or other Service-authorized agencies confirm cases of wolf depredation on domestic livestock (see Appendix I). Depredation Incident - The aggregate number of livestock killed or mortally wounded by an individual wolf or a single pack of wolves at a single location within a -day (-hour) period, beginning with the first confirmed kill, as documented in the initial incident investigation pursuant to Appendix I. Note: in some situations, dead or mortally wounded livestock may be discovered during management follow-up in an incident area that were not counted in the original depredation incident. Field personnel and the permittee or landowner will discuss and the field personnel must determine whether such animals represent an additional incident or should be included in the earlier incident Federal Land - Federally managed lands. Hard Release - The transport and immediate release of wolves at an appropriate site. Lawfully Present Livestock - Livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, mules, and burros) occurring on private lands or on legal allotments (not trespassing) on Federal lands. Livestock - cattle, sheep, horses, mules, burros, llama, and alpaca s, or other domestic animals defined as livestock in State and Tribal wolf management plans approved by the Service. Management Actions - (a) application of aversive conditioning techniques to problem wolves; (b) capturing wolves on Federal, State, Tribal, or private lands, radio tagging and releasing them on site; (c) translocating wolves to remote areas; or (d) placing wolves in captivity. Management Agency - A Federal or State or Tribal agency permitted by the Service under Section 0 of the ESA to conduct wolf management actions. Nuisance Activity/Behavior/Scenario - Refers to a wolf or wolves that display a lack of avoidance of humans or their residences. The definition for nuisance activity/behavior by wolves is potentially quite broad. However, a wolf passing by a residence at night without being observed is generally not considered a nuisance scenario, while a wolf that does not move away from humans during a close encounter is clearly a nuisance scenario. In between these two examples lies a large gray area that XVIII

21 0 0 requires the professional judgment of Management Agency employees based on reported behavior, evidence at the scene (i.e., tracks, scats, and telemetry locations), and the past behavior of the wolf or wolves. Pack - A group ( ) of wolves, usually consisting of a breeding male, female, and any number of their offspring. Pets - Any domestic animal (other than cattle, sheep, horses, mules, burros, llamas, and alpacas) that could be killed or maimed by wolves that are lawfully present on Federal, State, or private land, excluding feral animals. Problem Wolves - Wolves that: () have depredated on lawfully present domestic livestock two times in an area (00 square miles (e.g., a packs territory)) within six months, () are members of a pack (including adults, yearlings, and young-of-the-year greater than six months of age) that were directly involved in livestock depredations two times in area (00 square miles (e.g. a packs territory)) within six months, () have depredated domestic animals or pets other than livestock on private or tribal lands, two times in an area (00 square miles (e.g., a packs territory)) within six months, or () are habituated to humans, human residences, or other facilities. Removal - Capture and placement in captivity or translocation of problem wolves. Soft Releases - When wolves are placed in an acclimation pen (constructed of chain link or mesh material) and held for a period and then released on site. Take - To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct ( U.S.C et. seq.). Translocation - Capturing, affixing a radio collar, and moving wolves from one site to another where they are 'hard' or 'soft' released. XIX

22 0 0 This page intentionally left blank. XX

23 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION. INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, we, us, the Service) propose to implement, through an ESA Section 0 (a) ()(A) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) for portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species. The proposed action would extend the authority of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s section 0(a)()(A) research and recovery permit (TE-0- dated //0) issued under 0 CFR. to western Texas. The actions proposed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under Section of the Endangered Species Act (0 C.F.R.. and.), existing Section Cooperative Agreements and associated work plans, the Final Rule for the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (0 CFR (k) ( Final Rule), and State research and recovery permits. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of ( United States Code [U.S.C] et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (Title 0 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] 00-0); DOI Regulations, ( CFR Part ) and USFWS instructions and guidance. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on the understanding of environmental consequences, and to take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the environment. In this EA we analyze the environmental consequences of our proposed action. The Southwest Region of the USFWS has been engaged in efforts to conserve and ensure the survival of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) for over three decades. The first Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed in, and the United States and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in September. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan did not provide recovery/delisting criteria, but did provide a prime objective: To conserve and ensure the survival of Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 00 Mexican wolves in the middle to high elevations of a,000-square mile area within the Mexican wolf s historic range (USFWS ). The environmental effects of the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) (a.k.a. Mexican gray wolf) into portions of Arizona and New Mexico have been previously analyzed and addressed in the following NEPA documents: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States. November 0, (USFWS ). Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the Translocation of Mexican Wolves Throughout the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area in Arizona and New Mexico. February 0, 000 (USFWS 000). A Conference/Biological Opinion issued by the Service November 0, 0 addresses the impacts to Federally listed species from the issuance of a section 0(a) () (A) research and recovery permit and Federal funding to implement Mexican gray wolf recovery activities within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (i.e., designated 0(j) area) in Arizona and New Mexico, and the portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (USFWS 0). CHAPTER P AGE

24 These documents are incorporated, where appropriate, by reference into this EA (CEQ, Sec 0.)... Background and Status of the Gray Wolf in New Mexico, Arizona and Western Texas. The Mexican wolf (a.k.a. Mexican gray wolf), a subspecies of gray wolf, historically occurred mostly in, or near, forested, mountainous terrain (Bailey, Leonard et al 00) in northern Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, and the Trans-Pecos region of western Texas (Brown ). The subspecies may have also ranged north into southern Utah and southern Colorado within zones of intergradation where genetic mixing with gray wolves from the northern Rocky Mountains would have occurred (Carrol et al 00). Mexican wolves have been found to be genetically distinct from other North American gray wolves taxon (Wayne and Vilá 00). They tend to be patchy black, brown to cinnamon, and cream in color and are somewhat smaller than other gray wolves with adults weighing - kilograms (0-0 pounds) and height at the shoulder approximately meters (-. feet). Historically, in the Southwest, Mexican wolves were associated with montane woodlands characterized by sparsely to densely-forested mountainous terrain and adjacent grasslands in habitats found at elevations of ft. where ungulate prey were numerous. The primary potential native prey of Mexican wolves include elk (Cervus elaphus), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mule deer (O. hemionus), and to a lesser extent, pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), javelina (Tayassu tajacu), and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Parsons ). Other sources of prey include small mammals, and occasionally birds. Numbering in the thousands before European settlement, Mexican wolf populations declined rapidly in the 0 th century primarily due to concerted Federal, state, and private predator control and eradication efforts (Leonard et al 00). By the early 0s, the Mexican wolf was considered extirpated from its historical range in the southwestern United States. The Mexican wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies on April, ( FR 0). The gray wolf species in North America south of Canada was listed as endangered on March,, except in Minnesota where it was listed as threatened ( FR 0). Although this listing of the species subsumed the previous Mexican wolf subspecies listing, the rule stated that the USFWS would continue to recognize the Mexican wolf as a valid biological subspecies for purposes of research and conservation ( FR 0). No critical habitat has been designated for the Mexican wolf (USFWS 0). Pursuant to the Record of Decision (ROD) and Statement of Findings (USFWS ) for the FEIS, our Final 0(j) Rule, Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico ( Final Rule) issued under the authority of Section 0(j) of the ESA, authorized the establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population (NEP) of the Mexican wolf in Arizona and New Mexico. Under the Final Rule, the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA), within a defined Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (MWEPA) (Figure -), was established. Mexican wolves were reintroduced to the wild in into the BRWRA portions of the Gila and Apache National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico. The Service stated that no wild Mexican wolves were known to exist in Mexico or the U.S. at the time of reintroduction ( FR -, January, ). As of the December, 0, annual population count, the reintroduced wild Mexican wolf minimum population in the BRWRA was wolves. The Mexican government released five Mexican wolves (three females and two males) into the Sierra San Luis in the state of Sonora in October 0. Although out of of these wolves were illegally killed within several months of release and none are known to still survive in the wild, additional releases have continued in 0 and the Mexican government has informed the Service of their plans to continue releases of Mexican wolves into the northern area in the Sierra Madre Occidental, and to potentially initiate releases in the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon. CHAPTER P AGE

25 0 Under the Final Rule, any gray wolf present in the MWEPA, regardless of origin is managed under the non-essential experimental population rules and management plans established for that area (see FR -, January, ). Gray wolves outside of the MWEPA are presumed to be of wild origin (inclusive of all wolves released in Mexico) with full endangered status under the ESA unless evidence, such as a radio collar or identification mark establishes the animal as part of the as part of the nonessential experimental population of Mexican wolves that have been reintroduced into the BRWRA (Figure -). The areas in Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA are to the south of Interstate Highway 0 and to the north of Interstate Highway 0. The gray wolf is also classified as endangered in the state of Texas, excluding a small portion of the state north of Highway which is within the area defined as the MWEPA in the Final Rule (Figure -). 0 Figure -: Regional Location Map Showing BRWRA and Experimental Population Area. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEXICAN WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM The primary statute governing the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program is the Endangered Species Act of (ESA). Section (f)() of the ESA states that the Secretary of the Interior shall develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species. The Southwest Region of the USFWS has been engaged in efforts to conserve and ensure the survival of the Mexican wolf for over three decades. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Team was formed in, and the United States and Mexico signed the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan in September,. The Recovery Plan did not provide recovery/delisting criteria, but did provide a prime objective: CHAPTER P AGE

26 To conserve and ensure the survival of Canis lupus baileyi by maintaining a captive breeding program and re-establishing a viable, self-sustaining population of at least 00 Mexican wolves in the middle to high elevations of a,000-square mile area within the Mexican wolf s historic range (USFWS ). The current management structure of the Mexican wolf recovery effort, distinguishes between the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Program (MWRP, Recovery Program) and the interagency Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project (Reintroduction Project). The Recovery Program encompasses captive breeding, reintroduction, and all related conservation activities for the Mexican wolf (USFWS 00)... Captive Breeding Program In and, a total of five wolves were captured in Durango and Chihuahua, Mexico to establish a captive breeding population (McBride 0). The population of Mexican wolves at the time was thought to be widely scattered and in extremely isolated pockets of the Sierra Madre in Mexico (McBride 0). The first Mexican wolf pups were born in captivity in (Parsons, Hedrick et al. ). These founding wolves and their offspring were initially referred to as the Certified lineage, later renamed the McBride lineage. As the program continued, concern began to surface over the limited genetic diversity of the captive population and the potential for inbreeding depression to hinder its success (Parsons, Hedrick et al. ). Thus, in, after definitive genetic testing methods became available and were applied, two additional lineages of pure Mexican wolves, the Ghost Ranch lineage, founded by two wolves, and the Aragon lineage, also founded by two wolves, were integrated into the captive breeding program to increase the genetic diversity of the founder population. This raised the founding base of the captive population from three (note: only three of the original five McBride wolves were considered founders) to seven pure Mexican wolves (Hedrick et al. ). The captive breeding of Mexican wolves, which began in, is a bi-national effort between the United States and Mexico. Managed by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums through the Mexican wolf Species Survival Plan (AZA Mexican Wolf SSP), the captive breeding program s ultimate objective is to provide healthy offspring for release into the wild, while conserving the Mexican wolf subspecies genome (Lindsey and Siminski 00). Turner Endangered Species Fund and Wolf Haven International support the Reintroduction Project by providing pre-release captive facilities where wolves from the captive breeding program are acclimated prior to release to the wild. The 0 captive population of Mexican wolves is distributed among Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and non-aza facilities. This population is currently just below the carrying capacity of 00 Mexican wolves, established primarily among the AZA institutions, as determined in the Canid Regional Collection Plan (Siminski and Spevak 0)... Reintroduction Project and Non-Essential Experimental Population The primary goal of the Reintroduction Project effort is to restore a self-sustaining population of at least 00 wild Mexican wolves distributed over,0 km² (,000 mi²) of the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area (BRWRA). The BRWRA is located in east-central Arizona and west-central New Mexico, and encompasses, square miles (mi ) (, square kilometers (km )) of National Forest System lands within the Apache and Gila National Forests. The adjoining Fort Apache Indian Reservation (FAIR) provides an additional, mi (,0 km ) for wolf colonization and releases, pursuant to an agreement between the Service and the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT). The Primary Recovery Zone (PRZ), available for initial release of captive-raised wolves under the Final 0(j) Rule, is approximately mi (0 km ) in area, or approximately percent of the entire BRWRA. It is situated entirely within the southern portion of the Apache National Forest in the State of Arizona. The Secondary Recovery Zone (SRZ) is the remainder of the BRWRA, not included in the PRZ (Figure -). CHAPTER P AGE

27 0 0 Mexican wolves were reintroduced to the wild in in Arizona and New Mexico as a Non-essential Experimental Population (NEP) pursuant to the Final 0(j) Rule. The Mexican wolf is one of only three carnivores in North America to have been extirpated in the wild, bred in captivity, and reintroduced to the wild (Brown and Parsons 00). Non-essential experimental status, as established by the Final 0(j) Rule, provides for administrative and management flexibility under the ESA by relaxing prohibitions on take [to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct ( U.S.C. [])]. Non-essential experimental status allows for active management of wolves, including translocation of previously released wolves within the BRWRA. Between and 00, the actual minimum population of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA closely tracked with population projections in the FEIS, (the population numbers for 00 and later years also include wolves on the FAIR). Although 00 and 0 minimum population counts increased from each of the preceding years, from 00 through 0, the minimum population count has not reached FEIS projections or shown continuous steady growth (see Table -). Over the last eight years, the population size has hovered around the halfway point of the population target of at least 00 wolves. The number of breeding pairs (as defined by the Final 0(j) Rule) reached a high of seven in 00 and 0, but dropped to two pairs for three of the past four years. As of the December, 0, annual population count, the reintroduced wild Mexican wolf minimum population was wolves (See Table -). The FEIS estimated that the population objective of at least 00 wolves would be met in 00. Although no single threat is responsible for the delayed progress of the reintroduction or the decline in population size and number of breeding pairs between 00 and 00, the cumulative effect of multiple threats has resulted in a consistently high level of mortality, removal, and reduced fitness (See Table -). Combined sources of mortality and removal have been at levels too high for unassisted population growth. The Mexican wolf is more susceptible to population decline at a given mortality rate than other gray wolf populations because of smaller litter sizes, less genetic diversity, lack of immigration from other populations, and potential low pup recruitment (USFWS 00). Thus, the cumulative impact of identified threats to the Mexican wolf, coupled with its biological attributes, is putting the reintroduction project at risk of failure to achieve the goal of a viable self-sustaining population of at least 00 wolves (USFWS 00). Year Minimum Population Count (Observed) Population Projected in FEIS Breeding Pairs (Observed) Breeding Pairs Projected in FEIS CHAPTER P AGE

28 0 0 FEIS projections were made only through 00 An annual breeding pair estimate which includes at least one Operational Breeding Pair: an adult male and an adult female that have produced at least two pups during the previous breeding season and which survived until December of the year of their birth, despite the loss and replacement of at least one biological parent of the offspring. This is a modification of the Breeding pair definition per the final 0j rule, to include pairs where alphas (one or both of the breeding adults in a pack) have been replaced but are functioning as a biological unit with a high probability of breeding success in the subsequent year (USFWS 00). Table -. Mexican Wolf End of Year Population Counts in New Mexico and Arizona from to 0. Year Number of Mortalities Number of Permanent Removals Number of Temporary Removals Number of Translocations Total 0 Mortalities include due to illegal shooting (%), due to vehicle collision (%), due to natural causes (.%), due to unknown causes (%), awaiting necropsy results (%), and due to other causes (%). Permanent removals include animals removed by lethal control. Temporary removals in excess of translocations equal net loss to population of animals. Table -. Mexican Wolf Mortalities, Permanent Removals, Temporary Removals, and Translocations in New Mexico and Arizona from to 0... Specific Wolf Management Activities Guidance for the specific activities conducted under the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program is provided within several documents including: () the Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan (USFWS ); () the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USFWS ) () the January,, Final Rule (USFWS ); () Mexican Wolf Interagency Management Plan (USFWS a), and; () Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit number TE0-, dated November 0,issued under 0 CFR.. The Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit, as well as the current Mexican wolf non-essential experimental population rule under 0 CFR.(k), state that personnel may take any Mexican wolf in the nonessential experimental population in a manner consistent with a Service approved management plan, special management measures adopted by the Service pursuant to the provisions of 0 CFR CHAPTER P AGE

29 (k)()(ix), and to conduct activities related directly to the conservation, protection, and recovery of reintroduced non-essential experimental populations of Mexican wolves within Arizona and New Mexico. Management activities are implemented for wolves within the MWEPA, which are designated as experimental, non-essential populations, and, excluding lethal control (e.g. hunt, shoot or wound with the intent to kill a wolf), may be conducted for gray wolves outside the MWEPA that are fully protected as endangered under the ESA. These management activities are summarized below pursuant to the goals of the program: Goal. Capture and maintain at least two collared wolves per pack: These activities include, but are not limited to: trapping (leg-hold traps), darting (from ground or during aerial operations), net-gunning during helicopter operations, handling, possessing, administering health care, mark utilizing radio-collars or other appropriate monitoring systems, obtain samples (blood, tissue, semen, ova, and hair), transport, salvage, and release Mexican gray wolves. All adult wolves released from captivity or trapped in the wild are radio collared. Wolves are then radio-tracked periodically from the ground (i.e. triangulation) and a minimum of once a week from the air, weather permitting. Location data (i.e. date, UTM location, wolf identification number, sex, age, number of wolves, behavior, and weather) are entered into the reintroduction project s database, along with reports for specific incidents (e.g. depredations, wolf/human conflicts, aversive conditioning, captures, mortalities, translocations, initial releases, predation). Goal. Minimize depredation and human nuisance occurrence by Mexican gray wolves: a. These activities include, but are not limited to: all activities listed in Goal.a., above, and nonlethal techniques (e.g., capture; radio collar and release on site; scare devices; guard animals; fladry; taste aversion; harassment by agency personnel using rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, cracker shells, paintball guns, and other human disturbance; den disturbance; manipulation of movements via food caches; movement of cattle away from core use areas; and any other technique available) to resolve the conflict (see Coppinger et al., Cluff and Murray, Fritts et al. 00, Shivik et al. 00, Bangs et al. 00, Shivik 00 for description of techniques and application results). b. If the problem persists or becomes chronic, then the wolves may be translocated, permanently removed, and/or lethally controlled (lethal control is limited to wolves within the MWEPA (0 (j) area) in Arizona and New Mexico) in accordance with approved management plans, protocols, and the authorization of the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. Goal. Increase Mexican gray wolf population via translocation, initial releases, and natural recruitment: a. These activities includes, but are not limited to: all activities listed in Goal.a., above, and building temporary mesh and chain link paneled pens at sites that are; () previously approved by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), () include appropriate level of the NEPA analysis and scoping in accordance with USFS policy guidance on building pens, and () include consultation of possible effects to other endangered and threatened species based on site specific characteristics and modifications at the individual release area. The pens include some minor disturbance to the ground, which can require archeological clearance from the USFS for chain link pens. Mexican gray wolves are transported by vehicle, mule, or helicopter to release areas. Food caches are maintained until the wolves quit utilizing the food caches or start killing native prey, and personnel often camp near the release areas to consistently monitor the wolves. Goal. Collect appropriate biological data: CHAPTER P AGE

30 a. These activities include, but are not limited to: aerial and ground telemetry monitoring, viewing wolves near potentially sensitive areas to obtain visual counts on the number of pups and adults in a pack, determining whether wolves were responsible for depredations and/or native ungulate kills that are discovered, howling surveys for documentation of unknown packs and counts of known packs, and collaborating with researchers for data collection and analysis on approved projects. Goal. Continue to maintain and/or increase the number of Mexican gray wolves in captivity: a. These activities include, but are not limited to: breeding, handling, possessing, administering health care, obtaining samples (blood, tissue, semen, ova, and hair), transport, salvage, collaborating with researchers for data collection and analysis on approved projects. With prior authorization from the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator, permittees are authorized to transport wild-captured or captive-reared wolves to various approved sites for research, reintroductions, rehabilitations, breeding, or treatment of sick or injured animals (including euthanasia in extreme circumstances). The MWRP operates two pre-release facilities, the Ladder Ranch Wolf Management Facility and the Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility. Both house Mexican wolves prior to release and after temporary or permanent removal from the wild.. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The designated reintroduction area (Chihuahua/Sonora) in Mexico where the initial release of five wolves occurred in October, 0, extends north to within approximately 0 miles ( km) south of the United States border at the Arizona/New Mexico state line. A second site (Nuevo Leon) under consideration by the Mexican government is approximately 0 miles (0 km) south of the southern tip of Texas (Figure -). Gray wolves are capable of dispersing ~00 miles (~00 km) or more (Fritts, Boyd et al. ). The observed movement distance for dispersing wolves in the BRWRA population averaged +/- miles ( km) (IFT 00). In Oregon a GPS collared wolf traveled more than 00 miles ( km), dispersing from the Imnaha pack territory on the Oregon-Idaho border to south-western Oregon and into northern California (CDFG 0). Dispersal and natural re-colonization of areas of suitable habitat in southern Arizona and New Mexico (south of Interstate Highway 0) and the Trans Pecos area of western Texas, where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species is possible if the Mexican government succeeds in establishing populations of Mexican wolves in the planned reintroduction areas. Gray wolves from the Northern Rocky Mountain population have been documented in Colorado, <00 miles north of the New Mexico border ( FR, April, 00). Dispersal into, and natural re-colonization of, areas of suitable habitat in northern Arizona and New Mexico (north of Interstate Highway 0) where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species may occur from the Northern Rocky Mountain Distinct Population Segment (NRM DPS) of wolves. Unmarked, unidentifiable wolves from the BRWRA population of Mexican wolves could also contribute to naturally re-colonizing populations of wolves in these areas of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas that are outside the MWEPA. With possible recolonization of wolves into those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas where gray wolves are listed as an endangered species comes the potential for livestock depredations and wolf-human interactions which must be responded to in a timely, professional and effective manner. CHAPTER P AGE

31 A B C Figure -. Release areas for Mexican wolves identified by the Mexican Government. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is: Working with others, to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of ([ USC -], as amended (ESA), we have primary responsibility for conservation of terrestrial and freshwater organisms. The Service s Endangered Species program has two major goals; ) recover listed species, and; ) conserve species at risk so that listing under ESA is not necessary. Section (f) () of the ESA directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered species. Recovery and long-term conservation of the gray wolf in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico will likely depend on establishment of a metapopulation or several semi-disjunct but viable populations spanning a significant portion of its historic range in the region (Carroll et al. 00). While non-human related causes of wolf mortality include disease, starvation, and intraspecific (between wolves) strife (Fuller et al. 00), human-caused mortality is a major factor in most wolf populations. Human-caused mortality includes legal and illegal harvest, agency control, vehicle accidents, and research-related mortalities such as capture myopathy (Creel and Rotella 00, Gude et al. 0). CHAPTER P AGE

32 0 0 0 Without management of problem wolves, human tolerance for all wolves, including the majority that does not depredate on livestock, decreases (Mech ). Therefore, an important purpose of the proposed Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan will be to reduce human animosity and illegal actions towards the wolf population and to adequately monitor and manage human-caused mortality. We developed the proposed Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan in order to: Conserve those wolves which have repopulated parts of the Southwest Region; enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range, and to; promote the natural dispersal, propagation and reproduction of wolves in the wild. We propose to implement the Gray Wolf Management Plan, in collaboration with Federal, State, and Tribal Partners through an ESA Section 0 (a) () (A) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding. The actions specified in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under 0 C.F.R.. C () and Cooperative Agreements with the states of Arizona and New Mexico. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to: Provide uniform interagency management guidelines for determining appropriate management actions that ensure the survival and propagation of the gray wolf in the Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas; guide managers in making prompt and reasonable decisions on gray wolf management by integrating wolf recovery objectives with other land uses and values; provide the interagency management guidelines necessary to respond to reports of wolf-human and wolf-livestock interactions, thereby mitigating potential conflict, and to; fund state, tribal and Federal agency partners programs that assist and collaborate in the management activities necessary to enhance the survival and propagation of the gray wolf in the Southwest Region. address local and landowner concerns associated with natural wolf recolonization by demonstrating that the Service and our partners are able to act quickly to manage wolves and resolve conflicts with humans. The Proposed Action is needed for the Service to meet our legal mandate under the ESA to recover listed species by managing gray wolves in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas in which the gray wolf is listed as endangered in a manner that: Is responsive to depredations and nuisance scenarios; promotes the growth of wolf populations and allows for eventual removal of the species/subspecies from the endangered species list; responds to reports of depredation and wolf-human/wolf-livestock interaction in a timely, professional, consistent and effective manner; reduces conflicts between wolves and human concerns, recognizing this as a key component to successful wolf recovery in the Southwest; reduces state and local opposition to the establishment of wolf populations, and; CHAPTER 0 P AGE

33 reduces the likelihood of indiscriminate, illegal killing of wolves and substantially lessens the overall risk of wolf mortality. 0 0 Figure -. Photo of Mexican Wolf.. AGENCY REVIEW AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.. Agency Review The Preliminary Draft EA (PDEA) was provided for review to the following agencies, tribes and local governments: Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD); New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS), Arizona Wildlife Services (WS) State Office; USDA APHIS New Mexico Wildlife Services (WS) State Office; USDA. Forest Service (USDAFS), Southwestern Region; Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona State Office; BLM, New Mexico State Office; National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Southwest Regional Office; New Mexico Department of Agriculture. Management Zone Arizona Counties: Mohave, Coconino, Navajo, and Apache New Mexico Counties: San Juan, Rio Arriba, Taos, Colfax, Mora, Sandoval, Santa Fe Agencies: NPS- Grand Canyon National Park, Parashant National Monument, Vermillion Cliffs National Monument. BLM- Arizona Strip Field Office, Farmington Field Office, Taos Field Office USDAFS: Coconino, Kaibab, Santa Fe, Carson National Forests CHAPTER P AGE

34 Tribes and Pueblos: San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Mescalero Apache Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Pauite Indians, Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Taos Pueblo, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Sandia, Pueblo of Jemez, Kewa Pueblo (formerly Santa Domingo), Pueblo of Santa Clara, Pueblo of San Iledfonso, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Cochiti, Pueblo of Acoma. Management Zone Arizona Counties: Santa Cruz, Cochise. New Mexico Counties: Hildalgo, Luna, Dona Ana, Grants. Agencies: NPS-Coronado National Memorial, Chirichaua National Monument USDAFS: Coronado National Forest BLM- Las Cruces District Office Dept. of the Army: U.S. Army, Ft Huachuca Management Zone Texas Counties: Jeff Davis, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Presidio, Hudspeth, Culberson, Val Verde. Agencies: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas A&M Forest Service. NPS: Big Bend National Park. Tribes and Reservations: Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo... Public Involvement A notice of availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (Draft EA) for a 0-day public review and comment period was published in the Albuquerque Journal, the XXX, the XXX and the XXX on XXXXX 0 and was the subject of a USFWS Region press release on XXXX XX 0. The Draft EA was placed on the USFWS Region website, and copies of the Draft EA were made available on request and at the following public locations: Ssss Ssss Sss ssss Written comments could be provided through the use of comment forms, available at the public meetings, and by or mail to the Public Affairs Officer, USFWS, Region address, mailing address. We received a total of XX,XXX comments. The range of comments was wide and many comments were general in nature, expressing support for, or disapproval of, the wolf recovery program. Systematic analysis of the thousands of comments received resulted in the emergence of xxx different issues. In the development of the Final EA we considered those comments that were pertinent and applicable to the Proposed Action and our analysis of potential environmental impacts from the alternatives considered for its implementation. The comments categorized by issue and our responses to them are provided in Appendix D. Comment [jjo]: Placeholder. To be added in FEA CHAPTER P AGE

35 0 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER P AGE

36 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Our Proposed Action is to implement, through a section 0 (a) ()(A) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan (Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan) for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) for portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The actions specified in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under 0 C.F.R.. C() and Cooperative Agreements with the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. This chapter presents the Proposed Action, the alternatives we considered, and the criteria we used to select those alternatives. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations provide guidance to Federal agencies on the consideration of alternatives in an EA. In accordance with this guidance the agency decision-maker is required to consider the environmental effects of the Proposed Action. If there is no consensus about the proposed action based on input from interested parties (NEPA section 0[] [E]), a range of alternatives to the Proposed Action (0 C.F.R. 0.) must also be considered. The range of alternatives includes reasonable alternatives, which must be rigorously and objectively explored, as well as other alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study. To be reasonable, an alternative must meet the stated purpose of, and need for, the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline, or representative "status quo". The purpose of including a No Action Alternative in an environmental impact analysis is to ensure that agencies compare the potential impacts of the proposed Federal action to the known impacts of maintaining the status quo. NEPA regulations require that the Federal action proponent study methods to mitigate adverse environmental impacts which may result from going forward with the Proposed Action or an alternative (0 C.F.R. 0.). Additionally, an EA is to include study of appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the Proposed Action or alternatives (0 C.F.R. 0. [h]). Through the implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan, the action alternatives selected for further consideration in this EA provide mitigation measures which are intended to reduce any adverse environmental effects that could occur in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas which contain suitable habitat for recolonizing wolves.. ALTERNATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA The alternatives we selected for further consideration and evaluation were developed after careful assessment by the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office with input from the coordinating agencies listed in Section.. We sought alternatives that allowed us to implement the Proposed Action in a manner that: Maximizes the potential for the successful establishment, through natural dispersion and recolonization, of new wolf packs in suitable areas of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas; minimizes wolf-human interactions; minimizes wolf-livestock interactions and depredation, and; allows for an increase in wolf numbers in the southwest and eventual removal of the gray wolf from the endangered species list.. ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION We eliminated the following alternatives from further consideration because, after careful review of each in light of the identified criteria, we determined that they did not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. CHAPTER P AGE

37 Implement a Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan only for portions of Arizona and New Mexico. This alternative would implement a management plan and provide funding for wolf management activities in Arizona and New Mexico but not Texas. Because of the distance (approximately 0 miles/0 km) to the Texas border from the planned Nuevo Leon reintroduction site in Mexico dispersal and recolonization could be considered unlikely in the near future. Therefore, a wolf management plan for Texas would be unnecessary. However, wolves disperse when necessary to find unoccupied or suitable habitat, to find a mate, or to establish new pack territory. The observed movement distance for dispersing wolves in the BRWRA population averaged +/- miles ( km) (IFT 00). In Oregon a GPS collared wolf traveled more than 00 miles ( km), dispersing from the Imnaha pack territory on the Oregon-Idaho border to south-western Oregon and into northern California (CDFG 0). Should wolves disperse north to Texas from Mexico, the Service and Texas wildlife management agencies, must be able to manage gray wolves as an endangered species in a manner that promotes the growth of wolf populations but that is also responsive to depredations and nuisance scenarios. A management plan that provides uniform interagency management guidelines across all the states which may have recolonizing wolves is considered essential to carry out these tasks. For these reasons we rejected this alternative because it did not satisfactorily meet the established selection criteria and therefore does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Implement individual Management Plans for the gray wolf in each of the three affected southwestern states. This alternative would implement an individual management plan and provide funding for wolf management activities in each of the three (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas) affected southwestern states. Specific management needs, and the unique physical environment of each state would be addressed by a tailored management plan specific to the state. However, the historic range of the Mexican wolf is considered to encompass at least portions of all three states and the establishment of future wolf pack territories could cross state political boundaries. Additionally, to maintain a genetically diverse metapopulation and eventually recover the species, gray wolves in the southwest must be managed in a holistic manner which allows dispersal to suitable habitat across state political lines. Individual state wolf management plans would not provide uniform interagency management guidelines for determining appropriate management actions that ensure the survival and propagation of the gray wolf in the southwest. Therefore we rejected this alternative because it does not satisfactorily meet the established selection criteria and therefore does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Implement the Management Plan for the gray wolf but without Federal funding. This alternative would implement a Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas but without the provision of Federal funding to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the execution of management activities within the proposed Management Zones. The Federal, state, and tribal land management agencies and the state wildlife agencies are key partners for the successful recovery and the management of the gray wolf in the southwest. Without the provision of Federal funding these agencies will be unable to fully participate in the necessary management activities that minimize wolf-human and wolf-livestock interaction while maximizing the potential for successful establishment of new wolf packs in suitable areas of New Mexico, Arizona and Texas For these reasons we rejected this alternative CHAPTER P AGE

38 0 0 because it did not satisfactorily meet the established selection criteria and therefore does not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action.. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED We propose to implement, through an ESA Section 0 (a) ()(A) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding, a management plan (Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan)for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) for portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The proposed action would extend the authority of of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s section 0(a)()(A) research and recovery permit (TE-0- dated //0) issued under 0 CFR.to western Texas. Following the decision tree flow chart presented in Figure -, any gray wolf outside of the MWEPA will be presumed to be of wild origin (inclusive of all wolves released in Mexico) with full endangered status under the ESA and subject to the proposed wolf management plan, unless evidence, such as a radio collar or identification mark establishes the animal as part of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population. Management Zones for the gray wolf in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas outside of the MWEPA are proposed to aid in the determination of appropriate actions to be taken under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves. The proposed management zones are depicted in Figure -. Three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, are considered by us in this Environmental Assessment (EA): Alternative One: Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as Written (Preferred Alternative) Alternative Two: Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with the use of lethal control as a management tool. No Action Alternative: We would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. CHAPTER P AGE

39 Is the wolf inside the Nonessential Experimental Area (Yes/No) No Yes Does evidence suggest the wolf is from the non-essential experimental zone Manage wolf under non-essential experiment population rules Yes No Manage wolf under non-essential experiment population rules Manage wolf under proposed Management Plan Figure -: Flow Chart of how the Service will determine management guidelines for wolves in Arizona, New Mexico and portions of Texas. CHAPTER P AGE

40 0 Figure -. Proposed Gray Wolf Management Zones in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas.. Alternative One: Implementation of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as Written (Preferred Alternative) Alternative One (the Preferred Alternative) would implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas through an ESA section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of management activities within the proposed management zones. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit authorizes take of the Mexican gray wolf/gray wolf during management activities consistent with a USFWS approved management plan or a special management measure adopted by the USFWS pursuant to the provisions of 0 CFR.(k) () (ix), as well as to conduct activities related directly to the conservation, protection, and recovery of gray wolves within Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The actions specified in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be CHAPTER P AGE

41 provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under Section of the Endangered Species Act (0 C.F.R.. and.), existing Section Cooperative Agreements and associated work plans, the Final Rule for the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (0 CFR (k) ( Final Rule), and State research and recovery permits. The Service s Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program could provide funding for implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan under traditional and non-traditional Section grants to participating states, state wildlife grants, landowner incentive program grants, Tribal grants, traditional Federal assistance, or any other funding mechanisms. Additionally, the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Program may provide funding to these and other participating partners for the implementation and conservation of the gray wolf through Cooperative and Grant Agreements, as well as contracts. The proposed Management Zones, within which management activities would be executed, are depicted in Figure -... Alternative Two: Implementation of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with the use of Lethal Control. Alternative Two would implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with the use of lethal control as a management option for depredating or nuisance wolves. The plan would be implemented through an ESA section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit and the provision of Federal funding to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of management activities within the proposed management zones. Lethal control is currently only authorized within the MWEPA (0 CFR.(k) () (ix). This Alternative would extend this management option to the proposed management zones outside of the MWEPA. Lethal control is a management option for personnel authorized by the Service under the provisions of the ESA for management of wolves when reasonable attempts to capture wolves alive fail and when the Service determines that immediate removal of a particular wolf or wolves from the wild is necessary. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit authorizes take of the Mexican gray wolf/gray wolf during management activities consistent with a USFWS approved management plan or a special management measure adopted by the USFWS pursuant to the provisions of 0 CFR.(k)()(ix), as well as to conduct activities related directly to the conservation, protection, and recovery of gray wolves within Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The actions specified in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the Federal funding that would be provided to state partner agencies are considered supplemental to management activities already authorized and funded under Section of the Endangered Species Act (0 C.F.R.. and.), existing Section Cooperative Agreements and associated work plans, the Final Rule for the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Mexican Gray Wolf in Arizona and New Mexico (0 CFR (k) ( Final Rule), and State research and recovery permits. The Service s Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program could provide funding for implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan under traditional and non-traditional Section grants to participating states, state wildlife grants, landowner incentive program grants, Tribal grants, traditional Federal assistance, or any other funding mechanisms. Additionally, the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Program may provide funding to these and other participating partners for the implementation and conservation of the gray wolf through Cooperative and Grant Agreements, as well as contracts. The proposed Management Zones, within which management activities would be executed, are depicted in Figure -. CHAPTER 0 P AGE

42 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. The No Action Alternative is considered a continuation of the baseline activity level and condition of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program as described in Section.... Basis for Selection of Preferred Alternative Alternative (Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as Written) is preferred over Alternative (Implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Management Plan for Portions of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas with the use of lethal control as a management tool) because we believe it best meets the purpose and need of the Proposed Action and the criteria used for the selection of alternatives. Wolf control has been analyzed and discussed in many Service publications that are cited in our Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Wolf Recovery 00 Annual Report (USFWS et al. 00). Without management of problem wolves, human tolerance for all wolves, including the majority that does not depredate on livestock, decreases (Mech ). Based on our experience with wolf recovery efforts in the NRM and the western Great Lakes states (Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan), we believe that an active management program that includes removal of problem wolves enhances the survival, propagation, and recovery of wolves. It does this by creating a social environment whereby livestock depredations and other negative wolf-human interactions are maintained at low enough levels that society determines them as tolerable and acceptable costs of the return of wolf populations to portions of their historical range. The most recent interpretation by the courts of the plain language, statutory framework, and legislative history of Section 0(a)()(A) of the ESA concludes that the authorization of a lethal depredation control program on the gray wolf where it is classified as endangered is precluded (Humane Society of the United States, et al. vs. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 0-, Memorandum Opinion, August, 00). In the NRM the Service relocated problem wolves times from through 00. Analysis of those relocation efforts indicated relocation of problem wolves was an ineffective tool for reducing subsequent conflict and was also ineffective at having wolves survive, reproduce, and contribute to population recovery unless large blocks of suitable unoccupied habitat were available (Bradley et al. 00). Because our Proposed Action is for the implementation of a management plan for naturally dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves in areas where large blocks of unoccupied (by wolves) habitat are available, we do not believe that the use of lethal control is necessary to achieve our management goals. We believe that we can achieve the goals of minimizing wolf-human/wolf-livestock interactions and reducing depredation of livestock through the use of other suitable management options, such as aversive conditioning, trapping, darting, translocation, and non-lethal removal of wolves involved in instances of nuisance scenarios or livestock depredations. These options are available under both Alternative and for the Proposed Action. However, based on the most recent court interpretation of the use of lethal control measures for endangered grey wolves, and because there are large blocks of unoccupied habitat available, we have selected Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. CHAPTER P AGE

43 0 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER P AGE

44 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The reintroduction of the Mexican wolf into the BRWRA of the MWEPA has been addressed and analyzed in previously completed NEPA documents (Section.). The description of the affected environment within the MWEPA provided in these documents is therefore incorporated by reference (CEQ, Sec. 0.). The FEIS for the Reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf within its Historic Range in the Southwestern United States (USFWS ) also described the affected environment of southeastern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico and the Big Bend area of western Texas. Where appropriate the description of the affected environment for these areas provided in the FEIS is incorporated by reference. This chapter details the environment in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, exclusive of the MWEPA, which may be affected from implementation of the alternatives for the Proposed Action.. SPECIFIC RESOURCE AREAS EVALUATED In accordance with NEPA and CEQ regulations, we focus the description of the affected environment only on those resource areas potentially subject to impacts. We do not evaluate a number of resource areas in detail in this EA because the nature of the Proposed Action under consideration, or the area which may be affected from its implementation (the action area), make it unlikely that impacts to them will occur. These resource areas are: Aesthetics/Visual Resources The Proposed Action would not directly or indirectly affect the aesthetic/visual resources of those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area. Air Quality No direct or indirect effects on regional air quality would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Cultural/Historic Resources No adverse effects on cultural/historic resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Climate Change No direct or indirect effects on climate change would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. The result of predicted climate change trends in the southwest region of the United States could include reduced summer base flow in streams, increased runoff and erosion during storm events, and the earlier onset of summer low-flow conditions (Mote et al. 00). Reduced water in the system may reduce or localize big game populations in the summer months however, it is not clear how these changes may affect wolf habitat in the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Community Services The Proposed Action would not directly or indirectly affect services, such as police, fire and ambulance, in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area. Environmental Justice Minority and low-income populations in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area would not be directly affected or disproportionately burdened by the Proposed Action. Geology/Soils The Proposed Action would not directly or indirectly affect Geology/soils. Noise No stationary or permanent sources of noise would be introduced and no changes in the ambient noise of the region would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. CHAPTER P AGE

45 0 0 0 Resident Population No changes in the neighborhood makeup, or alteration of demographic characteristics of those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Solid/Hazardous Waste No permanent sources of solid/hazardous waste would be introduced as a result of the Proposed Action. Temporary sources of solid waste generated by a field crew while conducting management activities detailed in the Interim Wolf Management Plan would be insignificant. Transportation/Parking No changes to regional transportation systems (roads, air, and rail) or parking areas in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area would be required as result of the Proposed Action. Utilities No changes to the use of utilities (power/water/sewage/gas) in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area would be required as result of the Proposed Action. Water Resources Water resources include those portions of the natural environment related to surface water and groundwater, water quality, floodplains and wetlands. No direct impacts to water resources in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico or Texas within the action area would occur from the Proposed Action. Although indirect beneficial effects to water quality could occur through a trophic cascade initiated by a larger wolf population and higher wolf densities which result in a reduction of wild ungulate browsing pressure on riparian vegetation they are unlikely to be significant. In the remainder of this chapter we describe the Biological Resources, Economic Activity, Human Health/Public Safety, and Land Use for those geographic areas, within each proposed Management Zone, that are considered to contain sufficient habitat to ensure population viability of recolonizing wolves.. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ZONES The FEIS (USFWS ) addressed potentially suitable areas in the southwestern United States for natural recolonization by wolves that might disperse north from Mexico. Both biophysical (vegetation cover, water availability and prey abundance) and socioeconomic (human population density, road density and land status) factors determine the suitability of an area to sustain viable wolf populations (Sneed 00). To further define potential recolonization areas in each of the proposed management zones, we selected the largest area of potential habitat as identified by Carrol et al. (00, 00, and 00), or a vegetation map analysis that identified forested areas (Oakleaf et al. 00), or the analysis of the FEIS which addressed potential natural recolonization areas (USFWS ). In the Carrol et al. (00) study a regional-scale population viability analysis (PVA) is made for the wolf using a dynamic, individual-based model (PATCH) that links GIS habitat data to estimates of wolf demographic rates in different habitats (Carrol et al. 00). Using this analytical method, Carrol et al. (00) assess how subpopulations function within the larger metapopulation and evaluates whether an area contains sufficient habitat to ensure population viability (Carrol et al. 00). Table - provides a summary of the ecological attributes of core areas of suitable wolf habitat in Arizona, New Mexico/southern Colorado, and western Texas. Area name Size (km) Isolation (km) Cattle Prey biomass Wolves (per Total wolves 000 km) Blue Range >, >00 Grand >, <. >00 CHAPTER P AGE

46 0 0 Canyon Carson/San >, >00 Juans Western Texas, ? 0-? 00? All metrics are expressed as per km unless noted Isolation is center-to-center distance from nearest neighboring potential core area. Wolves per 000 km estimates are based on the model of Fuller et al. (00). Total wolves indicates estimates of potential population size based on previously-published studies. Table -. Ecological attributes of core areas of suitable Mexican wolf habitat (Source: USFWS, 0 unpublished)... Management Zone Management Zone would be established in those portions of Arizona and New Mexico extending north of Interstate-0 to the state lines with Utah and Colorado (Figure -). The core areas of suitable wolf habitat within this proposed Management Zone encompass the Grand Canyon and large areas of adjacent public lands in northern Arizona and the national forest lands adjacent to private lands with conservation management in northern New Mexico (Carrol et al. 00). Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves can be found within: The Santa Fe and Carson National Forests and areas adjacent to the forests including private land protected under conservation easement and tribal land managed as wilderness (New Mexico). Public lands within the Kaibab and Coconino plateaus and the Arizona Strip in northwest Arizona, including portions of Grand Canyon National Park, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino National Forest, Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, and Grand Canyon-Parshant National Monument (Arizona). The Chuska, Lukachukai, Carrizo, and Ceboletta mountain ranges, and other areas of montane woodlands and mountainous terrain in north-central Arizona and New Mexico (Arizona and New Mexico). CHAPTER P AGE

47 0 Figure -. Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone.. Management Zone Management Zone would be established in those portions of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico extending south of Interstate-0 to the international border with Mexico (Figure -). Although the US/Mexico border area is likely to serve as a population sink for wolves under current conditions (Carroll et al. 00) wolves persisted in the mountainous parts of this area into the 0s (Brown ). The historic wolf runways in the border region that were used by wolves before their extirpation are expected to again be used by dispersing wolves should reintroduced populations be established in Mexico. Therefore, the proposed Management Zone is expected to play a key role in facilitating dispersal between wolf populations in Mexico and the United States. Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves can be found within: Southern Hidalgo, Grant, Luna, and Dona Ana counties including the Alamo Hueco, Big Hatchet Mountains, and West Potrillo Mountains Wilderness Study Areas, the Peloncillo Mountains of the Coronado National Forest, and the Animas, Little Hatchet, Big Hatchet, Alamo Hueco, Cedar and Potrillo mountain ranges (New Mexico). The U.S./Mexico border counties of Santa Cruz and Cochise which include the Canelo Hills and the Chiricahua, Patagonia, Huachuca, Tumacacori, Atascosa, Santa Rita, Whetstone, Dragoon, CHAPTER P AGE

48 and Peloncillo mountain ranges (e.g., the Sky Islands ) of the Coronado National Forest (Figure -) and the U.S. Army, Fort Huachuca (Arizona). Figure -. Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone CHAPTER P AGE

49 0 0 Figure -. Coronado National Forest.. Management Zone Management Zone would be established in the western portion of Texas extending west to the state line with New Mexico from the Route // corridor from the northern state border with Oklahoma to the international border with Mexico (Figure -). Approximately,0,000 acres (,000 square kilometers) of potentially suitable habitat occurs within this proposed management zone (Carroll et al. 00), primarily in the Trans-Pecos region between the Davis Mountains and the Pecos River watershed in Jeff Davis, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell and Val Verde Counties, from approximately State Route on the west to State Route on the east. This area is assessed as suitable in the model of Carroll et al. (00) due primarily to low numbers of roads and human settlements. Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park lie to the south of this area and, while large in size, are more limited in the availability of suitable habitat due to aridity (Carroll et al. 00) but could provide important habitat linkage for dispersing wolves should reintroduced wolf populations be established in Mexico. Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves can be found within: The Big Bend area, including Big Bend Ranch State Park, Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, and Big Bend National Park which is contiguous to Parque Natural Sierra Maderas del Carmen (northern Coahuila, Mexico south of Big Bend National Park). The areas of mountainous terrain and montane woodland that lie between the Davis Mountains and the Pecos River watershed in Jeff Davis, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell and Val Verde Counties as well as mountainous areas within Presidio, Hudspeth, and Culberson counties. The mountain CHAPTER P AGE

50 ranges within this area include the Glass, Davis, Finlay, Sierra Blanca, Quitman, Eagle, Sierra Vieja, Apache, Christmas, Chisos, and Chinati mountain ranges. Figure -. Potential Natural Recolonization Areas in Management Zone CHAPTER 0 P AGE

51 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES We address in this section the flora (vegetation) and fauna (wildlife), including federally listed or special status species which may occupy the areas of suitable wolf habitat within each proposed management zone. For our discussion of biological resources we rely upon the descriptions of the ecoregions of the southwestern United States from the US EPA Western Ecology Division modified from Bailey,. Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources ( determined by the macroclimate (i.e. the climate that lies just beyond the local modifying irregularities of landform and vegetation) (Bailey ). Within the conterminous United States there are Level III ecoregions (USEPA 00). Level IV is a further subdivision of Level III ecoregions which largely correspond to major plant formations within related vegetation communities (i.e. broadleaved forest) (Bailey )... Existing Setting Across the three proposed management zones in Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas are a diverse set of Level III and Level IV ecoregions ranging from desert, grassland, riparian corridors/floodplains and high plains to tablelands, plateaus, sky islands, and high elevation rugged mountains. Within New Mexico alone there are eight Level III ecoregions and Level IV ecoregions, many of which continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states (Griffith et. al 00). Distribution of plant life is dependent on a number of interacting environmental factors that dictate the type of vegetation established. Temperature, precipitation, slope, soil, animals and human influence are all part of the complex of interacting factors. Some of these factors in the Southwest are extreme and often are decisive in determining the type of vegetation that grows in a given area. While different ecoregions may have supported historic populations of gray wolf in varying degree, several reintroduction studies (e.g., Mladenoff et al. ), suggest that gray wolves tend to prefer forested landscapes. In the Southwest, Mexican wolves probably avoided desert scrub and semi-desert grasslands which provided little cover, food, or water (Brown ) and were most commonly found associated with woodlands and montane forests (Groebner et al. ; USFWS ). When observed in other habitats, such as in grasslands, they were probably simply dispersing from their preferred habitat of forested highlands (Sneed 00). Although vegetation and climate vary greatly across the Southwestern states, the region as a whole is generally more arid and primary productivity is generally lower than in the Northern Rocky Mountains (Carroll et al. 00). In consequence, prey species available to wolves may be smaller in size or exist at lower densities and exhibit patchy distributions. Wolves are highly-adaptable prey generalists and available evidence suggests that Mexican wolves can efficiently capture a range of ungulate prey species of widely varying size. In the southern portion of its historic range the Mexican wolf preyed primarily on Coues white tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi) while further north, mule deer (O. hemionus) and in some areas elk (Cervus elaphus), were also available (Carroll et al. 00). Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) and javelina (Tayassu tajacu) may also have been preyed upon occasionally. Use of smaller non-ungulate prey also occurred (Brown ) with wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), hares, rabbits, rodents, and fruits making up a portion of the Mexican wolf diet (Leopold, McBride 0, Brown ). Elk have comprised the bulk (0.%) of the biomass in the diet of wolves reintroduced to the BRWRA (Merkle et al. 00), and elk kill rates by Mexican wolves are similar to those for northern wolf subspecies (Oakleaf et al. in prep.). Wolf interactions with, and effects on, other predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), black bears (Ursus americanus), and mountain lions (Puma concolor) and scavenger species such as ravens (Corax corax), and eagles have been observed and recorded in studies conducted in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Banff National Park (BNP) (Smith et al. 00). In the southwest, wolves may interact with coyotes, CHAPTER P AGE

52 mountain lions, and black bears (AMOC and IFT 00). Field observations in the BRWRA confirm that ravens, eagles, turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), coyotes, and black bears scavenge Mexican wolf kills. The USDA Forest Service uses Management Indicator Species (MIS) to serve as a barometer for Forest health and to assess not only the selected species requirements but also as a surrogate for addressing other species ecological needs. In general, a MIS is one whose habitat requirements most reflect those of the habitat/community of concern. The intended use is to be an indicator of habitat quality, track effects of management on the habitat, and predict future conditions. As directed by National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of each National Forest s Forest Plan identifies and selects certain vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant species present in each Forest as MIS because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (USDAFS 00b, 0b). Numerous special status species occur in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. As used here, the term "special-status" refers to animal species; listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act; species of concern identified by the Service, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; state listed rare, threatened or endangered species, or; species identified as sensitive or special status by the Forest Service, National Park Service or Bureau of Land Management. Many of these species are birds, fishes, crustaceans, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates or arthropods, occur in aquatic, low desert or steep rocky terrain which is unsuitable for wolf recolonization, and/or have a range, life history, and/or habitat requirements such that the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the natural reestablishment of self-sustaining wolf populations are unlikely to have any effect on the species. Special status species, including wild prey, other predators, and scavenger species, that we believe could be affected directly or indirectly by the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and naturally reestablished wolf populations in the southwest are listed in Appendix D. Management Zone Within the proposed Management Zone in northern Arizona and northern New Mexico the Grand Canyon, Southern Rockies and Arizona/New Mexico Mountains ecoregions have areas considered to contain the necessary biophysical (vegetation cover and prey abundance) attributes to support recolonizing gray wolves. The Grand Canyon region (known as the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau ecoregion in Bailey []) extends from southernmost Utah through northern Arizona, centering on Grand Canyon National Park and adjacent Kaibab and Coconino National Forest lands. It lies within the Colorado Plateau physiogeographic province which is characterized by rugged tableland topography with canyons, mesas, plateaus and mountains often marked by precipitous changes in local relief. The Colorado Plateau can experience significant snowfalls in winter but is typically dry during much of the year and is very susceptible to periods of extended droughts (Watkins et al. 00). The Southern Rockies ecoregion extends south from Colorado into north-central New Mexico to the west and east of the Rio Grande River valley. It lies within the Rocky Mountains physiogeographic province which is characterized by high elevation, steep, rugged mountains. Although coniferous forests cover much of the region, vegetation follows a pattern of elevational banding. The lowest elevations are generally grass or shrub covered. Low to middle elevations areas are covered by a variety of vegetation types including juniper-oak woodlands, ponderosa pine, aspen, and Douglas-fir. Middle to high elevations areas are largely covered by coniferous forests. The highest elevations have alpine characteristics. Numerous perennial mountain streams with deciduous riparian vegetation support cold-water fisheries and serve as wildlife corridors. CHAPTER P AGE

53 The Arizona/New Mexico Mountains ecoregion is distinguished from neighboring mountainous ecoregions by their lower elevations and associated vegetation indicative of drier, warmer environments, due in part to the region s more southerly location. It lies within the Basin and Range physiogeographic province which is characterized by north-south-trending, faulted mountains and flat valley floors. Forests of spruce, fir, and Douglas-fir, common in the Southern Rockies ecoregion, are only found in limited areas at the highest elevations in this ecoregion. Chaparral is common at lower elevations in some areas, pinyon-juniper and oak woodlands are found at lower and middle elevations, and the higher elevations are mostly covered with open to dense ponderosa pine forests. Surrounded by deserts or grasslands, these mountains in New Mexico can be considered biogeographical islands (Griffith et al. 00). Vegetation Subalpine coniferous forest, upper, mid and lower elevation montane conifer forest, and to a lesser degree, foothill woodlands and shrublands and conifer woodlands and savannas are the vegetation communities (Level IV ecoregions) which characterize the Level III ecoregions of northern New Mexico and Arizona considered to be most suitable to support recolonizing wolves. The subalpine coniferous forests of the Southern Rockies generally occur from about,00 ft. (,000 m) to timberline and reach their southernmost extension in Arizona and New Mexico. The principal boreal conifers are Engelmann spruce, blue spruce, corkbark fir, subalpine fir, white fir, Douglas fir, bristlecone pine and limber pine. Quaking aspen is the dominant deciduous species, both intermixed with various coniferous species and in pure stands at the lowest elevations of the subalpine forest. Dense overstories common to these forests severely limit or prevent growth of herbaceous vegetation. Subalpine meadows also occur. Forest blowdown, insect outbreaks, fire, and avalanches affect the vegetation mosaic. Quaking aspen is considered to be a seral species that invades an area following a disturbance such as fire. Upper montane coniferous forest is found in the -0,000 ft. (,00-,00 m) elevation in the mountains of New Mexico. This mixed conifer forest features Douglas-fir, white fir, several pine species, blue spruce, and aspen. Mid-elevation montane conifer zone vegetation grows along the southern rim of the Colorado Plateau in central Arizona as an unbroken ponderosa pine forest and is present generally at elevations below,00 ft. (,00 m) in the Southern Rockies ecoregion. This mid-elevation montane conifer forest grows in a climate where moisture is relatively limited. Natural vegetation includes ponderosa pine, aspen, Douglas-fir, and areas of limber pine. For the most part, ponderosa pine dominates the montane conifer forest, particularly in the warmer and drier areas. On north-facing slopes and at higher elevations ponderosa pine and Douglas fir and white fir grow in varying mixes, but the firs dominate north-facing slopes at the highest elevations. Other tree species include limber pine, southwestern white pine, Gambel oak, silver-leaf oak, madrone, locust, bigtooth maple and quaking aspen. Many stands of ponderosa pine are relatively open or park-like, in contrast to the closed-canopied spruce-alpine fir forest, allowing a diverse understory of shrubs, grasses, forbs, broadleaf trees, and wildflowers to occur. (Hendricks ). Lower elevation montane conifer forests are found at elevations from about 000 to 00 ft. (- m). Ponderosa pine and Gambel oak are common, along with mountain mahogany and serviceberry. Some Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, and white fir occur in a few areas. Blue spruce may occasionally be found in cool, moist canyons. The foothill woodlands and shrublands are found in the low elevation portion of the Southern Rockies. In New Mexico, it is a transition area from the higher elevation forests to drier and lower plains and plateaus. This semiarid region has rolling to irregular terrain of hills, ridges, and footslopes, with elevations mostly 000 to 00 feet. Pinyon-juniper and oak woodlands are dominant. CHAPTER P AGE

54 The conifer woodlands and savannas are an area of mostly pinyon-juniper woodlands, with some ponderosa pine at higher elevations. It often intermingles with grasslands and shrublands. This vegetation type is found in the Arizona/New Mexico mountains ecoregion of the Chuska and San Mateo mountains in north-central New Mexico Arizona. Wild Ungulate Prey Species Within proposed Management Zone the primary wild ungulate prey species available to support dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves include elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and, to a lesser extent, pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana) and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis). In addition to an abundance of mule deer, the Colorado Plateau is home to the largest elk herds in North America. Deer and elk are sympatric throughout much of the Colorado Plateau with the exception of the northeast corner of Arizona (Watkins et al. 00). Elk were at one time the most widely distributed member of the deer family in North America with a population estimated to total 0 million before European settlement. Overhunting reduced elk numbers to a population low of 0,000 in with elk extirpated in Arizona and New Mexico sometime prior to 00 (AGFD 0). In Arizona elk were distributed from the White and Blue mountains westward along the Mogollon Rim to near the San Francisco Peaks. New Mexico historically was home to both the Merriam s (Cervus elaphus merriami) and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni) sub-species. Merriam s elk were found in the southern portion of the state while Rocky Mountain elk inhabited the Sangre de Cristo, Jemez, and San Juan mountains of northern New Mexico. Merriam s elk is now extinct. Rocky Mountain elk were reintroduced into both Arizona and New Mexico in the early 00 s and are now considered restored to their historic range. Current elk numbers, estimated to be approximately 0-,000 statewide in Arizona (AGFD 0), and between 0,0 to,0 statewide in New Mexico supported a 00-0 harvest of,0 animals in New Mexico and animals in Arizona (NMGFD 0, AFGD 0). The population trend for elk has been stable to positive on the Kaibab NF where they are common on the south zone ranger districts, but only occur intermittently on the Northern Kaibab Ranger District (USDA FS 00). The population trend for the Rocky Mountain elk is ranked as increasing on Santa Fe NF and on the Carson National Forest is considered stable (USDA FS 00, 0). Elk are considered to be demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure at the global, national, and statewide levels (USDAFS 00, 0). The Chama-San Antonio Mountain elk herd has one of the largest concentrations of elk in the state, including a migratory herd of,000 to,000 elk that extends into southern Colorado and the Jicarilla Apache tribal land (BLM 0).Elk favor mixed habitat types including mountain meadows, ponderosa pine woodlands, spruce-fir forests, and other high elevation habitats between,000 and 0,00 feet elevation. These areas constitute the elk s principal summer range. Seasonal weather, time of day, nutritional quality of forage and abundance of forage influence specific areas elk visit. Summer elk range is typically within a half a mile of water and elk tend to stay on the summer range as long as possible, arriving early in the year and remaining until forced down by deep snow. Elk winter range, is usually between,00 and,00 feet elevation, is more limited in extent and may only comprise about 0 percent of the animal s total habitat. Elk remain in the lower elevation grasslands and pinyon-juniper and sagebrush communities until melting snows allow them to migrate upward. Mountain lion, black bear and coyote are the principal predators of elk. Mule and black-tailed deer (collectively called mule deer, Odocoileus hemionus) are widely distributed throughout western North America. The Colorado Plateau is known for its productive habitats that support large mule deer populations (Watkins et al. 00).They are the most abundant big-game animal in Arizona, with the statewide population estimated at,000-0,000 post-hunt adults in 00 (AFGD 0). Overall, mule deer population trends on the Kaibab NF appear to be stable to increasing (USDS FS 00). Rocky Mountain mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) occur primarily in northern Arizona above the Mogollon Rim while the desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus eremicus) is found in the CHAPTER P AGE

55 southern areas of the state. The two subspecies of mule deer found in New Mexico are the Rocky Mountain mule deer and the desert mule deer. (Findley et al. ). Mule deer can be found in most areas of both states, from sparsely vegetated deserts upward into high, forested mountains. Important habitats for deer include sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), steppe, pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) woodlands, mountain shrub communities, aspen (Populus tremuloides) forests, and montane and subalpine coniferous forests (Watkins et al. 00). Mule deer are primarily browsers, with a majority of their diet comprised of forbs (broad-leaved, non-woody plants) and browse (leaves and twigs of shrubs and trees). Seasonal movements involving migrations from higher elevations (summer ranges) to lower winter ranges are associated, in part, with decreasing temperatures, severe snowstorms, and snow depths that reduce mobility and food supply. Deep snows can limit useable winter range. In northern New Mexico and Arizona, there is often less suitable winter range than summer range, resulting in deer becoming concentrated on winter ranges with densities of 0-00 deer per square mile typical in suitable habitat. Major deer mortality can result from severe winters in higher wintering areas and is exacerbated as deer densities increase (Watkins et al. 00). Mountain lion, black bear, and coyote are the principal predators of elk. Pronghorn (pronghorn antelope) are native to the plains and grasslands of western North America. With the European settlement of the plains, populations declined from an estimate 0-0 million in the early 00s to less than,000 by. Five subspecies of pronghorn are recognized: American/Common; Mexican/Chihuahuan; Oregon; Peninsular; and Sonoran. American/common pronghorn (Antilocapra americana americana) numbers have rebounded to approximately one million animals today. In Arizona, pronghorn are found primarily in the northern plains although they also inhabit high elevation meadows between forested areas and semi-desert grasslands. From an estimated low of 0 animals in the statewide population of pronghorn in Arizona was estimated at,000-,00 post-hunt adults in 00 (AGFD 0). NMGFD has identified Core Occupied Antelope Range (COAR) throughout the state. Statewide population is estimated at 0,00 -,00 animals with approximately,000-,000 animals in the San Antonio region of northern New Mexico (NMGFD 0). Areas within the COAR also contain some suitable habitat to support recolonizing wolves. Pronghorn are grazing animals generally found in grasslands receiving 0- inches of rainfall annually and between,000 and,000 feet (- m) elevation. They are selective, opportunistic foragers feeding on forbs, shrubs, grasses, and sometimes cacti and domestic crops. Forbs make up the largest part of their diet, followed by shrubs, then grasses. Forbs are typically eaten from spring to late fall and are critical to good fawn production. Shrubs are eaten all year, but are most important in winter when forbs are not readily available (Ochenfels 0). Preferred habitat is open, flat valleys with vegetation height below 0 inches so that approaching predators are readily visible and the pronghorn s speed can be utilized for escape (USFWS 00). Pronghorn are usually observed in mixed herds most of the year led by the dominate buck males. During the spring months, bucks are often alone or in small groups. During the fall, bucks gather harems of females that can number up to about does (AGFD 0). Mountain lion, bobcat (Felis rufus), and coyote are the principal predators of pronghorn. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) were found throughout the Rocky Mountains from Canada to southern New Mexico. By around 00 a population estimated at over two million was reduced to only several thousand by hunting, competition from domesticated sheep, and diseases introduced by livestock. Rocky Mountain bighorn are now found in the steep rocky forested habitats in east central Arizona. Rocky Mountain bighorn never were widespread in New Mexico, with historical evidence for just four populations in Wheeler Peak, Pecos Wilderness, White Rock Canyon, and Manzano/Los Pinos Mountains (Bailey, Leopold as cited in NMDGF 00)). Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep were extirpated in New Mexico during the early part of the 0th century (Buechner 0 as cited in NMDGF 00). The restoration of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in New Mexico began in with a transplant of six bighorn from Canada. In 00, there were an estimated 0 Rocky Mountain CHAPTER P AGE

56 bighorn in three alpine and three low-elevation populations. The alpine bighorn sheep populations are in the Pecos, Wheeler Peak, and Latir Wilderness Areas of the Carson National Forest. The population on the Santa Fe NF is considered stable (USDAFS 00). Bighorn sheep generally inhabit alpine meadows, grassy mountain slopes and foothill country near rugged, rocky cliffs and bluffs. Because bighorn sheep cannot move though deep snow, they prefer drier slopes where the annual snowfall is less than about sixty inches a year. A bighorn's winter range usually lies,00-,000 feet in elevation, while its summer range tends to be,000-,00 feet. Rocky Mountain bighorn are preyed upon by mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) (NMDGF 00). Other Wildlife Species Including Special Status and Threatened and Endangered Species The Carson and Santa Fe National Forests in northern New Mexico provide habitat for a diverse group of wildlife and fish. The Carson NF supports seven amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird and fish species. Management Indicator Species on both the Carson and Santa Fe National include Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain elk and Merriam s turkey. The Coconino National Forest in northern Arizona is home to over 00 vertebrate species, including at least 00 species of birds, almost 00 species of mammals, a wide variety of herpetefauna (amphibians and reptiles), native fish species, as well as many invertebrates. The largest concentration of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ever counted in Arizona (0 eagles) was documented on the Coconino National Forest near Mormon Lake. Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Kaibab National Forest include elk, mule deer, pronghorn, turkey, red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and the tassel-eared squirrel (Sciurus aberti). Grand Canyon National Park s high level of biological diversity can be attributed to the presence of five of the seven life zones and three of the four desert types in North America. It is home to numerous rare, endemic, and special status plant and animal species. Over,00 plants, bird, mammalian, reptile, amphibian, and fish species are found in the park (NPS 0). Vermillion Cliffs National Monument supports a variety of wildlife species. At least twenty species of raptors have been documented in the monument, as well as a variety of reptiles and amphibians. California Condors have been reintroduced into the monument and bighorn sheep, pronghorn, mountain lion, and other mammals are found in the canyons and plateaus. The Paria River supports sensitive native fish, including the flannelmouth sucker and the speckled dace. Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument supports a trophy-quality mule deer herd, Kaibab squirrels, and wild turkey as well as the Mexican spotted owl, the California condor, the desert tortoise, and the southwestern willow flycatcher. Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves also support other predators such as coyotes, black bears, bobcats, and mountain lions, scavenger species such as ravens, eagles, California condors (Gymnogyps californianus), turkey vultures, coyotes, and black bears and various non-ungulate wild prey species such as small rodents, hares, rabbits and other small mammals. Within this management zone the special status and Federally listed threatened and endangered species that we evaluate as potentially affected by the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the natural reestablishment of self-sustaining wolf populations are listed in Appendix D. Management Zone Within the proposed Management Zone in southeastern Arizona and southern New Mexico the isolated mountain ranges rising above desert valleys that are typical landforms of the Basin and Range physiographic province are areas considered to contain the necessary biophysical attributes to support recolonizing gray wolves. This Level III ecoregion, classified as the Madrean Archipelago, ( also known as the sky islands ) ranges in elevation from,000 feet ( m) in the interspersed desert valleys, to more than,000 feet ( m) at the crests of the Santa Rita, Huachuca and Chirichaua mountain ranges (USFWS ). CHAPTER P AGE

57 Vegetation Native vegetation in the Basin and Range physiographic province is mostly grama-tobosa shrubsteppe in the basins and oak-juniper woodlands on the ranges, except at higher elevations where ponderosa pine is predominant. The Lower Madrean Woodlands vegetation community (Level IV ecoregion) occurs at intermediate elevations, generally above 000 feet. The Madrean encinal, or evergreen oak woodlands, have a mosaic of savannas, denser woodlands, and grassy openings. Emory, silverleaf, Tourney, and Arizona white oaks occur, along with scattered pinyon, juniper, mesquite, and chaparral species. Riparian areas of cottonwood, sycamore, and willow are valuable to neo-tropical birds and other wildlife of the area. At elevations above about 000 feet are the Madrean Pine-Oak and Mixed Conifer Forests Level IV ecoregions. These include ponderosa pine-oak forests, ponderosa pine forests, montane fir forests, and mixed conifer forests. Some very small areas of subalpine forest occur in Arizona. Ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Apache pine, and Chihuahuan pine are found here, along with some Douglas-fir. Gambel oak and alligator juniper are also components of these pine forests (USFWS ) The Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains contain the greatest percentage of oak vegetation and Madrean evergreen woodlands. The Dragoon and Whetstone Mountains contain few forested areas (USFWS ). Riparian vegetation intergrades from mesquite, willow, and hackberry within the desert grasslands through cottonwood, sycamore, ash, and willow in the woodlands to willow and alder at the upper elevations (USFWS ) The areas that include conifer forests, Madrean evergreen woodlands, and grasslands total 0 square miles in the Atascosa and Patagonia Mountains and 0 square miles in the Chiricahua Mountains (USFWS ). Wild Ungulate Prey Species Within proposed Management Zone the primary wild ungulate prey species available to support dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves include Coues white tail deer and mule deer as well as javelina and Chihuahuan pronghorn. No elk are found in southeastern Arizona or southwestern New Mexico south of Interstate-0. A small population of desert bighorn sheep lives in the mountain ranges of southwestern New Mexico. White-tailed deer and mule deer have very similar diets in the southwest but generally stay separated spatially by occupying different elevation zones (Heffelfinger et. al 00). In Arizona s southern mountain ranges, whitetails are generally associated with Madrean evergreen woodlands and found at higher elevations and in rougher country than are mule deer which inhabit chaparral, semi-desert grasslands, and desert shrub communities (USFWS ). Mule deer in the arid southwest may migrate in response to rainfall patterns. Fawn recruitment is highly variable depending on the amount and timing of rainfall. Population fluctuations rely largely on abundance of spring forbs produced as a result of winter rainfall (Heffelfinger et. al 00). The Coues white tail deer are most common in Arizona s southeastern mountains, but range northward to the edge of the Mogollon Rim, up into the White Mountains, and as far west as Sycamore Canyon (AGFD 0). The statewide population was estimated at 0,000-,000 post-hunt adults in 00. Coues whitetails require areas of predictable summer precipitation and are most common in oak woodlands and on chaparral covered hillsides with oaks and pines. Unlike mule deer, white-tailed deer rarely form herds, and most observations are of fewer than six animals. In the Coronado National Forest south of Interstate 0 white-tailed deer populations are estimated at,0 and mule deer at,00. In southern New Mexico an estimated population of,000 Coues white-tailed deer and 0,00 mule deer inhabit the mid to higher elevations of the Animas, Peloncillo, Pyramid, Hatchet, Alamo Hueco, Cedar and Potrillo mountain ranges. Mountain lions, coyotes, and bobcats are the principal predators of deer in this region. The javelina (Tayassu tajacu) is a member of the peccary family. The collared peccary, or javelina, evolved in South America and migrated north, only recently arriving in the southwestern states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The javelina is capable of breeding throughout the year, the only wild Comment [jjo]: Update number w/ input from CNF and NMGFD CHAPTER P AGE

58 ungulate in the western hemisphere with a yearlong breeding season. This long breeding season, early maturity, and the ability to have two litters in one year gives them the greatest reproductive potential of North American big game (AGFD 0b). Javelina travel in small herds or "family groups" averaging eight to nine animals and seem to have a somewhat limited home range. In the winter, they are generally active in the early morning and late afternoon. Javelinas are largely nocturnal during the hotter times of the year. They are opportunistic feeders eating flowers, fruits, nuts, berries, bulbs, and most succulent plants. Prickly pear cactus makes up the major portion of their diet. Mountain lion and coyote are the principal predators of javelina. The subspecies of pronghorn originally found in southeastern Arizona/southwestern New Mexico was the Chihuahuan pronghorn (Antilocapra american Mexicana). Although once found in large numbers throughout the grasslands of southeastern Arizona, all of the pronghorn now found in this area come from reintroduced populations (USFWS 00). The Chihuahuan pronghorn herd at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (Buenos Aires NWR) and U.S. Army Fort Huachuca was transplanted from Texas in. After initial heavy losses, the herd at the Buenos Aires NWR has stabilized at around 0 animals (USFWS 00). Fort Huachuca supports a population of XXX. Approximately 00 Chihuahuan pronghorn are found within the Coronado National Forest, south of I-0 and about 00 American/common pronghorn inhabit the Lochiel Valley. A population of approximately 00 Chihuahuan pronghorn can be found in the grasslands between the Peloncillo, Animas, Alamo Hueco, and Hatchet mountains in southern New Mexico. Desert bighorn sheep were listed as state endangered in New Mexico when statewide populations of wild sheep had dropped to fewer than 0 in 0. Transplanting efforts combined with aggressive mountain lion control have helped increase the statewide herd to more than in six mountain ranges in southwestern New Mexico. At its current rate, the population is projected to surpass 00 in 0 (NMGFD 0). Desert bighorn live in open, rocky, desert mountain ranges in southern New Mexico. They are social animals that live in groups most of the year. The most important habitat requirement of desert bighorn is open, mountainous or canyon habitat, close to escape terrain defined as a minimum of 0% slope. Shrubs dominate the diet of desert bighorn, but they also eat a wide range of grasses and forbs, and vary their selection based on the most nutritious plants available seasonally (NMGFD 00b). Typical desert plants such as sotol, yucca, and ocotillo are popular, as are prickly pear and wild onions. Mountain lions are the principal predators of desert bighorn sheep. Other Wildlife Species Including Special Status and Threatened and Endangered Species Situated in a convergence zone of ecological regions with a wide variety of vegetation communities at varying elevational bands the Coronado NF has the highest biological diversity of any national forest in the western United States of America. Biological diversity is further enhanced by a long growing season, bi-modal precipitation, and the evolutionary consequences of isolation of the sky island mountain ranges. The number of species inhabiting the Coronado NF and adjoining lands is not precisely known, and new species are periodically described. Conservative estimates include about,00 species of plants, species of birds, 0 species of mammals, species of reptiles, over 0 species of butterflies, and nearly 00 species of mollusks (USDAFS 0b). Similarly, the U.S. Army Fort Huachuca is home to some of the highest species diversity in the United States. A total of 00 bird, 0 mammal, amphibian and reptile, 0 butterfly and over,000 plant species have the potential to occur locally at Fort Huachuca (US Army 00). Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves also support other predators such as coyotes, black bears, bobcats, and mountain lions, scavenger species such as ravens, eagles, turkey vultures, coyotes, and bears and various non-ungulate wild prey species such as small rodents, hares, rabbits and other small mammals. Within this management zone the special status and Federally listed threatened and endangered species that we evaluate as potentially affected by the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Comment [jjo]: Update numbers with input from CNF, AZGFD, Fort Huachuca and NMGFD CHAPTER P AGE

59 0 0 0 Gray Wolf Management Plan and the natural reestablishment of self-sustaining wolf populations are listed in Appendix D. Management Zone In the Trans-Pecos region of western Texas those areas considered to contain the necessary biophysical attributes to support dispersing and re-colonizing gray wolves are the isolated mountain ranges and low mountains and bajadas of the Chihuahuan Deserts ecoregion. The Chihuahuan Deserts Level III ecoregion which extends from the Madrean Archipelago in southeastern Arizona to the Edwards Plateau in southcentral Texas lies within the Basin and Range physiographic province. The Basin and Range province in Texas contains mountain ranges which generally trend nearly north-south and rise abruptly from barren rocky plains (Wermund ). This region is the most ecologically and vegetatively diverse area in Texas. Vegetative types include Chihuahuan desert shrubland at the lowest elevations (,00 ft.), semidesert shrub/grasslands, mountain shrub and mountain savannah at the highest elevations (,00 ft.) (Cantu and Richardson ). The low elevation areas within this province represent the hottest and most arid habitats in Texas, with less than inches of precipitation per year. Precipitation amounts are highest in July, August, and September, and winter precipitation is relatively sparse. The Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands Level IV ecoregion comprises the higher elevation mountainous areas above 000 feet, mainly in the Chisos, Davis, Glass, and Apache Mountains but also in the highest elevations of the Chinati, Sierra Vieja and Quitman mountain ranges. Increased precipitation in the mountains supports woodland areas except on sunny, exposed slopes that may have grass and chaparral only. Springs are few even at high elevations and mid-elevation streams may flow only during heavy rains. The Low Mountains and Bajadas Level IV ecoregion includes disjunct areas scattered across west Texas including; the Apache and Delaware Mountains in Culberson County; the Finlay, Quitman, Eagle, Van Horn, Sierra Vieja, and Chinati mountain ranges in the border counties of Hudspeth, Presidio and Brewster counties; the lower elevations of the Davis, Glass and Chisos Mountains in Jeff Davis, Brewster, and Pecos counties, and; the Trans-Pecos portions of Terrell and Val Verde counties. Vegetation Within the Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands of the Chisos, Davis, Glass, and Apache Mountains oaks, junipers, and pinyon pines predominate. Ponderosa pine and some relict Douglas-fir grow at the highest elevations in the Chisos Mountains. Higher elevation sites in the Davis Mountains also support ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, and whiteleaf oak forests. In these ranges, trees sometimes grow with a grassy understory, or with a brush cover of bigtooth maple, madrone, little walnut, oak chaparral, and grapevines. Within the Low Mountains and Bajadas Level IV ecoregion the mountainous terrain has shallow soil, exposed bedrock, and coarse rocky substrates. Alluvial fans of rubble, sand, and gravel build at the base of the mountains and often coalesce to form bajadas. Vegetation includes mostly desert shrubs, such as sotol, lechuguilla, yucca, ocotillo, lotebush, tarbush, and pricklypear, with a sparse intervening cover of black grama and other grasses. At higher elevations, there may be scattered one-seeded juniper and pinyon pine. Strips of gray oak, velvet ash, and little walnut etch the patterns of intermittent and ephemeral drainages, and oaks may spread up north-facing slopes from the riparian zones. CHAPTER P AGE

60 0 0 Figure -. Relict coniferous forest in the Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands with ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Arizona pine or southwestern white pine. Photo: Phil Gavenda ( Source: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/tx/tx_back.pdf ) Wild Ungulate Prey Species Within proposed Management Zone the primary wild ungulate prey species available to support dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves include mule deer and white-tailed deer, as well as pronghorn, javelin, and desert big horn sheep. The Chihuahuan Montane Woodlands ecoregion in the higher elevation mountains provide refuge for mule deer, white-tail deer, and desert big horn sheep while the varied habitats of the Low Mountains and Bajadas ecoregion provide cover for mule deer, white-tail deer, javelina and pronghorn. Five small herds of wild elk live in the Guadalupe Mountains, Glass Mountains, Wylie Mountains, Davis Mountains, and Eagle Mountains. The mule deer population in Texas ranges from about 0,000 animals during dry conditions to about 0,000 animals during wet periods. Approximately 0 percent of the mule deer in Texas inhabit the Trans-Pecos Region while the remainder is found in the Panhandle and western Edwards Plateau regions. Mule deer in the Trans-Pecos belong to the desert subspecies (Cantu and Richardson ). The desert mule deer is the largest native deer species found in Texas, often occupying the same geographic area as white-tailed deer, but segregated by habitat preference. Generally mule deer prefer the high, rougher canyons and open hillsides and white-tailed deer occupying the brushy draws and lowlands (Cantu and Richardson ). However, in the Chisos Mountains white-tailed deer occur in the mountains, whereas the mule deer occupies the lower foothills and broken deserts; in most other places this habitat relationship is reversed. For example, in the Guadalupe Mountains the whitetail occurs almost entirely in the foothills; the mule deer, in the higher mountains (Davis and Schmidly ). Mule deer utilize home ranges of from - square miles in the Trans-Pecos region. Smaller home ranges may be related to better quality habitat and/or limited sources of permanent water and fluctuations in home range size and CHAPTER 0 P AGE

61 locations may occur because of predators, hunting pressure, land use practices, drought or other factors directly affecting the animal or its habitat. In areas where the height and density of brush is increasing, the habitat is becoming more suitable for white-tailed deer and less desirable for mule deer. The expanding range of white-tailed deer into historic desert mule deer range is a management concern as a gradual change in the vegetation that favors white-tailed deer occurs (Cantu and Richardson ). Two sub-species of white-tailed deer are found in the Trans-Pecos region. Carmen Mountains white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus carminis) range northward from the Sierra del Carmen in Cohuila, Mexico into the Chisos, Christmas, and Rosillos mountains of the Big Bend area and Sierra Vieja and Chinati Mountains of Presidio County. Carmen white-tailed deer are characteristically smaller than Texas wild- 0 tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus texanus) (Krausman and Ables ) which are found in the majority of the Trans-Pecos region. When food conditions are adequate, white-tailed deer tend to stay in one locality and have a relatively small home range (Krausman and Ables ). In the Chisos Mountains whitetails feed extensively on mountain mahogany and other low shrubs. In other parts of the Trans-Pecos region the deer rely heavily on forbs and grasses in spring and summer, and consume large quantities of browse throughout the year (Cook ). Primary predators on white-tailed deer in the Trans-Pecos are coyote and bobcat (Cook ) as well as mountain lion. American/common pronghorn were once common over the western two-thirds of Texas, ranging from the northern Panhandle to south Texas. In 00, the statewide population estimate was about,000 pronghorn. The Panhandle region supports the largest populations, followed by the Trans-Pecos, Rolling 0 Plains and Edwards Plateau. Population levels in the Trans-Pecos have changed significantly from a high of,000 animals in the mid-to-late 0s to recent population estimates of approximately,000 animals (Lightfoot 00). A combination of factors are responsible for the decline of pronghorn numbers in West Texas including; malnutrition brought on by extended drought and rainfall deficiencies during the late summer and early fall months; insufficient fawning cover caused by drought; increased parasite loads; fencing and artificial barriers preventing access to forage and cover; effects of livestock grazing and livestock fencing which hinders escape from predators, and; coyote predation on fawns, exacerbated by lack of herbaceous cover (TPWD 0). The javelina (a.k.a. collared peccary) is found in the more arid or semi-arid parts of Texas, with most occurring in the South Texas brush country, the Trans-Pecos' desert grasslands, and the Edwards Plateau's 0 oak-juniper woodlands. In Texas, the javelina is classified as a game animal (TPWD 0a). Desert big horn sheep formerly lived in the isolated mountain ranges of Trans-Pecos region, but native populations were essentially extirpated from the state in, when the total population was estimated at (TPWD 0b). Texas now has seven herds of free-ranging desert bighorn sheep, the result of on- going restocking efforts begun in. State wide populations were estimated at, sheep in 00 (TPWD 0c). Small herds have been reestablished in the Sierra Diablo Mountains, Van Horn, Baylor and Beach Mountains of Culberson and Hudspeth counties, the Elephant Mountain Wildlife Management Area and Black Gap Wildlife Management Area in Brewster County, and the Sierra Vieja Mountains in Presidio County. 0 Historically, the only native elk in Texas were Merriam s elk (Cervus merriami) found in the southern part of the Guadalupe Mountains. This sub-species, which was found primarily in New Mexico, has been extinct since the early 00s. In elk were imported from North Dakota and released at McKittrick Canyon in the Guadalupe Mountains. Free-ranging elk are now found in five small herds in the Guadalupe Mountains, Glass Mountains (Brewster County), Wylie Mountains (Culberson County), Davis Mountains (Jeff Davis County), and Eagle Mountains (Hudspeth County). Others are kept on scattered ranches over the state. Total statewide population in was estimated to be,00 (Davis and Schmidly ) Comment [JJO]: need updated pop.numbers. from TPWD if we can get them. CHAPTER P AGE

62 Other Wildlife Species Including Special Status and Threatened and Endangered Species With more than,00 species of plants (including approximately 0 cacti species), species of amphibians, species of reptiles, 0 species of fish, species of mammals, 0 species of birds, and about,00 species of insects Big Bend National Park is home to more types of birds, bats, and cacti than any other national park in the United States (NPS 0a). Forty-eight species of mammals have been documented in Big Bend Ranch State Park, including species of bats with an additional eight more species of bats having the potential to occur within the park. Other mammals of interest that have been documented within the boundaries of the park include black bear, mountain lions and white-nosed coati. There are at least 0 species of snakes and over 00 species of birds reported from BBRSP and the immediate vicinity. Game species such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and collared peccary, or javelina, (Tayassu tajacu) are common and offer limited hunting opportunities. Rapidly becoming a threat to soil, water, native wildlife, and vegetation resources are increasing populations of Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), feral burros and feral hogs (TPWD 0d). Within this proposed management zone potential areas that could support naturally dispersing and recolonizing wolves also support other predators such as coyotes, black bears, bobcats, and mountain lions, scavenger species such as ravens, eagles, turkey vultures, coyotes, and bears and various nonungulate wild prey species such as small rodents, hares, rabbits and other small mammals. Within this management zone the special status and Federally listed threatened and endangered species that we evaluate as potentially affected by the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the natural reestablishment of self-sustaining wolf populations are listed in Appendix D.. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY Economic Activity refers to the economic conditions of the project area. In this section we provide a brief overview of the economies of the counties within the three proposed management zones and a more detailed description of the ranching activities/livestock production, hunting, and tourism which are the economic components we consider to be potentially affected by the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan and the natural reestablishment of selfsustaining wolf populations in the southwest... Existing Setting Management Zone In the counties of northern New Mexico (San Juan, Rio Arriba, Taos, Colfax, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Mora) and Northern Arizona (Mohave, Coconino, Navajo, and Apache ) poverty is most prevalent in the primarily rural areas with high percentages of minority populations, and those areas that exhibit lower levels of education (UNM 00 a and b). Although three counties (Rio Arriba, Colfax and Mora) experienced net population loss, as a whole the population increased in the seven New Mexican counties from, in 000 to, in 00, representing a percent increase in population (US Census 0). Without Sandoval County, which includes the fast growing community of Rio Rancho in the Albuquerque metro area, and Santa Fe County, which includes the state capital, the population of the more rural northern counties increased by only, or. percent. The average earning per job was lowest in Mora County ($,) and highest in San Juan County ($,). Mora County also had the highest percentage of individuals living below poverty at. percent and also had the highest unemployment rate at. percent. Colfax County had the lowest unemployment rate and percentage of individuals living below the poverty level,. and. percent respectively. Over the past two decades much of the logging industry has declined in this area and mines in Colfax and Taos Counties have CHAPTER P AGE

63 closed. Oil and natural gas extraction provide the economic base in San Juan County, the majority of which lies within the oil and gas rich San Juan Basin. Portions of Rio Arriba and Sandoval counties are also within the San Juan Basin which is the source of percent of the oil and percent of all the natural gas produced in New Mexico (NMBGMR 0). Ranching, hunting and tourism are all activities that continue to play an important role. Grazing on public lands has been reduced and ranches are experiencing hardships as they struggle to remain economically viable (UNM 00a and b). However, the national forests in the area attract visitors for an increasing number of tourism and recreational uses (UNM 00a and b). In the four northern Arizona counties population increased from, in 000 to, in 00 representing a seventeen percent increase in population. Mojave County, which includes the fast growing communities along the Colorado River border with Nevada and California, accounted for the largest percentage of this growth (US Census 0). In 000, Apache County had the lowest median family income ($,); the highest percent of individuals living below the poverty level (. percent) and in 00 had the highest unemployment rate (. percent). In 000, Coconino County had the highest median family income of $,, in 00 had the highest average earnings per job $,and in 00 had the lowest unemployment rate at. percent. Ranching Activities/Livestock Production In northern New Mexico the ranching tradition is embedded in the culture and history of the local residents. While livestock production is an important component of household economies, most small ranchers no longer depend on their crops and animals as their sole source of income (UNM 00a and b). Most of the ranches in New Mexico are small cow-calf operations from one to ninety-nine head of cattle. In, ranches of this size constituted 0 percent of the state s, ranches. In that same year, in the north-central regions of the state small operations made up percent of the,0 ranches. Livestock grazing is a primary use on land managed by the BLM and the USDA Forest Service. Most livestock operators use a combination of federal, private, and state land for grazing, with the majority being federal. Federal land managers seek to maintain a coordinated range management system which balances permitted use and grazing capacity through management techniques designed to ensure long term health and productivity of each site. In 00, there were active grazing permits on approximately 0 allotments in Carson National Forest and active grazing permits on approximately allotments in Santa Fe National Forest (UNM 00a and b). In 0 the Carson National Forest permitted,00 head of cattle to graze within six ranger districts in the Forest (USDAFS 0a). In the 00, the Santa Fe National Forest permitted,00 head of cattle to graze areas on allotments within five ranger districts (USDAFS 00). BLM grazing permits specify how many livestock can graze, where and when they graze, and for how long. The quantity of AUMs grazed is the product of the number of livestock (an animal unit ) times the number of days they graze. This number fluctuates over time and is affected by yearly grazing conditions, the livestock market and other economic influences, and BLM management actions (BLM 00). There are grazing allotments comprising,00 acres and a total of,0 animal unit months (AUMs) within the planning area for the BLM s Taos Field Office (BLM 0). Within the planning area for the Farmington Field Office there are 0 grazing allotments supporting approximately of,00 AUMs of grazing (BLM 00). Total number of cattle and calves in San Juan County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Rio Arriba County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves Taos County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Colfax County was, in 00 and livestock sales totaled $0. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Sandoval County was, in 00 and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Santa Fe County was, in 00 and livestock sales totaled $.0 million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Mora County was, in 00 and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). Comment [JJO]: update with the 0 numbers from SFNF CHAPTER P AGE

64 In northern Arizona the history of grazing dates back to the mid-00s. During this period, the number of cattle, sheep, and horses increased rapidly and rangeland resources experienced unregulated use, which resulted in changes to vegetation communities, especially at the elevations that could be used for grazing year round. Most current livestock operations in northern Arizona are yearlong and involve the raising of calves from a base herd of cattle for marketing. These operations usually encompass a mixed ownership of private, Arizona State Trust, and BLM lands with some NPS lands. Although the operations are yearlong, they may only use the federal rangelands seasonally. Historically, within the planning area for the BLM s Arizona Strip Field Office there were grazing allotments however, the level of permitted grazing use has decreased significantly over time. Because of purchases, trades, and combinations, there are now 0 grazing allotments within or adjacent to the boundaries of the planning area. Approximately 0,000 cattle and 00 horses are currently authorized to use a maximum of,000 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) of forage annually. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) prescribe grazing schedules and seasons of use (BLM 00). The Kaibab National Forest administered grazing on allotments ( on the Williams/Tusayan districts and on the North Kaibab) during 00. In 00, permitted use on the KNF was, Animal Unit Months (AUMs) and actual use was 0, AUMs. Permitted use has stabilized and is expected to remain relatively constant for the foreseeable future. The total permitted use for cattle was 0,0 animals while actual use was,0 animals (USDAFS 00). Within the Flagstaff Ranger district of the Coconino National Forest are grazing allotments supporting permitted use of xxxxx AUMs and actual use of xxxxx AUMs (USDAFS citation xx). Total number of cattle and calves in Mohave County was not disclosed with livestock sales totaling $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Coconino County was, in 00 with total livestock sales not disclosed. Total number of cattle and calves Navajo County was,00 in 00 with total livestock sales not disclosed. Total number of cattle and calves in Apache County was,0 in 00 and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). Hunting Common game species in northern New Mexico include Merriam s turkey, pronghorn, mule deer, bighorn sheep and elk as well as mountain lion and black bear. Under federal mandate, hunting is regulated by the states, which are responsible for issuing permits and licenses. In New Mexico, permits for elk, deer and antelope are issued on a lottery basis by the New Mexico Game and Fish Department (NMGFD) to New Mexico residents and non-residents. A total of, permits were issued to hunt elk in New Mexico during the 00-0 season. A total of,0 elk were reported harvested for a success rate of percent. In the Northwest, Northcentral and Jemez game management units within the proposed management zone there were approximately, permitted hunters with a reported harvest of approximately, elk (NMGFD 0). A total of, permits were issued to hunt deer in New Mexico during the season. A total of 0, deer were reported harvested statewide during the season (NMGFD 00). Hunters using center-fire rifles accounted for. percent of the harvest while. percent of the harvest was taken by bow hunters and. percent by muzzle-loader hunters. In the game management units within the proposed management zone there were approximately xxx permitted hunters with a reported harvest of approximately xxx deer (NMGFD citation). During the hunting season, approximately 0 hunters harvested 00 pronghorn statewide with an percent success rate (NMGFD 00). In the hunting management units within the proposed management zone there were approximately xx permitted hunters with a reported harvest of approximately xx pronghorn (NMGFD citation). During the 00-0 season a total of 0 mountain lions were reported harvested state wide with approximately of these taken in the game management units within the proposed management zone (NMGFD 0a). Hunting is also an important factor on the economy of Arizona, over,000 hunters account for $. million in hunting related retail sales throughout the state (AGFD 0). The region has long been Comment [jjo]: Need input from USDAFS Coconino NF Comment [jjo]: Need input from NMGFD CHAPTER P AGE

65 known for its trophy-size mule deer, as well as populations of pronghorn antelope, coyotes, Kaibab squirrel, quail, dove, rabbits, waterfowl, and mountain lion. Bighorn sheep are also found in the region. The AGFD has a responsibility to manage wildlife resources in the state of Arizona, including regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping activities, where not prohibited by law. In the northern Arizona counties within the proposed management zone the total hunting expenditure for 00 which includes trip and equipment related expenses totaled over $. million. Apache County had the least total hunting related expenditures with a total of $. million while Coconino County had the highest total hunting related expenditures at nearly $ million (Silberman 00). Specifically, in Apache County, $0. million can be attributed to small game (ex. dove, quail, cottontail, tree squirrel, bandtail pigeon, blue grouse, chukar and waterfowl) trip expenditures, $.0 million attributed to big game trip expenditures (ex. antelope, deer, elk, wild turkey, javelina, black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain lion and buffalo), and $0. million can be attributed to equipment related expenditures (Silberman 00). In Coconino County, $. million can be attributed to small game trip expenditures, $. million attributed to big game trip expenditures and $. million can be attributed to equipment related expenditures (Silberman 00). Tourism Tourism related to outdoor recreational activities is a major draw to the counties within this proposed management zone. In addition to hunting, outdoor recreational opportunities include visiting cultural sites, stream and lake fishing, rafting, camping, hiking, mountain biking, four-wheeling, motorcycling, sledding, snowshoeing, snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Probably the most popular activities in the northern Arizona involve some form of OHV driving for pleasure (BLM 00). Nineteen percent of all jobs in New Mexico are related to tourism making it the state s second largest industry and bringing more than $ billion to New Mexico annually. In 00, outdoor recreation generated $. billion in retail sales and contributed $. billion to the state s economy. Between and 00 the travel and tourism industry grew seventeen percent from, jobs to, jobs (Headwaters Economics 0). In the northern New Mexico counties within the proposed management zone travel and tourism accounted for, jobs or percent of all jobs in the region in 00. From to 00, travel and tourism employment grew from, to, jobs, an percent increase. In 00, Colfax County had the largest percent of total travel and tourism employment (. percent) and Mora County had the smallest (. percent). Wildlife in the Carson National Forest attracts visitors, ranging from hunters to wildlife watchers. In 00,,000 New Mexico residents participated in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching in forest areas throughout the state, contributing about $ billion to the state s economy. In 00, over 0, 000 people visited the Carson National Forest to see or hunt wildlife in 00 (UNM 00a). The contribution from recreation and wildlife visitors is also largest source of economic impact from the Santa Fe National Forest. New Mexico launched an ecotourism initiative in 00 the purposed of which is to promote responsible travel through cultural education, community building, and environmental protection. The Gila and Taos wilderness areas were chosen as two pilot projects areas targeted as the best communities to provide early success for ecotourism in New Mexico (NM Tourism Department 0). Tours offered by guides include spending time in the back country of Taos on horseback, llama, or on foot to explore huge open vistas; geology, wildlife and Native American culture (NM Tourism Department 0). Tourism and the travel industry is an important factor on the economy of Arizona. In 00, total direct travel spending in Arizona was $. billion generating approximately,00 jobs with earnings of $.0 billion (Dean Runyan Associates 00). Direct travel spending was associated with $. billion in state and local tax revenues and $. billion in federal tax revenues. The travel industry s share of all state and local tax revenue is more than percent. The employment, earnings, and tax revenues generated by travel spending are relatively more important for the non-urban areas of the state, than for the more urbanized areas of greater Phoenix and Tucson (Dean Runyan Associates 00). Grand Canyon National Park and CHAPTER P AGE

66 Vermillion Cliffs National Monument are important tourist destinations and together with Kaibab National Forest, and Coconino National Forests are popular areas for outdoor recreation in northern Arizona. Typical activities include hiking, camping, skiing, wildlife viewing, fishing, boating, and river rafting. In the northern Arizona Counties within the proposed management zone from to 00 travel and tourism employment grew from, to, jobs, a percent increase. In 00, Coconino County had the largest percent of total travel and tourism employment ( percent) while Mohave County had the smallest ( percent) (Headwaters Economics 0). Management Zone The border counties of southern Arizona and New Mexico within the proposed management zone generally have a higher rate of poverty than the national average. The region s economy was once dominated by agriculture and mining, but in more recent years manufacturing, retail trades, and tourism related employment have gained in importance on the region s economy. Agriculture continues to maintain a role in the economy of the region; three percent of all jobs in the region are related to agriculture and ranching, hunting, and tourism/outdoor recreation continue to be important factors especially on the rural economies of the region. In the southern Arizona counties of Cochise and Santa Cruz the rate of individuals living below poverty in 000 was. and. percent respectively. The population increased by percent in Cochise County from,0 people in 000 to, in 00. In Santa Cruz County, the population increased by. percent, from, in 000 to, in 00. The unemployment rate was higher in Santa Cruz County (. percent) than in Cochise County (. percent). In 000, the median family income was $,00 in Cochise County and $,0 in Santa Cruz County. The median family household incomes were highest in Sierra Vista near Fort Huachuca at $,. The lowest median family household incomes were found in the rural areas of eastern Cochise and Santa Cruz counties. For the first half of the 0 th century, Arizona s economy was dominated by the mining, agricultural, and ranching industries. Following World War II, a dramatic increase in population led to a shift away from a dependence on agriculture and mining and diversified into a mix of urban and rural industries that cover nearly every sector. The economy of Santa Cruz County relies primarily on tourism, international trade, manufacturing and services. The economy of Cochise County tends to be dominated by US Army Fort Huachuca and business associated with the growing community of Sierra Vista. Fort Huachuca has been the top employer in Cochise County since (Carreira 00). In 00, Fort Huachuca employed over,00 full-time employees, which equates to over,00 active duty military personnel, approximately,00 civilian employees, part-time civilian employees, and,00 military students. There are also more than,000 defense contractors, as well as employees of the Fort Huachuca Accommodation Schools, AAFES Post Exchange, U.S. Post Office, colleges and universities, and concessionaires located on post (Carreira 00). In 000, farm and ranch employment accounted for.% of the total employment in the county. In the four southern New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna, Luna County has faced the most economic challenges when compared to other counties in the area. In 000 Luna County, had the lowest median family income ($,) and the highest percentage of individuals living below the poverty (. percent). In 00 Luna County had the highest unemployment rate at. percent. Although Grant and Hidalgo counties both experienced decreases in population between 000 and 00, overall the population in these four southern New Mexico counties increased from,0 in 000 to, in 00, representing a thirteen percent increase in population for the area. In 000, Grant County had the highest median family income of $,, while Hidalgo County had the highest average earnings per job $, and had the lowest unemployment rate at. percent in 00. CHAPTER P AGE

67 Ranching Activities/Livestock Production Although total farm employment accounted for only. percent of the economy in 000, farm and ranch employment is still considered an important segment of the economy and heritage of Cochise and Santa Cruz counties. The ranching operations in the area tend to be characterized by small profit margins with the need for off-ranch supplemental income to continue operations. Livestock grazing is an important activity on the Coronado National Forest (CNF) with over 0 percent of the Forest open to grazing and,000 head of cattle permitted on almost 00 allotments. Long-term management of these allotments is directed by the CNF's Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and individual Allotment Management Plans (AMPs). Annual Operating Instructions direct the implementation of each AMP including the number of animals allowed for that year, the season of use, pasture rotation and any special restrictions or concerns (USDAFS 0). The two grazing allotments stocked at and AUMS cover percent of the Coronado National Memorial. A countywide total of,0,00 head of cattle are found on approximately 0 commercial ranches with an average cattle herd of to 0 within the Cochise County (NPS 00). Total number of cattle and calves in Santa Cruz County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves Cochise County was, in 00 with total livestock sales not disclosed (USDA NASS 00). Ranching is the dominant land use in southwestern New Mexico where the counties such as Hidalgo County historically began as farming, ranching, and mining communities prior to statehood (Hildalgo County 0). Southern Hildalgo County contains mostly private land, consisting of about large ranches (USFWS ). Total number of cattle and calves in Hildalgo County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Luna County was, and livestock sales totaled $ million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Dona Ana County was 0, and livestock sales totaled $ million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). BLM manages grazing on its land in Hildalgo, Dona Ana and Luna counties in accordance with the Mimbres Resource Management Plan. There are grazing allotments supporting, Animal Unit Months (AUM). Luna County owns and operates an international livestock import crossing located just west of the port of entry from Mexico where more than 0,000 head of cattle are crossed in to the U.S. annually (Luna County 0). Hunting In the southern Arizona counties within the proposed management zone spending generated from hunting activities has a significant economic impact. In 00, trip (food, lodging, gas etc.) and hunting expenditures (camping equipment, clothing, guns, decoys etc.) totaled over $. million in Cochise County. In in that same time, there was an estimated, hunters residing in Cochise County. The Coronado National Forest covers,0,000 acres of southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Hunting for white tailed-deer, javelina, black bear, turkey, mountain lion and pronghorns is permitted in the Arizona portions of the Forest south of Interstate 0. Throughout Arizona in 00,,0 hunters reported taking approximately,00 deer. Of that total approximately 0 percent were mule deer (AGFD 0). The white-tailed deer has become increasingly important in the deer harvest. Whitetails comprised less than percent of Arizona s deer harvest in, nearly 0 percent in, and percent in 00 (AGFD 0). Fort Huachuca follows State guidelines and regulations for big and small game seasons and permits issued for each big game species. Hunting is permitted on the installation and is open to military personnel, civilian employees and dependents. Management plans have been developed for game species on the installation, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, pronghorn, javelina and turkey (US Army 00). During -, the average annual deer taken by hunters was, for a percent hunter success rate; 0 javelina were taken for a percent hunter success and, six pronghorns were taken at a 0 percent hunter success rate (USFWS ). Mountain lion hunting CHAPTER P AGE

68 is open year round at Fort Huachuca under state regulation; approximately six to eight mountain lions range on the fort and one lion is harvested approximately every three years. Approximately six to eight black bears also range on Fort Huachuca lands, one spring black bear permit is issued annually (USFWS ). Coues white-tailed deer, mule deer, javelina, and pronghorn are hunted in southwestern New Mexico (USFWS ). Four mountain lion were reported harvested in this region during the 00-0 hunt season (NMGFD 0a). In the game management units within the proposed management zone there were approximately 000 permitted hunters that harvested approximately 0 deer (NMGFD 0) and approximately permitted hunters that harvested approximately 0 pronghorn antelope (NMGFD 00). Tourism The southern Arizona and New Mexico counties within the proposed management zone offer tourism and outdoor recreation related activities such as wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, rafting, camping, hiking and biking. While tourism is economically important to the major cities of Arizona, the impact of traveler spending is relatively more important to Arizona s rural counties than in urban areas such as Phoenix and Tucson (Arizona Office of Tourism 0). In southern Arizona general spending and sightseeing were popular for visitors to the region with percent of those surveyed engaging in these activities (Arizona Office of Tourism 0). Thirty-three percent of tourists reported visiting the region for nature activities, which include camping, visiting national and state parks, and eco-travel. Southern Arizona is one of the premier birding destinations in the world with popular locations such as the Ramsey Canyon Preserve near Sierra Vista for viewing wintering sandhill cranes and Wilcox for viewing migrating hummingbirds. Another popular tourist attraction to the southern Arizona counties is the region s rich heritage from the historic Arizona Territorial days. Tombstone, Arizona is the eleventh most visited private attraction in the state attracting over 00,000 visitors annually (Arizona Office of Tourism 0). In 00, Cochise County collected $. million in state and local taxes and travelers spent $0 million within the county. During the same year, Santa Cruz County collected $. million in state and local taxes and travelers spent $ million in the county (Arizona Office of Tourism 0). In 00, travel and tourism accounted for twenty percent of all employment in Cochise County and nineteen percent of all employment in Santa Cruz County. From to 00 travel and tourism employment in the region grew from, to, jobs, a.% increase (Headwaters Economics 0). In New Mexico, domestic and international travelers spent $. billion in 00 generating $. million in taxes. In 00 the travel and tourism industry created,000 jobs in New Mexico which represents. percent of the state s non-farm employment. In travel and tourism related jobs represented. percent of total employment in the southern New Mexico counties within the proposed management zone. By 00 travel and tourism related jobs had increased to. percent of total employment (Headwaters Economics 0). Between and 00 travel and tourism employment grew from, jobs to, jobs representing a. percent increase. In 00 Hidalgo County had the largest percentage of total travel and tourism employment (0. percent) while Grant County had the smallest at. percent (Headwaters Economics 0). Management Zone High rates of poverty are prevalent in the Trans-Pecos region of western Texas (Jeff Davis, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Presidio, Hudspeth, Culberson and part of Val Verde County). In 000,. percent of individuals were living below the poverty level in the region. The rate was highest in Presidio County where. percent of individuals were living below the poverty level. In 000, the median income for a Comment [jjo0]: Old numbers. Get updated numbers from Ft Huachuca CHAPTER P AGE

69 family was $,0 compared to $0,0 for the United States as a whole. In 00, Presidio County had the highest unemployment rate at. percent, while Culberson County had the lowest unemployment rate at. percent. In 00, the average earning per job was approximately $,0 in the Trans-Pecos region as a whole. The per capita income for the region increased from $,0 in 000 to $0, in 00 which represents a twenty eight percent increase. The region has a history of mining which has declined over the years. Ranching, hunting and tourism are all activities that now play a larger role in the economies of the counties in the Trans-Pecos region of West Texas (Martin 0). Ranching Activities/Livestock Production There is a long history of ranching in the Trans-Pecos region. In, the cattle industry in Brewster County received a significant boost when the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway built through the area (Martin 0). Initially, ranchers generally settled in the northern portions of the county due to ease of shipping cattle by railroad (Martin 0). The Gage Ranch and the G Ranch which started in the early to mid-0s were the first major cattle operations in southern Brewster County before Gage moved north to be closer to the railroad (Martin 0). After World War I cattle ranching remained an important local industry. In 00 Brewster County had, cattle but the area was hit hard by the depression and by the end of the 0s the cattle population had dropped to,. Many local cattlemen had given up on ranching and much of the land eventually ended up in Big Bend National Park. Cattle ranching never regained the prominence in Brewster County that it had in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (Martin 0). Total number of cattle and calves in Brewster County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). In Culberson County, ranching has been more important to the local economy than farming, although the cattle population decreased between 0 and the early 0s. The number of cattle dropped from, in 0 to approximately,000 in (Martin 0). Total number of cattle and calves in Culberson County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). In Jeff Davis County, the 0s brought a large influx of ranchers to the area and by 0 had,0 cattle. The total number of cattle climbed to a high of, in 0 but had declined to,0 by 0. Sheep and goats have also been important to the local economy (Martin 0). The number of sheep climbed to a high of 0,0 in 0 but by declined to, in ; sheep were considered statistically insignificant for the next agricultural census in (Martin, 0). The number of goats rose steadily until the 0s from in 00 to,0 in. The number of goats fell until they were no longer raised in significant numbers in the county (Martin 0). Total number of cattle and calves in Jeff Davis County was, and livestock sales totaled $0. million in 00 (USDA NASS 00). In Presidio County, early ranchers raised both cattle and sheep from the 0s through the 0s. The 0 census reported a larger number of sheep than cattle in Presidio County,,00 sheep to, cattle (Martin 0). By the 00 census cattle dominated the range with over,00, while number of sheep had declined to (Martin 0). However, by 0 there were approximately,00 cattle and over,000 sheep. The 0 census indicated a more even distribution of the livestock and substantial gains for both cattle, at nearly,000 and sheep at less than,000 (Martin 0). The value of Presidio County livestock increased from $. million at the end of the 0s to $. million in (Martin, 0). Total number of cattle and calves in Presidio County was, in 00 with the value of livestock sales not disclosed (USDA NASS 00). Total number of cattle and calves in Terrell County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Val Verde County was,0 and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves Pecos County was, and livestock sales totaled $. million in 00. Total number of cattle and calves in Hudspeth County was, in 00 with the value of livestock sales not disclosed (USDA NASS 00). CHAPTER P AGE

70 Hunting As part of its recreational offerings in the Trans-Pecos region the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) regulates hunting in Big Bend Ranch State Park, Sierra Diablo, Elephant Mountain and Black Gap Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs). The majority of wildlife habitat and hunting occurs in Texas on private land. The TPWD offers a variety of hunting opportunities through two public hunting systems. The first system, the Annual Public Hunting Permit provides nearly year round hunting while the second system, the Public Hunt Drawing System provides opportunities to apply for a wide variety of supervised, drawn hunts including special drawings for both adults and youth hunters (TPWD 0f). Species classified as game include the white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn, gray and red squirrels, and javelina. Game birds include quail, turkey, pheasants and migratory game birds such as dove and teal. Non-game species include bobcats, coyotes, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, porcupines, rabbits and mountain lions. No closed season is in place for these species which may be hunted at any time on private property. Black bears are protected and cannot be hunted or killed. Exotic animals not indigenous or native to Texas include feral hog, Aoudad sheep, elk, Sika deer, Fallow deer, Blackbuck antelope, Nilgai antelope, and Russian boar. There are no state bag or possession limits or closed seasons on exotic animals. TPWD offers special hunt package drawings for exotic wildlife and quality native animals on TPWD managed lands as well as specially leased private properties (TPWD 0). Common game species hunted in the Trans-Pecos region include: white tailed deer, mule deer, javelina, squirrel, turkey, pronghorn, quail and dove. Tourism Tourism and outdoor recreational activities are major draws to the Trans-Pecos region. In addition to hunting recreational opportunities include: fishing, rafting, camping, bird watching and other wildlife watching. Popular tourist attractions in the Trans-Pecos region include Fort Davis National Historic Site, Davis Mountains State Park, Big Bend Ranch State Park and Big Bend National Park. Davis Mountain State Park is a,00 acre park for outdoor recreation north of the town of Fort Davis on Texas Highway. The park offers a variety of camping, from hookups for recreational vehicles to primitive campsites, several miles of hiking trails, an interpretive center and opportunities for bird watching at two viewing stations (Fort Davis, TX 0). Fort Davis National Historic Site at the foot of Sleeping Lion Mountain and Hospital Canyon is considered perhaps the best preserved of all the th Century frontier forts and one of the best preserved "Buffalo Soldier" forts in the west. There are three hiking trails with links to the hiking trail at Davis Mountains State Park (Fort Davis, TX 0). Big Bend Ranch State Park is west of Big Bend National Park, and is the largest state park in Texas, with over 00,000 acres of Chihuahuan Desert and opportunities for hiking, backpacking, horseback riding and mountain biking, fishing, camping stargazing and bird watching. In addition, the park also offers a semiannual longhorn cattle roundup. The park extends along the Rio Grande from southeast of Presidio to near Lajitas in both Brewster and Presidio Counties, it encompasses two mountain ranges containing ancient extinct volcanoes, precipitous canyons, and waterfalls (TPWD 0d). Big Bend National Park is one of the largest, but due to its remote location, one of the least-visited national parks in the lower states. In 0 a total of, visitors entered the park (NPS 0a). The primary attractions at Big Bend National Park are its hiking and backpacking trails. The park also administers miles of the Rio Grande River for recreational use where river touring is a popular activity and professional river outfitters provide tours of the river Another popular recreational activity is bird watching with more than 0 species of birds, including many migratory species, recorded in the park (NPS 0a). Travel and tourism accounted for thirty-seven percent of all jobs in the region in. From to 00, travel and tourism related employment grew from, to, jobs, a twenty three percent CHAPTER 0 P AGE

71 increase (Headwaters Economics 0). The majority (,) of these jobs were located in the Big Bend Area (Brewster and Presidio Counties) (Dean Runyan 0).. HUMAN HEALTH/PUBLIC SAFETY In this section, we describe the human health and public safety issues and concerns regarding human-wolf interaction that may be associated with the possible re-colonization by gray wolves in areas of suitable habitat within the proposed management zones in Arizona, New Mexico and western Texas... Existing Setting In North America, wolf-human interactions have increased in the last three decades, likely due to increasing wolf populations and increasing visitor use of parks and other remote areas (Fritts et al. 00). Generally, wild wolves are not considered a threat to human safety (McNay 00) although two recent human fatalities in North America have been attributed to wolf attacks. In 00, a student, who was on a work co-op at Points North Landing, Canada was found, by judicial inquest, to have died from "injuries consistent to that of a wolf attack" (Jobin 00). In March, 00, a -year-old female jogger was reported killed by wolves near Chignik Lake, Alaska (Murphy 00). In the BRWRA, wolf-human interactions have occurred but there have been no Mexican wolf attacks on humans. Between and 00, cases of wolf-human interactions were documented in the BRWRA. The majority of these incidents (%) were considered investigative searches in which wolves ignored human presence. In several cases ( %), wolves approached humans in a non-threatening manner, and in three reports wolves displayed aggressive behavior (charging) toward humans (AMOC and IFT 00). Although sporadic but unconfirmed wolf sightings continued to occasionally occur, wolves were considered to be extirpated in most of Arizona and New Mexico by the late 0 s. The last wolf reported taken in northern Arizona was on the Paria Plateau around. Wolves persisted in the mountains of southern New Mexico s Hildago County, where long established wolf runways facilitated dispersal from populations in Mexico, but were considered to be essentially eliminated in the rest of the state (Brown ). In decreasing numbers wolves continued to be trapped and killed in the southern border counties of Arizona and New Mexico into the 0s and 0s. The last wolf carcass found in New Mexico was reported in the Peloncillo Mountains in October, 0 (Brown ). In the trans-pecos area of west Texas wolves had effectively been brought under control by the mid-0s. The last confirmed wolves in Texas were taken in 0 (Brown ). Anecdotal accounts and campfire legends about the cunning lobo and its toll on livestock prior to its removal are plentiful but no confirmed or reliable reports of wolf attacks on humans, or wolf caused human fatalities, in Arizona, New Mexico or western Texas have ever been recorded. Except for the reintroduced population of Mexican wolves in the BRWRA no wolves are known to be currently present within Arizona, New Mexico or western Texas.. LAND USE The term Land use addresses both developed and undeveloped land. Undeveloped land is commonly classified as open space, while developed land uses range from residential and commercial to recreational and agricultural. Open space reflects primarily undeveloped land that provides scenic, ecological, or recreational values. In many instances, open space is set aside for resource protection or conservation; it may be managed as forest land, rangeland, or agricultural land. Land use is regulated by plans and policies that identify the type and extent of uses allowed by the governing authorities in specific areas. CHAPTER P AGE

72 Existing Setting Management Zone The northern portions of Mohave, Coconino, Navajo, and Apache counties in Arizona, and San Juan, Rio Arriba, Taos, Colfax, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Mora counties in New Mexico contain areas of suitable habitat for wolves within the proposed management zone. All of these counties are primarily rural, with few incorporated municipalities and, with the exception of Colfax County, NM, all have a large proportion of land under Federal or tribal control. The Federal land management agencies which control the majority of the potential natural recolonization areas within the proposed management zone are the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USDAFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS). ). Other Federal agencies with land within the proposed management zone include the Department of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and the Department of Energy (Figure -). The majority of the land under these agencies is managed as open space in accordance with management plans specific to each agency. There are four national forests within the proposed Management Zone. The Coconino and Kaibab National Forests are in northern Arizona and the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests are in northern New Mexico. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of requires every national forest to develop a Forest Plan which must be consistent with environmental laws and regulations. Each forest s plan provides broad direction for the management of natural resources and guides project and activity decision making. Forest plans generally provide for multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the national forest in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner (USDAFS 00b). The mix of uses within a forest may include; recreation, grazing, timber harvest, mineral extraction, watershed protection, wildlife, fish and plant conservation and protection of biological diversity. Forests are divided into management areas in which the plan designates the type and relative priority of use (or uses) authorized. For example the authorized use in a management area that is designated as wilderness will not include mechanized recreation, timber harvest, or mineral extraction. The BLM controls land throughout northern Arizona and New Mexico. Comprehensive land use planning is a requirement of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of (FLPMA). In accordance with FLPMA the BLM prepares comprehensive land use plans called Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to provide management decisions and actions and allowable uses on BLM public lands. RMPs usually address an array of programs occurring on BLM public lands including, for example, lands and realty, transportation and off-highway vehicle use, fire management, visual, cultural, recreational and wildlife resources and management, mineral leasing, and rangeland resource management. RMPs also provide direction for managing areas on public lands that require special protection through designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Land use within Grand Canyon National Park in northern Arizona is guided by the General Management Plan (GMP) which guides the management of resources, visitor use, and general development at the park (NPS ). Tribal land within the proposed management zone includes the Hualapai, Havasupai, Kaibab-Paiute, Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations in northern Arizona and the Jicarilla Apache and Taos Pueblo Indian Reservations in northern New Mexico. Land use on tribal lands follows the same patterns as elsewhere in the region, including a mix of overlapping uses of grazing; agriculture; oil, gas, and coal production; and scattered homesteads and isolated sites for commercial and industrial use. The tribes manage the use of these lands. Land use on Indian allotments is managed by the allottees, with approval of the BIA (BLM 00). CHAPTER P AGE

73 0 0 Figure -. Landownership in Proposed Management Zone Northern New Mexico (San Juan, Rio Arriba, Taos, Colfax, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Mora counties) Land use within San Juan County is dominated by Indian reservations and land controlled by the Federal government. Of the approximately,00 square miles of land in the county the Navajo Indian Reservation, and a small portion of the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation, occupy approximately,00 square miles, or % of the county land area. The BLM manages over,00 square miles of public lands, or approximately % of the county. Private land is a relatively small share of the county with approximately 0 square miles, or.% of the land area (San Juan County 00). The county is sparsely populated with the urbanized tri-city area of Farmington, Aztec and Bloomfield in the north-central part of the county being the primary population center. The majority of the county is within the San Juan Basin which is rich in coal, natural gas and oil resources. Approximately,000 gas and oil producing wells have been drilled in the San Juan Basin and San Juan County is the leading producer of natural gas in New Mexico (San Juan County 00). The highest elevation of San Juan County is in the Chuska Mountains on the western border of the county and the New Mexico state line. The Chuska Mountains are located in the Navajo Reservation and contain the majority of potentially suitable wolf habitat within San Juan County. This portion of the Navajo Reservation is within Bureau of Indian Affairs Grazing Unit and is used primarily for grazing livestock, specifically cattle and sheep and horses. There are two incorporated municipalities within Rio Arriba County; the City of Espanola, located at the County s southern border, and; the Village of Chama, located at the northern end of the county near the Comment [JJO]: We need input from BIA and the Navajo Nation to get more detailed land use and planning info for this area. CHAPTER P AGE

74 Colorado state line. Four Indian reservations (Jicarilla Apache Nation and the Pueblos of Ohkay Owingeh, Santa Clara and portions of San Ildefonso) are within the county. Private land ownership represents % of the county s land base with the remaining % owned by Federal government. The USDA Forest Service and the BLM control % of the county s land base with % held in trust by the Federal government for Indian Tribes (Rio Arriba County 00). The mountainous portions of the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests and the Jicaralla Apache Indian Reservation which lie along and on either side of the Continental Divide contain the majority of suitable wolf habitat within the county. Roughly % of Taos County s,0,000 acres is composed of Federal, (, acres), Native American (, acres) and state lands (, acres). Private ownership (,000 acres) makes up the remaining % of county land. The National Forest public lands were established under the Organic Administration of for the purpose of securing favorable water flow and a majority of Taos County upper watersheds are managed by the Carson National Forest under activities identified in the Forest Plan for the Carson National Forest. Much of the open mesa of the Taos Plateau is managed by the BLM. The Carson National Forest, including the Latir Peak and Wheeler Peak Wilderness areas and the Valle Vidal Unit, as well as privately held lands in the northern portions of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains provide the majority of suitable wolf habitat within Taos County. Colfax County has a land area of, square miles (. million acres) the majority of which (,,000 acres) is under private ownership. The unusually high proportion of private land is largely due to the. million acre Maxwell Land Grant of. The privately owned Vermejo Park Ranch, with nearly,000 acres in the northwest portion of the county, was part of the original Maxwell Land Grant. It is the largest contiguous deeded ranch in New Mexico (City of Raton 0). The second largest landowner in the county is the State Land Office with a checkerboard ownership pattern in the eastern third of the county. The county includes six incorporated municipalities of Raton, Springer, Cimarron, Maxwell, Eagle Nest and Angel Fire. Raton is the largest municipality, with a population of approximately, persons and is the county seat. With a total population of approximately,000 persons, the county has a very low density of. persons per square mile. The principal land use in the county is ranching/agriculture. Significant livestock grazing and agriculture takes place in the eastern part of the county. More than million acres of land is held by 0 farms, most of which produce cattle as their major commodity. Residential development in the County is most active near Raton and Angel Fire, with some development also occurring near Eagle Nest and Cimarron (Colfax County 00). The Carson National Forest manages approximately,000 acres in the Valle Vidal area of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains on the county s western boundary. The Carson National Forest s Valle Vidal unit and the large expanse of privately held land, including the Vermejo Park Ranch, to the northwest of Route and extending along the Vermejo and Canadian River watersheds into southern Colorado, provide the majority of suitable wolf habitat within Colfax County. The northern portions of Sandoval and Santa Fe counties and a small portion of western Mora County contain that are within the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests contain areas of suitable wolf habitat. Both the Carson and the Santa Fe National Forests operate under Forest Management Plans first implemented in the 0s. The Carson National Forest Plan has been in effect since and has had thirteen amendments made to it since then. The Santa Fe Forest Plan was completed in as amended in July, 00 (USDAFS 00b). These plans provide for integrated multi-use of the land including multiple management areas that are designated to have a high or very high emphasis on wildlife management and conservation, or are set aside for the protection of Federally listed species. Those areas of the Forests with suitable wolf habitat include seven wilderness areas (Cruses Basin, Latir Peak, Wheeler Peak, Chama River Canyon, San Pedro Parks, and Pecos Wilderness Areas). Authorized uses of the national forest management areas that contain suitable wolf habitat include grazing and big game hunting. The proposed Carson Forest Plan amendment for the Valle Vidal Unit (identified as CHAPTER P AGE

75 Management Area in the Forest Plan) specifies that: Valle Vidal is managed for multiple uses, focusing on the maintenance or restoration of diverse, resilient, biological communities. Habitats primarily provide for native plants, fish, and wildlife. All vegetation management activities will be designed to sustain or improve wildlife habitats, forest health, recreation opportunities, or environmental education experiences (USDAFS 0). In northern New Mexico the BLM s Farmington Field Office manages public land in San Juan, McKinley, Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties in accordance with a RMP completed in December, 00. The RMP guide land use decisions regarding oil and gas leasing and development, off-highway vehicle (OHV) designations, land ownership adjustments, management of Specially Designated Areas (SDAs), and coal leasing suitability. The vast majority of the planning area was leased for oil and gas development in the 0s and 0s and under the plan a total of,, acres of BLM managed lands will remain open for oil and gas leasing and development. Non-discretionary closures (those required by existed laws and regulations) will continue on, acres. These areas are contained in designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and SDAs (BLM 00). The Proposed Taos RMP was completed in November, 0 and is in the process of public review. The,00 acres of BLM-administered public lands subject to the Taos RMP are within a planning area encompassing approximately,000 square miles of mixed ownership in north eastern New Mexico. The majority of this planning area is in Taos and Santa Fe counties, and the eastern half of Rio Arriba County. Management under the Proposed RMP seeks to provide an overall balance between the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural and cultural values, while allowing resource use and development (BLM 0). Included in the multiple types of land use authorizations for different planning units within the planning area are; oil and gas leasing, mineral extraction, recreation, livestock grazing, visual resource management, cultural and paleontological resources management, and fish and wildlife management. Two Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are located within the planning area. Seven areas covering, acres possess wilderness characteristics which would be managed to protect their wilderness characteristics. Northern Arizona (Mohave, Coconino, Navajo and Apache counties) Mohave County contains parts of Grand Canyon National Park and Lake Mead National Recreation Area and all of the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument. The Kaibab- Paiute and Hualapai Indian Reservations also lie within the county. Mohave County was Arizona's fastest growing county from 0 to 000 however, the majority of the county s population, and the area subject to rapid population growth in recent years, is concentrated in the western part of the county including Kingman, Golden Valley and the communities of Laughlin, Bullhead City, Lake Havasu along the Colorado River corridor and the state line with Nevada (Mojave County, 00). The area of the county to the north of the Colorado River, extending to the state line with Utah has a population density of less than persons per square mile. Nearly three-quarters of the land in Mohave County is owned by the Federal Government or the State of Arizona with the BLM being the largest Federal agency landholder. The mountainous portions of Grand Canyon National Park, Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, and other BLM managed land provide the majority of suitable wolf habitat within northern Mojave County. Grand Canyon National Park encompasses approximately,, acres of public land on the southern end of the Colorado Plateau. As a world heritage site, the Grand Canyon is recognized as a place of universal value, containing superlative natural and cultural features that should be preserved as part of the heritage of all people NPS ). Over 0% of the park is proposed for wilderness. The General Management Plan for Grand Canyon National Park provides guidance for the management of resources, visitor use, and general development at the park. The primary purpose of the plan is to provide a foundation from which to protect park resources while providing for meaningful visitor experiences (NPS 0). The Grand Canyon- CHAPTER P AGE

76 Parashant National Monument is jointly managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the National Park Service (NPS). The Monument encompasses,0, acres in Mohave County: 0, acres of BLM-administered lands, 0, acres of NPS-administered lands,,0 acres of Arizona State Trust lands, and,0 acres of private lands (BLM 00). The Monument contains four wilderness areas, totaling,0 acres and was created to protect an array of scientific, biological, geological, hydrological, cultural, and historical objects. The Resource Management Plan provides overall direction for management of all resources on BLM and NPS administered land in the Monument (BLM 00). The Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation in northern Mojave County covers 0, acres of plateau and desert grassland in the Arizona Strip country, bordered on the north by the state of Utah. The Reservation is comprised of five villages: Kaibab, Steamboat, Juniper Estates, Six-Mile, and Redhills. A vast majority of the land is undeveloped. The main portion of the Hualapai Reservation, consisting of,0 acres, is located primarily in Mojave and Coconino counties in northern Arizona, approximately 0 miles west of Flagstaff, and miles northeast of Kingman, Arizona. The reservation is adjacent to the Colorado River at Lower Granite Gorge and is bordered on the north by the Grand Canyon National Park and by the Grand Wash Cliffs on the west. The main reservation's topography varies from rolling grassland and forests to rugged canyons of the Colorado River. Elevations range from,00 feet at the Colorado River, to over,00 feet at the highest point of the Aubrey Cliffs, located on the eastern portion of the reservation. The Colorado River is an important surface water feature of the main reservation, as groundwater resources on the reservation tend to be less accessible. The Hualapai Tribe owns and operates tourist-oriented enterprises including the Hualapai Lodge, bus tours, river running and wild-life hunting. Hunts take place for bighorn sheep, elk, turkey, antelope, and mountain lion (NAU 0). With, square miles, Coconino is the second largest county in the United States and the largest in Arizona, but is one of the most sparsely populated. Coconino County contains Vermillion Cliffs National Monument, the Havasupai Indian Reservation, the majority of the Kaibab National Forest, and portions of Grand Canyon National Park, Coconino National Forest and the Navajo, Hualapai Nation, and Hopi Indian Reservations. Indian reservations comprise percent of the land. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management control percent of the county; the state of Arizona owns. percent; other public lands comprise. percent; and the remaining. percent is owned by individuals or corporations. Over three-fourths of the non-reservation land within Coconino County is managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Arizona State Land Department. Virtually all these lands are managed as open space. Most are heavily used by recreationists, especially Park Service and Forest Service lands. Virtually all the federal and state land in the county, except land under Park Service jurisdiction, is used for cattle grazing. In addition, about threefourths of the county s private land consists of large ranches used almost exclusively for grazing cattle. Nine ranch owners with private land holdings exceeding 0,000 acres each collectively own. million acres percent of the county s private land (Coconino County 00). The Havasupai Reservation is located within Coconino County at the southwest corner of the Grand Canyon National Park. It consists of,0 acres. The reservation is situated among plateaus, which are dissected with deep, scenic canyons, typical of the Grand Canyon. Notable geographic features include The Great Thumb, Long Mesa, and Tenderfoot Mesa, which converge on the Coconino Plateau at the south end of the reservation. Havasu Canyon, now the permanent home of the Havasupai Tribe, is known for its blue water and spectacular waterfalls adorned with travertine columns, shelves and skirts. Topography of the plateaus consists of rolling, gentle slopes, to escarpments of Kaibab Limestone. Each year, thousands of visitors hike or ride horses into the canyon. The tribe operates a lodge at the bottom of the canyon (NAU 0). The Kaibab National Forest is comprised of three separate land areas located principally in Coconino County. The Forest s. million acres is divided into three ranger districts. There is one designated National Game Preserve, the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve, and all or part of four designated CHAPTER P AGE

77 Wilderness Areas, Sycamore Canyon, Kanab Creek, Kendrick Mountain, and Saddle Mountain within this National Forest (USDAFS ). The Kaibab National Forest Plan provides for integrated multiple use and sustained yield of goods and services from the Forest in a way that maximizes net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner USDAFS ). The Hopi and Navajo Indian Reservations encompass nearly all of both Navajo and Apache counties north of Interstate- 0. The Hopi Tribe s main reservation land base is located in the northeastern section of Arizona with a total area of approximately,, acres. The main reservation is bounded on all sides by the Navajo Reservation. The area consists of low lying deserts, gullies, buttes and mesas, rising as high as,00 feet. Most of the Reservation is open land and is used for communities, religious, farming, business, and livestock purposes. Hopi shrines, sacred natural features, and ceremonial gathering areas are located throughout the land. Elevations in the northern highlands range from,00 to,00 feet. The southern part of the Reservation is characterized by gently rolling hills and wide valleys. Many small intermittent washes drain the highlands, fanning out on the flats or merging with the major washes in the valley. The major ground water source is the N aquifer, which provides the majority of the usable community water supply. The scarcity of water is a limiting factor in future economic or agricultural development. Hopi lands have substantial deposits of coal, generating a significant source of revenue to the Hopi tribal government. Consisting of, square miles, across the four corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Colorado the Navajo Nation is the largest Indian reservation in the United States. Arizona s portion of the Navajo Indian Reservation alone measures. million acres.arid deserts and alpine forests characterize the land. High plateaus, mesas, and mountains as high as 0,00 feet are interspersed among lower desert regions as low as,00 feet. The Reservation includes world-renowned, scenic sites such as Canyon de Chelly, Shiprock, Monument Valley, the Chuska Mountains, and the Painted Desert (NAU 0). Management Zone Within the proposed management zone, south of Interstate-0, portions of Cochise and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona, and Hildalgo, Dona Ana, Luna and Grant counties in New Mexico contain areas of suitable habitat for wolves. The Federal land management agencies which control the majority of Federal land in the potential natural recolonization areas within the proposed management zone are the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USDAFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department of the Army (Figure -). Other Federal Lands within the proposed management zones are primarily controlled by the Department of Defense. The majority of the land under these agencies is managed as open space in accordance with management plans specific to each agency. The discussion of the existing land use for Cochise and Santa Cruz counties in Arizona and Hildalgo County in New Mexico provided in the FEIS for the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf in the Southwest (USFWS ) is incorporated by reference. The Coronado National Forest consists of five ranger districts, totaling,, acres of land in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. The Douglas, Sierra Vista and Nogales Ranger Districts are within the proposed management zone, south of Interstate-0. The Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) covers all NFS lands within the boundary of the Coronado NF (USDAFS 0). The Forest is divided into twelve ecosystem management areas, which are mapped areas that have specific management direction in addition to the Forest wide management direction. These management areas include eight designated wilderness areas that make up almost percent of the Forest (USDAFS 0). In Cochise and Santa Cruz counties the Forest is surrounded by State of Arizona, BLM and private lands, including approximately,000 acres of private inholdings (USFWS ). About percent of Cochise County is privately owned. The National Park Service (NPS) manages the Coronado National Memorial and the Chiricahua National Monument, both in Cochise County. The,00 acre Chiricahua National Monument was established to protect unique CHAPTER P AGE

78 0 0 natural formations called the Pinnacles and contains,0 acres of designated wilderness (USFWS ). The,00 acre Coronado National Memorial was established to commemorate Francisco Vásquez de Coronado s th-century expedition into what is now the United States. Both the Monument and the Memorial are managed in accordance with General Management Plans which define the direction and philosophy for resource preservation and visitor use in accordance with NPS management policies (NPS 00) The U.S Army s Fort Huachuca covers, acres with an additional, acres of leased/withdrawn land to support the military mission. Approximately, acres of unimproved land is available for military training and outdoor recreation activities, with,0 acres of improved land,,0 acres of forest,,0 acres of grazing,. miles of perennial streams, acres of wetlands, and 0 acres of riparian habitat. Land use at the Fort is guided by the Installation Master Plan and the Integrated Natural Resource Master Plan (INRMP) which provides the basis and criteria for protecting and enhancing natural resources using watershed, landscape, and ecosystem perspectives, consistent with the military mission (US Army 00). Land ownership is primarily private with large private ranches predominate in the southwestern New Mexico county of Hildago (Figure -). The county also includes the Peloncillo Mountains portion of the Coronado National Forest s Douglas Ranger District and five Wilderness Study Areas (Gray Peak, Guadalupe Canyon, Big Hatchet Mountains, Alamo Hueco Mountains, Cowboy Spring) managed by BLM. The BLM administers approximately,0,0 acres of public land in Dona Ana, Luna, Hildalgo and Grant counties in southwestern New Mexico and is the largest landowner in those portions of Grant, Dona Ana and Luna counties south of Interstate-0 (BLM ). Five Wilderness Study Areas (Cedar Mountains, Florida Mountains, West Potrillo Mountains, Mount Riley, Aden Lava Flow) designated are managed by the BLM in these counties. The Las Cruces Field Office s Mimbres Resource Management Plan sets forth the land use decisions, terms and conditions for guiding and controlling future management action on the public land within the planning area (BLM ). CHAPTER P AGE

79 0 0 Figure -. Landownership in Proposed Management Zone Management Zone Land use in the Trans-Pecos region of western Texas, including the counties of Jeff Davis, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, Presidio, Hudspeth, Culberson and part of Val Verde County, is dominated by privately held farm and ranch land. Texas has over million acres of private farms, ranches and forestlands and the percentage of private land in Texas is greater than in any other state. At. million acres, native rangeland continues to be the prevailing general category of land use in Texas. These lands account for % of the state s entire land area (Wilkins et al. 00).and provide substantial economic, environmental, and recreational resources. In the Trans-Pecos region, % of the land is classified as open space with an average ownership size of, acres. Irrigated and dry cropland account for less than %, with native rangelands accounting for,, acres, or approximately %, of total open space acreage in the region. The more than million acres of native range land on private ranches provides the majority of the wildlife habitat for the region. Wildlife management areas account for,0 acres (approximately %) of acreage (Wilkins et al. 00) and private lands under conservation easements total approximately, acres. With the exception of Big Bend National Park (0, acres) and Big Bend Ranch State Park (, acres), the few public landholdings in this area are relatively small in size. Davis Mountain State Park (,0 acres), Seminole Canyon State Park (, acres) and the Sierra Diablo (, acres), Elephant Mountain (, acres) and Black Gap (0,000 acres) Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are the CHAPTER P AGE

80 0 0 0 only other substantial federal or state land holdings in the region. Big Bend National Park was authorized by Congress in and established in to preserve and protect a representative area of the Chihuahuan Desert along the Rio Grande for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The park includes rich biological and geological diversity, cultural history, recreational resources and must balance the competing demands of its dual mission: providing for a fulfilling visitor experience and preserving rare and fragile ecosystems (NPS 0a). Big Bend Ranch State Park is the largest state park in Texas. The park extends along the Rio Grande from southeast of Presidio to near Lajitas in both Brewster and Presidio Counties. The park has about miles of river frontage along the Rio Grande, and ranges in elevation from about,0 feet along the Rio Grande to over,000 feet at Oso Mountain and Fresno Peak. Allowed activities within the park include hiking, biking, horseback riding, rafting/canoeing, wildlife viewing, camping, and hunting. Davis Mountain State Park is located in the Davis Mountains four miles northwest of Fort Davis in Jeff Davis County. Activities include camping, sightseeing, nature study, picnicking, hiking, backpacking, day and overnight equestrian use, mountain biking, and interpretive programs. The northern half of the park has been designated the Limpia Canyon Primitive Area Seminole Canyon State Park is located in the lower Pecos River valley in Val Verde County. The park opened in February 0 and is open to the public for hiking, mountain biking, camping, historical study, and nature/interpretive attractions. The park preserves some of North America's oldest Indian pictographs within a semiarid landscape which represents a mixture of species from the Edwards Plateau, the Chihuahuan Desert and the South Texas Plains (TPWD 0). The Sierra Diablo WMA was acquired by Texas Parks and Wildlife in to serve as a sanctuary for the last remaining desert bighorn sheep in Texas. The area is currently utilized for the restoration, conservation, and management of bighorn sheep and is home to the largest free-ranging population in Texas. The Sierra Diablo WMA is not open to the public and access is restricted to permitted hunters for mule deer accompanied by TPWD escort. Elephant Mountain WMA was acquired through private donation in for the purpose of conservation and development of desert bighorn and large game animals, wildlife-oriented research, and other compatible recreational uses including public hunting. Desert bighorn have been established on the area. Elephant Mountain WMA is designated as a wildlife research and demonstration are and is managed for wildlife, research, demonstration and appropriate public use. Allowed public activities include hunting, camping, driving, hiking and wildlife viewing. The Black Gap WMA borders Big Bend National Park on the northwestern boundary. The Texas Game and Oyster Commission, the predecessor of the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, purchased the original,000 acres from the Combs Cattle Company in. The property serves as a facility where research and demonstration projects can be implemented to aid private land management of natural resources. Allowed public activities include hunting, camping, driving, hiking, bicycling, fishing, equestrian, and wildlife viewing. CHAPTER 0 P AGE

81 Figure - Landownership in Proposed Management Zone CHAPTER P AGE

82 0 This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER P AGE

83 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES In accordance with Executive Order -Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality and Executive Order - Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation, the Service seeks to carry out our programs, projects and activities in a manner that promotes cooperative conservation, and protects, restores, and enhances the quality of the human environment while protecting public health and safety. The environmental impact analysis of the reintroduction of wolves into the BRWRA, and the management activities now carried out in the MWEPA under the authority of the Final Rule, have been addressed and analyzed in previously completed NEPA documents (See Section.). The environmental impact analysis provided in these documents is therefore incorporated by reference (CEQ, Sec. 0.) and, where appropriate, we tier from the previously completed NEPA analysis in an effort to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues, exclude from consideration issues already decided, and to focus, in this environmental review, on the actual issues ripe for decision (CEQ, Sec. 0.0 and Sec. 0.).. DEFINITIONS OF IMPACTS AND DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE This chapter details the environmental impacts in those portions of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, exclusive of the MWEPA, which may be affected from implementation of the alternatives for the Proposed Action. Evidence from natural gray wolf recolonization along the U.S./Canada border suggests that, even when adequate source populations exist, lone wolves or breeding pairs may repeatedly appear in an area but then die out or be accidentally or illegally killed without establishing a self-sustaining population (USFWS ). Due to uncertainties about location and timing, the impacts of natural recolonization, when, and if, it occurs, will be less predictable than in the case of released and reintroduced populations of captive-raised animals (USFWS ). Wolf control has been analyzed and discussed in many Service publications that are cited in our Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) Wolf Recovery 00 Annual Report (USFWS et al. 00). Without management of problem wolves, human tolerance for all wolves, including the majority that does not depredate on livestock, decreases (Mech ). Based on our experience with wolf recovery efforts in the NRM and the western Great Lakes states (Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan) as well as the BRWRA Mexican Wolf Reintroduction Project, we believe that an active management program that includes removal of problem wolves enhances the survival, propagation, and recovery of wolves. It does this by creating a social environment whereby livestock depredations and other negative wolf-human interactions are maintained at low enough levels that society determines them as tolerable and acceptable costs of the return of wolf populations to portions of their historical range. An environmental impact is a modification in the status of the environment as it presently exists, or as it is anticipated to exist in the future, as a result of the Proposed Action. Environmental impacts can: Be beneficial or adverse. Occur directly as a result of the action or indirectly as a secondary result. Direct impacts are caused by, and occur at the same time and place, as a specific action. Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable and may be attributable to a particular action, but they occur later in time or farther removed in distance from the action than a direct impact. Be long-term (e.g. permanent) or short-term (e.g. temporary) in duration. Be of small magnitude with negligible change. An identifiable change that does not constitute a substantially adverse impact on the environment is categorized as a less than significant impact. Be an identifiable major adverse change to the environment. These impacts are known as significant impacts. CHAPTER P AGE

84 In accordance with NEPA Regulations (0 CFR 00-0), the evaluation of significance is based on the twin criteria of context and intensity (0 CFR 0.). Generally, impacts are identified within the context of the project area and the extent these impacts are perceptible beyond the project area. Intensity relates to the magnitude of the impact on environmental resources and the amount of controversy or risk. Under neither Alternative One nor Two for the Proposed Action do we propose to release or reintroduce wolves from captive populations. Therefore, the context of the project area is those portions of the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas outside of the MWEPA into which we believe wolves could naturally disperse and/or recolonize from source populations in the BRWRA (unmarked or unidentifiable wolves), the NRM, or Mexico. We define the project area through the use of proposed management zones, within which we assess the impacts of our actions, The environmental impacts from either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action are evaluated relative to this project area (the context) using the following questions as guidelines to their significance: () Would our management activities alter (either mitigate or magnify) the magnitude of impacts that would occur from naturally dispersing and/or recolonizing wolves? () Would our management activities alter the rate of dispersal or the potential for success of recolonizing wolves? () Would the areas into which wolves disperse, or areas which are naturally chosen by wolves for recolonization, be changed by our management activities? () Would our management activities increase or decrease the level of public controversy associated with naturally dispersing or recolonizing wolves?. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES In this section we address the potential impacts from implementation of the alternatives for the Proposed Action on flora (vegetation) and fauna (wildlife), including federally listed or special status species and their sensitive habitats, which may occupy the areas of suitable wolf habitat within the three proposed Management Zones... Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures The antagonistic and symbiotic interactions among organisms are some of the most important, but least understood, factors influencing the structure of natural ecosystems (US EPA ). Because these interactions have evolved over long periods of time, the deletion of species from, or the addition of species to, an ecosystem can dramatically alter its composition, structure, and function. Biotic interactions that are particularly important in maintaining community structure or ecosystem function are described as "keystone" interactions (US EPA ). The magnitude of the interaction between species is termed the "interaction strength," and species whose effect on their communities is disproportionately large (relative to their abundance) have a high "community importance" and are commonly known as "keystone" species (US EPA ). Wolves, with their role as an apex predator, are recognized as a keystone species within ecosystems (Ripple and Larsen 000). Comprehensive theories of food-web dynamics recognize the critical role for predation in structuring ecosystems where top-down control by predators on herbivore density results in increased plant biomass. Distinguishing between direct effects and indirect effects between species is important in a simplified food-web model. Direct effects occur when there are no intermediary species between two interacting species. Indirect effects are mediated by an intermediate species, such as the indirect effect of wolves on plants when the presence of wolves reduces herbivore density (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). Beyond the effects associated with trophic cascades perhaps the most important non-predation form of direct interaction is competition (Estes et al. 00). Competition occurs where at least one of two (or more) interacting species has negative effects on the other species. CHAPTER P AGE

85 Scavenging is an important indirect interaction between species (Vucetich et al. 00, Wilmers et al. 00, Stahler et al. 00). Vegetation Undisturbed browsing by large herbivores in the absence of native predators is recognized as an important factor affecting the biodiversity and native plant communities of temperate ecosystems (Ripple et al. 00). The collapse of a tri-trophic cascade involving wolves, elk, and aspen in Yellowstone National Park points to a factor that may contribute to the long-term demise of aspen in an area where domestic livestock grazing has not occurred. Following the removal of gray wolves from Yellowstone, increased browsing by Rocky Mountain elk suppressed the recruitment of aspen, willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), and various species of shrubs in the park s northern winter ranges (Ripple and Larsen 000, Barmore 00, Ripple and Beschta 00, Beschta 00). Within a few years, following the reintroduction of gray wolves to the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA), decreased browsing pressure and a resultant increase in the height of young aspen, cottonwood, and willow growth were measured (Beschta et al. 00). When elk browsing is reduced or precluded, aspen stands successfully regenerate (Kaufman et al. 00). Several studies have shown that wolves can cause trophic cascades (McLaren and Peterson ), and that their restoration is likely to benefit biodiversity (Hebblewhite et al. 00), especially in areas where ungulate prey are overabundant. Kaufman et al. (00) suggest, however, that the risk of wolf predation alone is unlikely to alter the degree to which aspen are limited by elk herbivory and that recorded cascades are the result of wolf-induced reductions in prey density, not changes in prey behavior (Kaufman et al. 00). Mech (0) challenges the cascading effects attributed to wolves in earlier studies of wolf restoration and questions whether the findings of those studies conducted in national parks are relevant to areas where overriding anthropogenic influences on prey, vegetation and other parts of the food web are present (Mech 0). Beschta and Ripple (00) examined the possible occurrence of a tri-trophic cascade involving Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountain elk, and aspen within the BRWRA. The study area was located in mixed-conifer forests along the southern portion of the Springerville District, Apache National Forest. Although Mexican wolves have been present in the BRWRA since their reintroduction in, Beschta and Ripple (00) were unable to document a trophic cascade (i.e., improved aspen recruitment). This result may indicate that Mexican wolves have not attained an ecologically effective density and Beschta and Ripple (00) conclude that: unless wolf densities increase, it is possible that the potential ecological benefits of these apex predators in the mixedconifer forests of east-central Arizona will not be achieved. Within all three proposed management zones implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action would provide for active management of dispersing and/or recolonizing gray wolves by the USFWS and partner agencies under the direction and supervision of the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. Under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan we would undertake management actions that would enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range and promote the natural dispersal, propagation and reproduction of wolves in the wild while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns. Although under Alternative Two we would use lethal control when necessary, we expect self-sustaining gray wolf populations in all three proposed management zones to have a greater chance of establishment under either Alternative One or Two compared to the No Action Alternative. The structure of vegetation communities and the plant species composition in the ecoregions of each proposed management zone have been modified in varying degrees by multiple factors including; changed fire regime, introduction of non-native invasive plant species, introduction of livestock, intentional conversion, removal of apex predators, disturbance, and excessive foraging from livestock and wildlife (Watkins et al. 00). The natural dispersal of the wolf, recolonization of portions of its historic range, and resumption of its role as an apex predator, would be but one factor in a complex system of effects on vegetation structure and composition. However, we CHAPTER P AGE

86 expect that at some future point in time wolves, in some areas, may achieve the ecologically effective density needed to initiate a tri-trophic cascade. Within each ecoregion disturbance and modification of vegetation communities has occurred from many factors unrelated to predator-prey dynamics. Mech (0) suggests that even if ungulate and other prey population, density and behavior were affected by recolonizing wolves they would be indistinguishable from other influences, including anthropogenic and climate related changes to the area. The rate and extent that wolves might disperse into the three proposed management zones is unknown, and the time that it might take for viable self-sustaining populations to be re-established is speculative.over the broader landscape of each proposed management zone we do not expect significant reductions in ungulate population and density from the re-establishment of wolf packs in areas of suitable habitat with adequate wild ungulate prey base. While it is possible that at some future point in time wolves, in some areas, may achieve the ecologically effective density needed to initiate a tritrophic cascade we assess the possibility of trophic cascades that might affect vegetation over the broader landscape of each proposed management zone as unlikely. Therefore, we predict no significant beneficial impacts to vegetation from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for the three proposed management zones. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. Without a Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit for western Texas, and without supplemental funding for state, tribal and Federal agency partners, those management activities detailed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan designed to enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns would not be carried out in areas outside of the MWEPA. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, we expect fewer dispersing wolves will survive and that re-colonizing wolves will a have a lower chance of successfully establishing self-sustaining populations in areas of suitable habitat within all three proposed management zones. As a result, the potential benefits to vegetation from the initiation of a tri-trophic cascade in some areas of suitable habitat by re-colonizing wolves would either not be realized, or would be realized on a much longer time horizon. A slower rate of increase, or even non-achievement, of wolf recolonization in areas of suitable habitat would not be expected to significantly affect the population of elk, deer, and other ungulates, or their browsing pressure on vegetation, over the broader landscape of the three proposed Management Zones. Therefore, we do not expect significant direct or indirect impacts on the vegetation of the three proposed Management Zones from the No Action Alternative. Wild Ungulate Prey Species The effect of wolf predation on prey populations has been a subject of public debate and scientific investigation for many years (Mech and Peterson 00). Wolf-prey systems are inherently complex and simple assertions or conclusions about wolf-prey relationships and interactions ignore the complexity and unique features of real-world ecosystems in which a wide range of wolf-prey systems function. Important determinants of wolf-prey relationships include: Different combinations of prey species (multiple or single) and other wild predator species (mountain lion, coyotes, bobcats, and bears) and the degree that each are influential in a system; Human effects (including as a hunter/predator) on both predators and prey; Differences in the inherent productivity of habitats and prey populations; The relative densities of wolves and prey; CHAPTER P AGE

87 The effects of regional environmental influences, such as winter severity, snow conditions, and diseases on both wolves and prey. All of these factors may affect the rate of increase for prey, the number of wolves present, and the kill rate of prey by wolves (Mech and Peterson 00). In the absence of predation, prey populations increase to the carrying capacity of their environment. At carrying capacity prey population density is high, and the population growth rate is limited by resource scarcity (i.e. lack of forage) resulting in poor nutrition. Harvesting of prey, whether by humans, wolves, or other predators reduces populations to below carrying capacity, allowing for a positive annual increment to the population. Generally, a linear correlation between wolf density and prey abundance can be found (Keith, Fuller ) but this correlation cannot be assumed to occur for every wolf-prey relationship, particularly in complex, multi-prey systems (Mech and Peterson 00). Predation rates are driven by the number of wolves present and their per capita kill rate. At low prey densities, the total kill is usually small because wolves are scarce. Theoretically, as prey density increases, the number killed by wolves increases disproportionately faster. In this manner wolf predation may be said to limit, not regulate prey populations (Mech and Peterson 00). For some prey populations at carrying capacity predation may be compensatory (the mortality would occur due to some other cause if not predation) rather than additive (the mortality would be additive to base-line mortality) and would not have an effect on a population level. However, if populations are small and below carrying capacity predation can become additive mortality and may influence population levels. The FEIS for the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf in the Southwest predicted that should wolves naturally recolonize areas in southeastern Arizona, they could exert a major impact on the relatively sparse deer populations in the area and could also impact the small populations of Chihuahuan pronghorns (USFWS ). However, Mech () states that while in some circumstances wolves can actually exterminate local whitetail populations, under most conditions they do not seem to be able to limit a deer population seriously. Mech concludes; therefore, the most accurate generalization one can make about wolf/deer interaction is that it is highly variable and one must know the precise nature of wolf predation and deer defenses to be able to understand each varying situation (Mech ). While considerable debate regarding wolf-prey dynamics continues, general consensus can be found (Mech and Peterson 00) that: Wolf predation can be an influential limiting factor for prey populations. When wolves co-exist with grizzly bears, black bears, or both, the combined effects of these predators are usually sufficient to reduce primary prey populations to levels below that which could be supported by their forage base. Wolves have their greatest demographic effects on prey via predation on young of the year. The FEIS did not predict major effects to wild prey species from natural reestablished wolf populations in either southwestern New Mexico or the Big Bend area of western Texas and concluded that, while uncertainty exists, (reintroduced) wolves likely will not severely impact prey populations in the BRWRA (USFWS ). The Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BAE) completed by the USDA Forest Service in 00 for the use of release and translocation sites in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest determined that while wolves prey on elk, deer, and occasionally on small mammals such as squirrels. due to the limited scope of the project, there would be insignificant and discountable impacts to these species. Therefore, the Forest Service concluded there would be no change in Forestwide population trends or habitat trends due to this project (USDA Forest Service 00). Both the AGFD and the NMDGF have determined that current levels of predation by wolves on elk within the BRWRA have not measurably decreased the overall elk population of the BRWRA. A report published in October of 00 included the following: AGFD has not detected any significant reduction in deer or elk population levels since wolves have been reintroduced. Recent elk surveys indicate that current calf CHAPTER P AGE

88 recruitment levels are good, i.e., calves for every 00 cows surveyed in Game Management Units (GMU) and (AMOC and IFT 00). GMU and constitute all of the BRWRA in Arizona. NMDGF reports that the general trend in the elk population in the BRWRA since 00 is a stable to slightly growing herd with a population ranging from, to, elk between 00 and 00 (NMDGF 00; NMDGF 00). Within all three proposed management zones implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action would provide for active management of dispersing and/or recolonizing gray wolves by the USFWS and partner agencies under the direction and supervision of the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. Under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan we would undertake management actions that would enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range and promote the natural dispersal, propagation and reproduction of wolves in the wild while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns. Although under Alternative Two we would use lethal control when necessary, we expect self-sustaining gray wolf populations in all three proposed management zones to have a greater chance of establishment under either Alternative One or Two compared to the No Action Alternative. Wolves were historically present in areas of suitable habitat in all three proposed Management Zones. Their removal, as well as the removal of another apex predator, the grizzly bear, and the advent of humans as top predators, fundamentally altered predator-prey dynamics, and essentially left four main predators (black bears, humans, coyotes, and mountain lions), within these ecosystems. Variations within ecosystems and the relative importance of human influences result in dynamic wolfprey relationships. Therefore, accurate predictions of impacts to the existing populations of wild ungulate prey species from the natural re-establishment of the wolf in the Southwest are difficult to make. The rate and extent that wolves might disperse into the three proposed management zones is unknown, and the time that it might take for self-sustaining populations to be re-established is speculative. However, we expect that as wolf population numbers and density increase the number of elk, deer, and other wild ungulate species taken annually by wolves will increase as well. The adequacy of prey biomass is a limiting factor in the distribution of wolves and although wolves are highly-adaptable prey generalists we do not expect wolves to successfully recolonize in areas where sufficient native ungulate prey do not exist. Elk have comprised the bulk of the biomass in the diet of wolves reintroduced to the BRWRA (Merkle et al. 00). Although elk populations showed a period of slight decline from to 00 due to factors not related to wolf predation, the overall trend in the BRWRA during the full period of wolf reintroduction is a stable to increasing elk population with good calf recruitment. Based on our experience in the BRWRA and, because over the broader landscapes of each proposed management zone we expect natural dispersal to lead to the re-establishment of wolf packs primarily in areas of suitable habitat and adequate wild ungulate prey base, we predict less than significant direct and indirect impacts on wild ungulate prey species from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for the three proposed management zones. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. Without a Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit for western Texas, and without supplemental funding for state, tribal and Federal agency partners, those management activities detailed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan designed to enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns would not be carried out in areas outside of the MWEPA. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, we expect CHAPTER P AGE

89 fewer dispersing wolves will survive and that re-colonizing wolves will a have a lower chance of successfully establishing self-sustaining populations in areas of suitable habitat within all three proposed management zones. A slower rate of increase, or even non-achievement, of self-sustaining wolf populations in areas of suitable habitat would not be expected to significantly affect the population of elk, deer and other wild ungulate prey species over the broader landscape of the three proposed management zones. Therefore, we do not expect significant direct or indirect impacts from the No Action Alternative on wild ungulate prey species of the three proposed Management Zones. Other Wildlife Species Including Special Status and Threatened and Endangered Species Case studies exploring the community impacts of wolves in Banff National Park (BNP) and Yellowstone National Park (YNP) found evidence for the pervasive effects of wolves via direct and indirect pathways (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). Direct effects include competition with other large carnivores. This competition can be exploitative, where two species consume the same resources, or interference, where two species on the same trophic level kill, but do not consume each other (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). Direct effects also include the relationship between predator and prey. Indirect effects include the interactions between wolves and scavengers that utilize wolf kills (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). In the YNP case study described by Hebblewhite and Smith (00), exploitative competition did not seem to be occurring between wolves and coyotes. However, interference competition from the reintroduction of wolves to the ecosystem resulted in a 0% reduction of the coyote population caused by wolf predation (Crabtree and Sheldon ). This reduction was primarily from wolves killing coyotes scavenging at wolf kill carcasses (Crabtree and Sheldon ; Ballard et al. 00). Bednarz () suggests that prior to wolf extirpation, Mexican wolves excluded coyotes from many areas. Following Mexican wolf extermination, coyotes most likely expanded their range into the mid-elevation forested mountain terrain preferred by wolves (Bednarz ). A study of Mexican wolf and coyote diets in the BRWRA shows that wolves and coyotes have similar diets consisting mainly of elk (Carrera et al. 00). It is unknown whether coyotes are scavenging elk carcasses from wolf kills or preying on elk directly, although both behaviors are documented in other areas. Carrera et al. (00) hypothesize that this shared source of prey may cause competition between wolves and coyotes that will result in wolves killing coyotes and Bednarz () predicts a reduction in the coyote population in areas of Mexican wolf reintroduction. In contrast to wolf-coyote interaction, evidence in the YNP case studies (Ruth 00, Murphy as cited in Hebblewhite and Smith 00) suggests both interference and exploitative competition between wolves and mountain lions. In YNP, wolves killed seven mountain lions, whereas mountain lions only killed two wolves (Hebblewhite and Smith 00 from Ruth 00). Although wolves can usurp mountain lion kills and future competition for prey cannot be ruled out, exploitative competition between wolves and mountain lions appears to be minimal because mountain lions and wolves use prey and habitat differently (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). In the southwest, Bednarz () hypothesizes that mountain lion ranges expanded after removal of the Mexican wolf and that as with the coyote, any reestablishment of the wolf probably will decrease the amount of area usable by lions. Although one Mexican wolf death from a mountain lion attack has been recorded (AMOC and IFT 00), Bednarz () expects that because of the solitary nature of mountain lions they would be at a severe disadvantage during any confrontation with large social predators such as Mexican wolves. Mountain lion or coyote mortality caused by Mexican wolves has not been documented in the BRWRA. However, neither of these predators have been intensively studied in the BRWRA either prior to, or after, reintroduction. While data on the historical use of wild prey by free-ranging Mexican wolves is limited, it has been reported that in Mexico the wolf preyed primarily on Coues white tail deer with some use of javelina, wild turkey, hares, rabbits, rodents, and fruits (Leopold, McBride 0, Brown ). Elk have comprised the bulk (0.%) of the biomass in the diet of the Mexican wolves reintroduced to the CHAPTER P AGE

90 BRWRA with non-ungulate wild prey species (squirrels, other rodents and lagomorphs) making up less than % (Merkle et al. 00). Wolves can be expected to opportunistically utilize non-ungulate wild prey species such as small rodents, lagomorphs, and other mammals but, based on the research of Merkle et al. 00, we expect these species to comprise, at most, only a supplemental portion of the wolf diet in areas where wild ungulate prey is available. In YNP twelve different scavengers (similar to those found in BNP) were recorded using wolf kills. Five were present at almost every kill: coyotes, ravens, magpies (Pica hudsonia), and golden (Aquila chrysaetos) and bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) eagles (Wilmers et al. 00). Stahler et al. (00) recorded an average ravens per kill with as many as present on some carcasses. Besides avian scavengers, many mammals also scavenge wolf kills. Although lone wolves or young wolves can be at a disadvantage to large bears, black bears are generally subordinate to wolves at carcasses (Ballard et al. 00). Interactions between Mexican wolves and black bears have not been documented in the BRWRA (USFWS 00). There are many invertebrate scavengers. For example,, beetles of different species were found in just two field seasons using wolf-killed carrion (Sikes as cited by Hebblewhite and Smith 00). Other decomposers, such as insects, mites, invertebrates, bacteria, and fungi are likely to number in the thousands on a single carcass. Indirect effects of wolf predation on flora and soil nutrients occur. Carrion from wolf-kills can cause longer-term effects such as localized nutrient surges (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). Wolves generate a consistent volume of carrion year round and Wilmers et al. (00) showed wolf-killed carrion is spatially and temporally more available to scavengers post wolf recovery (Hebblewhite and Smith 00). This differs from pre-wolf conditions where carrion abundance was significantly higher in late winter/early spring (due to wintertime die off of weak and stressed animals) and in the fall due to human hunting (Wilmers et al. 00). Because of milder winters, fewer winter- killed ungulates are observed in the Arizona/New Mexico Mountains, the sky island mountain ranges of southern Arizona/New Mexico and western Texas, than in the northern Rocky Mountains. This could elevate the importance of the utilization of wolf killed carcasses by scavengers because it is unlikely that late winter/early spring pulses occur in the proposed Management Zones and. Within all three proposed management zones implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action would provide for active management of dispersing and/or recolonizing gray wolves by the USFWS and partner agencies under the direction and supervision of the Service s Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator. Under the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan we would undertake management actions that would enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range and promote the natural dispersal, propagation and reproduction of wolves in the wild while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns. Although under Alternative Two we would use lethal control when necessary, we expect self-sustaining gray wolf populations in all three proposed management zones to have a greater chance of establishment under either Alternative One or Two compared to the No Action Alternative. The rate and extent that wolves might disperse into the three proposed management zones is unknown, and the time that it might take for self-sustaining populations to be re-established is speculative. However, we predict that at some future point in time wolves, in some areas, may achieve the ecologically effective density needed to produce observable community impacts on other wildlife species (predators, non-ungulate wild prey species, and scavengers). Mexican wolves and coyotes in BRWRA consume the same types of prey and foods (Carrera et al. 00) and Carrera et al. (00) hypothesize that competition for food will occur between Mexican wolves and coyotes in the BRWRA and that Mexican wolves will have a negative impact on coyotes through direct killing of coyotes and possibly competition for ungulates. Ravens and wintering populations of eagles in the southwest have been consistently observed on carcasses and based on our field observations of coyotes, black bears, ravens, turkey vultures, bald and golden eagles scavenging on Mexican wolf-killed ungulates we expect some increased level of both direct and indirect effects on these species to occur CHAPTER 0 P AGE

91 from a larger population of wolves. There is limited research available that has investigated inter-species interactions in the BRWRA, either pre or post wolf reintroduction. Therefore, the magnitude of both the potential direct effects, such as a reduction of coyote numbers through interference competition, and the potential indirect effects, such as the production of carrion used by multiple vertebrate and invertebrate scavenger species are unknown. Although the magnitude of the potential effects is unknown, these interactions are generally viewed as beneficial ecosystem effects. Over the broader landscape of each proposed management zone we expect that natural dispersal will lead to the re-establishment of wolf packs primarily in areas of suitable habitat and adequate wild ungulate prey base. Therefore, we predict no significant direct or indirect adverse impacts to other predators or non-ungulate wild prey, including special status species. We predict less than significant indirect beneficial impacts to scavengers, including special status species from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for the three proposed management zones. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. Without a Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit for western Texas, and without supplemental funding for state, tribal and Federal agency partners, those management activities detailed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan designed to enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns would not be carried out in areas outside of the MWEPA. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, we expect fewer dispersing wolves will survive and that re-colonizing wolves will a have a lower chance of successfully establishing self-sustaining populations in areas of suitable habitat within all three proposed management zones. As a result, the potential indirect benefits to other wildlife species (scavengers) from the natural reestablishment of wolf packs would either not be realized, or would be realized on a much longer time horizon. However, a slower rate of increase, or even non-achievement, of wolf recolonization in areas of suitable habitat would not be expected to significantly affect the observable community impacts on other wildlife species (predators, scavengers and non-ungulate wild prey species) over the broader landscape of the three proposed Management Zones. Therefore, we do not expect significant direct or indirect impacts from the No Action Alternative on the other wildlife species, including special status species, of the three proposed Management Zones. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Our Conference/Biological Opinion for Renewal of a Research/Recovery Permit for the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program TE-0- issued by the Service November 0, 0 addresses the impacts to the federally listed gray wolf, jaguar (Panthera onca), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) and California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) from the issuance of a section 0(a) () (A) research and recovery permit and Federal funding to implement Mexican gray wolf recovery activities within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (i.e., designated 0(j) area) in Arizona and New Mexico, and the portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (USFWS 0). The BO concluded that there are no direct effects to jaguars, ocelots or California Condors from issuance of a 0(a)()(A) permit authorizing take of Mexican gray wolves resulting from discretionary management activities, nor providing funding for these activities. Indirect effects to these species may include incidental injury or death during the implementation of the management plan for gray wolves. The primary activity that could harm or harass jaguars, ocelots or condors is the use of leg-hold trapping. However, given the limited overlap of jaguar and wolf distribution in New Mexico and Arizona, it is unlikely that incidental capture of jaguars will occur. Similarly, ocelots are in extremely low numbers CHAPTER P AGE

92 along the U.S.-Mexico border and because their habitat of choice is dense underbrush where wolf trapping would be unlikely to occur, the chance of one being caught in a trap intended for a wolf is extremely low. Although condors can travel long distance, the population of condors exists within the Grand Canyon and within the Vermillion Cliffs in southern Utah. Only if wolf trapping occurred near these areas would the potential be high for a condor to be incidentally captured in a leg-hold trap (USFWS 0). For these reasons we predict no significant direct or indirect impacts to these federally listed species from implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action. The effects of the management actions taken under the guidance of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan on the survival and recovery of Mexican wolf/gray wolf in the wild will include possible short-term adverse impacts on distribution, disruption of breeding behavior, redirection of predation away from domestic animals and onto more natural prey items, and possibly increased energy use through long range movements and increased exposure to the elements (USFWS 0). Capture and translocation or incorporation of a wolf into the captive breeding population has inherent risks such as injury or death, but the documented occurrences of this is extremely low. Under Alternative Two the lethal removal of an individual will adversely affect that individual and its short-term contribution to the species recovery program and population through loss of future offspring, contribution to its pack, and genetic contribution. However, we expect that under either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action the adverse effects of these management actions will be outweighed by the beneficial effects on the species/subspecies survival and recovery by reducing human and livestock conflicts within the action area. We therefore predict that implementation of either Alternative One or Two for the Proposed Action will provide less than significant direct and indirect beneficial impacts to the Federally listed gray wolf species. Under the No Action Alternative, we would not implement the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan for the three proposed management zones. Although the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program s ESA Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit would be in effect for those portions of Arizona and New Mexico outside of the MWEPA the authority of the permit would not be extended to western Texas and supplemental funding would only be provided to state, tribal and Federal agency partners to assist in the implementation of gray wolf management activities within the MWEPA. Without a Section 0 (a)()(a) research and recovery permit for western Texas, and without supplemental funding for state, tribal and Federal agency partners, those management activities detailed in the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan designed to enhance the recovery of wolves in suitable portions of their historic range while reducing depredations and other conflicts between wolves and human concerns would not be carried out in areas outside of the MWEPA. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, we expect fewer dispersing wolves will survive and that re-colonizing wolves will a have a lower chance of successfully establishing self-sustaining populations in areas of suitable habitat within all three proposed management zones. As a result, the potential benefits to the Federally listed gray wolf species and the Mexican gray wolf sub-species from the implementation of the Southwestern Gray Wolf Management Plan would either not be realized, or would be realized on a much longer time horizon. A slower rate of increase, or even non-achievement, of wolf recolonization in areas of suitable habitat would not be expected to significantly affect the recovery of the gray wolf in the lower states. Therefore, we do not expect significant direct or indirect impacts from the No Action Alternative on the Federally listed gray wolf species.. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY Economic Activity refers to the effect that the proposed action would have on the economic conditions in the affected counties within the Management Zones that contain suitable wolf habitat. CHAPTER P AGE

93 0 0.. Potential Environmental Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Ranching Activities/Livestock Production As detailed in the economic component of the Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project -year Review (-Year Review) (AMOC and IFT 00), wolf packs which establish territories that are proximate to ranching operations and grazing allotments may have a number of consequences to livestock producers. These possible consequences include: Physical Effects: Depredation of ranch animals: Includes cattle, sheep, horse, and dog deaths and injuries resulting from wolf attacks; and Non-lethal physiological impacts on ranch animals: Includes weight loss, stress, and lower birth rates. Effects on Livestock Management: Change in forage use: Ranchers may have to move cattle more often, or may decide to move them to alternative grazing sites to avoid depredation; Need for additional labor: Ranchers must invest time to report depredation losses, and may increase herd supervision; Increased expenditures on supplies: Includes purchasing replacement cattle and additional herding dogs, as well as increased wear on vehicles; Positive impacts: Includes increased predation on coyotes and/or improved forage conditions due to less competition with elk. Property Value Impacts: Ranchers have expressed concern that disproportionately affected ranches may go out of business due to wolf depredation impacts. Ranchers have expressed concern that the market value of their ranches may be reduced due to wolf impacts. While the density of cattle is less than one per square kilometer in large parts of proposed Management Zone, and less than three per square kilometer over much of the three proposed management zones (Figure -), ranching activities and livestock production remain, in varying degree, important economic components of the counties within the zones. CHAPTER P AGE

94 Figure -. Cattle density in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico (from Carroll et al. 00). The research of Merkle et al. (00) suggests that rates of livestock depredation vary highly among packs in the BRWRA. Merkle et al. (00) determined the diet of wolves during the summers of 00 and 00, and contrasted this diet in areas that were grazed by livestock seasonally to areas grazed annually. Elk (Cervus elaphus) comprised 0.% of diet of the Mexican gray wolf. Other prey included domestic cattle (.%), deer (Odocoileus; <%), squirrels (<%), other rodents (%), and lagomorphs (< %) (Merkle et al. 00: Table -) Prey Bluestem Saddle Luna San Mateo Rim Saddle Luna CHAPTER P AGE